A separate House provision would require hospitals in systems to negotiate prices with insurers individually, rather than as a more potent group, as is now commonly done. Hospitals say this would hurt their ability to coordinate patient care and add personnel costs. During debate, the House expanded exemptions, enough that the state’s largest insurer predicts that most provider networks would be able to continue negotiating as a group.

“This would not be a very ­effective tool,’’ said Patrick ­Gilligan, senior vice president for network innovation and management at Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts.

Nancy Turnbull, an associate dean in health policy at the Harvard School of Public Health, called provider market power and payment inequities among caregivers “the third rail of payment reform.”

“It’s a critical issue that is going to be largely unaddressed by the bill,’’ Turnbull said.

House and Senate leaders disagree, saying both bills ­include other provisions that could indirectly reduce price ­inequities among providers. “There are a number of tools in there,’’ said Representative ­Steven Walsh, a Lynn Democrat overseeing the House effort. “But there is no one silver bullet.’’

In a written statement to the Globe, Murray said: “A competitive health care industry is ­essential to controlling long-term cost growth. That’s why legislators are currently considering a number of new transparency and accountability measures that would help monitor the health care marketplace and shed new light on market dynamics.”

More expensive hospitals ­argue that they are voluntarily slowing the growth of their fees.