CMS confirmed you'd met the requirements in August 2025. A new warning notice followed nine months later.
Measured from The Brooklyn Hospital Center's own published price transparency file under 45 CFR Part 180.50 and 180.60, and CMS's own enforcement record, retrieved Sep 18, 2026.
| Facility | Host domain | cms-hpt.txt | Filename | Schema | Last updated | HTTP last-mod | Type 2 NPI | Attester | Payers | Rows | Rows w/ rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Brooklyn Hospital Center — Downtown Campus | tbh.org (file served via apim.services.craneware.com) | YES | charges/mrf | 3.0.0 | 7/27/2026 | YES | John Walsh | 28 | 18,417 | 7,539 |
SHARE OF EACH FILE CARRYING A PAYER-SPECIFIC RATE
A new warning notice arrived nine months after CMS confirmed you'd met the requirements
CMS closed a prior case (2055, opened Dec 2023) via a Closure Notice in September 2024, then confirmed “Met Requirements” on a separate review in August 2025. A new case (7844) opened with a Warning Notice in May 2026, nine months after that confirmation. Worth knowing whether anything specific changed on the file between those two dates, since CMS's own record doesn't say.
41% of rows carry a dollar figure, 23% carry this year's percentile fields
The file is built wide, one set of columns per payer and plan, 33 combinations in total across 18,417 service lines. Of those lines, 7,539 carry an actual negotiated dollar amount for at least one payer, and 4,297 carry the median/10th/90th percentile figures CMS has required since April.
The file's named attester isn't the CMS contact of record
The attestation field names John Walsh; the contact-email field in cms-hpt.txt is Nelson Ferreras. Not necessarily a problem on its own, just worth knowing which of the two actually owns this filing going forward.
The filing itself is more granular than most hospitals attempt
Thirty-three separate payer/plan combinations, each with its own dollar, percentage, algorithm, methodology and percentile columns, is real structural effort. The gap here is completeness within that structure, not the structure itself.
What changed on the file between the August 2025 “Met Requirements” confirmation and the May 2026 warning notice?
If nothing on the file changed, the gap may be in what CMS is now checking (the CY2026 percentile requirement, which took effect after the 2025 confirmation) rather than anything that regressed.
Is John Walsh or Nelson Ferreras the right person to own this filing going forward?
Whoever CMS's next correspondence reaches should be the person actually positioned to act on it.
FLAGGED, NOT ASSERTED — COULD NOT BE VERIFIED FROM OUTSIDE THE ORGANIZATION