Honest Comparison
ProcedureRadar vs FAIR Health
The short answer
FAIR Health benchmarks billed charges and allowed amounts from 20-plus years of private insurance claims, a genuinely different data asset from hospital-published MRF prices. If you need UCR benchmarks or actuarial trend history, FAIR Health is the established tool. If you need what hospitals post under federal mandate, self-serve from $799/mo.
The Honest Verdict
Choose FAIR Health
Choose FAIR Health if your work depends on long claims history: actuarial product pricing using billed-charge trends back to 2002, UCR determination for out-of-network claims adjudication, longitudinal patient-population research, or any context where FAIR Health benchmarks are the legally or regulatorily accepted reference, including state statutes and CMS-regulated dispute resolution processes.
Choose ProcedureRadar
Choose ProcedureRadar if you need hospital-published transparency prices, the specific contracted rates and cash prices hospitals are required to disclose under 45 CFR Part 180, with per-record source attribution, verified severity distributions with BCa confidence intervals, and self-serve API access from $799/mo without a procurement cycle or sales engagement.
Side by Side
| Dimension | ProcedureRadar | FAIR Health |
|---|---|---|
| Entry price / how you buy | $799/mo, self-serve monthly subscription; instant API key; no sales call required✓ Best | No public pricing. All licensing requires direct contact with a sales team ([email protected] or 855-301-3247). The Fee Estimator for small practices and the FH Benchmarks API are available for license, but no self-serve sign-up path exists anywhere on their site.Source as of 2026-07-04 |
| Data type and lane (claims-benchmark vs. hospital-MRF) | Hospital-published transparency prices from federally mandated MRFs under 45 CFR Part 180: payer-negotiated rates, cash/self-pay prices, chargemaster. Per-record source attribution to the specific hospital MRF file and published date. 15,000,000+ records, 2,000+ priced hospitals, top 100 US metros. | Claims-based benchmark data. Billed charges and allowed amounts from private insurance claims submitted to payors and TPAs, aggregated in the FH NPIC database into percentile arrays by CPT code and geozip. Does not use hospital-published MRFs under CMS 45 CFR Part 180. Genuinely different data type; these two assets answer different questions.Source as of 2026-07-04 |
| Data history and depth | 15,000,000+ records from hospital MRFs published since the federal transparency mandate took effect. Hospital MRFs first required Jan 2021; no pre-2021 hospital pricing history by definition of the mandate. | FH NPIC commercial claims database covers 2002 to present: 20-plus years of history. As of a January 2022 milestone announcement the repository was approaching 36 billion private claim records, growing by over 2 billion records per year. Also holds Medicare Parts A, B, and D claims from 2013 to present as a CMS-certified Qualified Entity. 75-plus commercial payors and TPAs contribute data.✓ BestSource as of 2026-07-04 |
| Hospital MRF pricing (federally mandated transparency prices) | Core product. 2,000+ priced hospitals across the top 100 US metros. Per-record source attribution to hospital MRF file name and published date. Includes payer-negotiated rates, cash prices, and chargemaster prices as filed under 45 CFR Part 180.✓ Best | Not offered. FAIR Health's data is claims-derived from payors, not hospital-published MRFs. Their benchmarks reflect billed charges and allowed amounts from insurance claims, not the negotiated rates and cash prices hospitals are required to post under 45 CFR Part 180. No mention of MRF-sourced data found on fairhealth.org.Source as of 2026-07-04 |
| Severity distributions and confidence intervals | Verified-cohort severity distributions (p25, p75, p95, p99) with BCa (bias-corrected and accelerated) bootstrap confidence intervals; public methodology whitepaper at /methodology/whitepaper✓ Best | Percentiles from the 5th to the 95th from actual claims data using a documented statistical outlier methodology. No mention of confidence intervals, BCa bootstrap, or severity-stratified distributions in their public methodology page or product pages. Note: their claims sample size is vastly larger than MRF-era hospital records, so their percentiles carry inherent statistical weight even without published CIs.Source as of 2026-07-04 |
| Statistical transparency | Public methodology whitepaper at /methodology/whitepaper with BCa confidence interval math; downloadable verified data sample at /data for buyer self-verification before purchase | Methodology publicly documented at fairhealth.org/methodologies: states how percentiles are computed (actual array and derived methods) and describes outlier exclusion. Has been formally validated in legal and regulatory contexts. No public whitepaper with reproducibility math or downloadable raw sample found.Source as of 2026-07-04 |
| Developer experience | Self-serve REST API from $799/mo; public OpenAPI documentation at /developers/docs; instant key provisioning on signup; no sales engagement required✓ Best | API available for licensed customers; benchmarks delivered via API for 493 geozips, 15,000-plus procedure codes, 5th to 95th percentile, updated twice per year. No self-serve signup, no public developer portal, no public OpenAPI spec. Implementation requires direct engagement with the FAIR Health team to set up access.Source as of 2026-07-04 |
| Data provenance and source attribution | Per-record source attribution: each pricing record traces to the specific hospital, specific MRF file name, and file published date. Hospitals are legally required to attest to accuracy under 45 CFR Part 180.✓ Best | Claims submitted by 75-plus commercial payors and TPAs on a voluntary basis. Data is de-identified and aggregated before benchmarks are produced; benchmarks are arrayed by geozip and CPT code, not by individual hospital. Individual hospital or provider source is not attributed by design.Source as of 2026-07-04 |
Competitor cells link to the public source they are drawn from, with the date we last checked it.
What the Differences Mean
Two Different Data Lanes: Claims Benchmarks vs. Hospital MRF Prices
Most of the questions buyers have about this comparison come down to one framing issue, and getting it right makes everything else straightforward. FAIR Health and ProcedureRadar are not competing for the same job.
FAIR Health operates in the claims-benchmark lane. Their FH NPIC database aggregates billed charges and allowed amounts from private insurance claims submitted by 75-plus commercial payors, going back to 2002. What their percentiles tell you is what providers across a geographic area typically billed and what plans typically paid, derived from actual claims transactions. It is a market-level benchmark built from what happened, not what was contracted.
ProcedureRadar is in the hospital MRF lane. Our 15,000,000+ pricing records come from hospital machine-readable files that hospitals are federally required to publish under 45 CFR Part 180. These are specific contractual prices: what a named hospital has agreed to accept from a named payer, plus their cash and chargemaster rates, with per-record attribution to the hospital file and publication date. We cover 2,000+ priced hospitals across the top 100 US metros.
A claims-based billed-charge percentile and an MRF-sourced negotiated rate answer genuinely different underwriting questions. Knowing which one your model actually needs makes this a straightforward choice, not a competition.
FAIR Health operates in the claims-benchmark lane. Their FH NPIC database aggregates billed charges and allowed amounts from private insurance claims submitted by 75-plus commercial payors, going back to 2002. What their percentiles tell you is what providers across a geographic area typically billed and what plans typically paid, derived from actual claims transactions. It is a market-level benchmark built from what happened, not what was contracted.
ProcedureRadar is in the hospital MRF lane. Our 15,000,000+ pricing records come from hospital machine-readable files that hospitals are federally required to publish under 45 CFR Part 180. These are specific contractual prices: what a named hospital has agreed to accept from a named payer, plus their cash and chargemaster rates, with per-record attribution to the hospital file and publication date. We cover 2,000+ priced hospitals across the top 100 US metros.
A claims-based billed-charge percentile and an MRF-sourced negotiated rate answer genuinely different underwriting questions. Knowing which one your model actually needs makes this a straightforward choice, not a competition.
History and Credibility: A Genuine Concession
FAIR Health has been operating since 2009. Their database covers commercial claims back to 2002, more than 20 years of billed-charge and allowed-amount history. As of a January 2022 milestone, the repository was approaching 36 billion private claim records, growing by over 2 billion records per year. They also hold Medicare Parts A, B, and D claims from 2013 to present as a CMS-certified Qualified Entity.
That institutional depth has real consequences. FAIR Health benchmarks are referenced in state statutes, used in formal out-of-network dispute resolution processes, and have been accepted as official reference data by courts and regulators. For actuarial work that requires long trend data, or for out-of-network adjudication where the benchmark has statutory standing, that is not a marketing claim. It is a structural advantage earned over 15-plus years.
Hospital MRF data, by definition, does not have pre-2021 history. Federal hospitals were first required to publish machine-readable pricing files in January 2021; compliance built up through 2022 and 2023. If you need billed-charge trend data going back a decade, FAIR Health is the honest recommendation, and we would rather say that clearly than talk around it.
That institutional depth has real consequences. FAIR Health benchmarks are referenced in state statutes, used in formal out-of-network dispute resolution processes, and have been accepted as official reference data by courts and regulators. For actuarial work that requires long trend data, or for out-of-network adjudication where the benchmark has statutory standing, that is not a marketing claim. It is a structural advantage earned over 15-plus years.
Hospital MRF data, by definition, does not have pre-2021 history. Federal hospitals were first required to publish machine-readable pricing files in January 2021; compliance built up through 2022 and 2023. If you need billed-charge trend data going back a decade, FAIR Health is the honest recommendation, and we would rather say that clearly than talk around it.
Access and Pricing: Self-Serve vs. Contact Sales
FAIR Health does not publish pricing anywhere on their website. All licensing, whether for the FH Benchmarks data products, the Fee Estimator, or the API, requires contacting their sales team directly via email or phone. There is no self-serve signup path and no tier pricing listed publicly.
ProcedureRadar is a self-serve monthly subscription from $799/mo. Sign up, get an API key instantly, and start pulling from the same federally sourced hospital MRFs. No sales call, no contract negotiation, no multi-week implementation cycle. Top tier is $7,499/mo, and you can start at any tier and upgrade as your needs grow.
The access difference matters most for mid-market buyers. If your organization cannot or does not want to move a custom licensing engagement, the question of whether there is a product to buy at all is the first gate, before you even get to feature comparisons.
ProcedureRadar is a self-serve monthly subscription from $799/mo. Sign up, get an API key instantly, and start pulling from the same federally sourced hospital MRFs. No sales call, no contract negotiation, no multi-week implementation cycle. Top tier is $7,499/mo, and you can start at any tier and upgrade as your needs grow.
The access difference matters most for mid-market buyers. If your organization cannot or does not want to move a custom licensing engagement, the question of whether there is a product to buy at all is the first gate, before you even get to feature comparisons.
Statistical Depth: BCa Confidence Intervals vs. Percentiles from Claims
FAIR Health computes percentiles from the 5th to the 95th using their documented statistical outlier methodology, applied to actual claims data from 75-plus payors. Their methodology page describes how those percentiles are computed and how outliers are excluded. What their public methodology page does not describe is confidence intervals, BCa bootstrap, or severity-stratified distributions.
One honest note on the other side of this: FAIR Health's claims sample is vastly larger than the MRF-era hospital pricing records we work from. A percentile computed from tens of billions of claims carries inherent statistical weight even without explicitly published confidence intervals. Their methodology has been validated in legal and regulatory contexts over more than a decade. That is a real point in their favor.
What ProcedureRadar adds is explicit: verified-cohort severity distributions (p25, p75, p95, and p99) with bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrap confidence intervals, served directly through the API and documented in a public methodology whitepaper. We also offer a downloadable verified data sample at /data so you can audit the methodology before committing. For underwriting workflows where knowing the statistical stability of an estimate matters, that documentation surface is more explicit than what FAIR Health publishes.
One honest note on the other side of this: FAIR Health's claims sample is vastly larger than the MRF-era hospital pricing records we work from. A percentile computed from tens of billions of claims carries inherent statistical weight even without explicitly published confidence intervals. Their methodology has been validated in legal and regulatory contexts over more than a decade. That is a real point in their favor.
What ProcedureRadar adds is explicit: verified-cohort severity distributions (p25, p75, p95, and p99) with bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrap confidence intervals, served directly through the API and documented in a public methodology whitepaper. We also offer a downloadable verified data sample at /data so you can audit the methodology before committing. For underwriting workflows where knowing the statistical stability of an estimate matters, that documentation surface is more explicit than what FAIR Health publishes.
Hospital MRF Pricing: Our Core Product, Not in FAIR Health's Lane
FAIR Health's data does not include hospital-published MRF prices. Their benchmarks are derived from claims submitted by payors, not from the machine-readable files hospitals are required to publish under 45 CFR Part 180. There is no mention of MRF-sourced data anywhere on fairhealth.org, and this is by design: they are solving a different problem.
Hospital MRF pricing is ProcedureRadar's core product. 15,000,000+ records from 2,000+ priced hospitals across the top 100 US metros, each record attributed to the specific hospital, specific MRF file name, and file publication date. Hospitals attest to accuracy under the federal mandate; each record carries a provenance chain back to a public filing. If you need what hospitals are contractually obligated to disclose, payer-negotiated rates, cash prices, and chargemaster rates at the facility level, that is what we publish and FAIR Health does not.
Hospital MRF pricing is ProcedureRadar's core product. 15,000,000+ records from 2,000+ priced hospitals across the top 100 US metros, each record attributed to the specific hospital, specific MRF file name, and file publication date. Hospitals attest to accuracy under the federal mandate; each record carries a provenance chain back to a public filing. If you need what hospitals are contractually obligated to disclose, payer-negotiated rates, cash prices, and chargemaster rates at the facility level, that is what we publish and FAIR Health does not.
On Switching
Switching from FAIR Health to ProcedureRadar is most common when the question shifts from market-level billed-charge benchmarking to hospital-level contractual pricing. If your underwriting model needs to know what a specific hospital has agreed to accept from a specific payer, rather than what providers in a geozip billed on average, MRF-sourced data is the right source for that question. ProcedureRadar is self-serve: provision a key, pull from federally sourced hospital MRFs, and audit the methodology against the public whitepaper before you commit. Nothing is locked behind a custom licensing engagement. Start at $799/mo and upgrade at any time up to $7,499/mo.
Why You Can Trust These Numbers
Every ProcedureRadar figure on this page comes from federally mandated hospital Machine-Readable Files published under 45 CFR Part 180, the Hospital Price Transparency Rule. We track pricing across the top 100 US metros and have published prices from 2,000+ hospitals, built from 15,000,000+ pricing records with per-record source attribution.
- Read the full methodology white-paper for every modeling choice and limitation.
- Download a verified data sample and audit the fields before you commit.
- See how we source and validate data on our methodology page.
- Review our pricing tiers and what is included at each access level.
- Browse the developer portal for API documentation and integration guides.
Founder of ProcedureRadar, former NFL running back (Philadelphia Eagles, Minnesota Vikings), former offensive assistant coach (New York Giants), corporate finance and technology entrepreneur, Villanova University alumnus.
Reviewed by Kevin Monangai on .
When I compare ProcedureRadar to another pricing platform, I try to be straight about what each product actually does. The big enterprise data companies are genuinely good. They're built for buyers who can move a six-figure procurement, which rules out most mid-market MGAs, TPAs, and specialty payers. We built ProcedureRadar for those teams. Underwriting-grade data, at a price they can approve in a 30-minute call.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is the core difference between FAIR Health and ProcedureRadar?
- We are in different data lanes, and being honest about that matters. FAIR Health aggregates billed charges and allowed amounts from private insurance claims submitted by 75-plus payors, going back to 2002. Their benchmarks tell you what providers typically billed and what plans typically paid, based on real claims from real transactions. ProcedureRadar sources data from hospital-published machine-readable files that hospitals are federally required to post under 45 CFR Part 180. Our data tells you what a specific hospital has contractually agreed to accept from a specific payer, and what their cash and chargemaster rates are. If you need long claims history, UCR benchmarks, or policy research, FAIR Health is the right tool. If you need actual hospital-published negotiated rates with per-record source attribution, that is what we do.
- FAIR Health has been around since 2009 and is embedded in state laws. How do you compete with that credibility?
- We concede it honestly. FAIR Health has 15-plus years of claims history, is referenced in state statutes and out-of-network dispute resolution processes, and has been validated in courts and by CMS. That institutional credibility is real and earned. What we offer is a different and newer asset: the federally mandated hospital transparency prices that did not exist as a standardized machine-readable dataset before 2021. Those prices, combined with severity distributions and BCa confidence intervals, give mid-market underwriters something FAIR Health does not sell: a self-serve, source-attributed, reproducibly verifiable dataset of what hospitals have actually contracted to accept, starting at $799/mo. The credibility cases are different. We are not claiming to replace FAIR Health for the use cases where they are the established standard.
- FAIR Health covers all 50 states and 493 geographic areas. Does ProcedureRadar match that?
- Not fully, and we say so. We cover the top 100 US metros, representing roughly 85% of hospitals and 90-plus percent of the search volume for procedure pricing queries. Our geographic unit is metro, not geozip. Full national coverage, including rural markets with thin data, is on the roadmap. For a buyer who needs every geozip in all 50 states today, FAIR Health's 493-geozip coverage is broader. For a buyer who needs metro-level hospital pricing in major US markets with per-record source attribution, we cover the commercially relevant universe.
- FAIR Health has payer-negotiated allowed amounts in their data. Is that the same thing as what ProcedureRadar has?
- Not structurally. Their allowed amounts are claims-based: what plans paid on average in a geozip over time, arrayed into percentiles. That is a useful benchmark for UCR and actuarial modeling. What ProcedureRadar provides is structurally different: the specific contracted rates between a named hospital and a named payer, as published in the hospital's MRF under federal law. For underwriters who need contract-level rates by hospital and payer, MRF-sourced data is the only way to get them. Claims averages do not tell you what a specific plan negotiated with a specific facility.
- When should I use FAIR Health instead of ProcedureRadar?
- Use FAIR Health when you need long historical trends in billed charges or allowed amounts going back to 2002, UCR benchmarks for out-of-network claims adjudication embedded in state law, de-identified claims data for longitudinal patient studies or policy research, or a benchmark that has been formally accepted as an official data source by courts, regulators, or statutes. Use ProcedureRadar when you need hospital-published transparency prices with per-record attribution, self-serve API access from $799/mo without enterprise sales cycles, BCa confidence intervals and a downloadable data sample for your own statistical due diligence, or the specific contracted rates hospitals post under 45 CFR Part 180.
See the Data for Yourself
Walk through coverage, statistical depth, and API access on a quick call, or provision a key and start pulling data today.
Pricing data cited in this comparison is sourced from federally mandated hospital Machine-Readable Files. Competitor facts are drawn from publicly available materials including each company's own published documentation.
Pricing disclosure required by 45 CFR Part 180.
- FAIR Health public materials (July 4, 2026)
- ProcedureRadar Methodology (July 4, 2026)
Last updated: