"In his decision, Judge Nichols found that the hospitals were “attacking transparency measures generally” in a bid to limit patients’ insight into medical prices. “Hospitals may be affected by market changes and need to respond to a market where consumers are more empowered,” he wrote, stating that was not reason enough to “make the rule unlawful.” Thanks for reading The Times. Subscribe to The Times Judge Nichols, who was appointed to the D.C. District Court last year, also rejected the hospitals’ other arguments: that the new rules would create overwhelming administrative burdens and that increased transparency might actually drive up prices. “Traditional economic analysis suggested to the agency that informed customers would put pressure on providers to lower costs and increase the quality of care,” Judge Nichols wrote. Among health economists and other experts, the effects of price transparency policies remain unsettled. The Trump administration has argued that published prices will help empower individual patients as well as employers that buy health insurance for their workers, creating market pressure to discourage overcharging."