Recent Legislation
From the ISMA, there are two recent bills at the Statehouse concerning insurance issues. The first one unfortunately was allowed to die because of the intense opposition.
It would have been a very good bill for patient’s choice of physicians and also for payment to physicians.
Insurance
BILL: HB 1055 - Assignment of Benefits
AUTHOR: Rep. Charlie Brown, D-Gary
SPONSOR: Sen. Beverly Gard, R-Greenfield
ISMA POSITION: Support
THIS WEEK: No action.
The bill would have required insurers to honor a patient's request for assignment of benefits to an out-of-network provider. Due to intense opposition to the bill from the insurance industry, the business community and the AFL-CIO, as well as concerns expressed by the Daniels administration, Senate Republicans elected to let the bill die.
The ISMA Government Relations staff would like to thank all ISMA members who called or e-mailed state legislators on HB 1055. We will continue to educate the General Assembly on the issue this summer and debunk false claims by opponents that assignment to out-of-network providers would prompt the disintegration of provider networks and drastically increase health care costs.
The second bill is scheduled to be evaluated soon. It also would help physicians with the sneaky contract language that insurers place inside contracts and is detrimental.
BILL: SB 159 – Silent PPOs
AUTHOR: Sen. Beverly Gard, R-Greenfield
SPONSOR: Rep. Phil Hoy D-Evansville
ISMA POSITION: Support
THIS WEEK: The full Senate concurred on the bill.
SB 159 would require conspicuous language in a physician contract if a network wishes to sell a physician's discounted reimbursement rate to third parties. The network also would be required to maintain a Web site or toll-free phone number listing all networks to whom the contracting network has sold the discount.
In addition, the bill would require third parties who purchase the discount to include contact information on explanation of benefits statements for the network who sold the discount.
Finally, the bill would prohibit aggregators from selling or leasing physician reimbursement rates. SB 159 now awaits the governor's signature.
It would have been a very good bill for patient’s choice of physicians and also for payment to physicians.
Insurance
BILL: HB 1055 - Assignment of Benefits
AUTHOR: Rep. Charlie Brown, D-Gary
SPONSOR: Sen. Beverly Gard, R-Greenfield
ISMA POSITION: Support
THIS WEEK: No action.
The bill would have required insurers to honor a patient's request for assignment of benefits to an out-of-network provider. Due to intense opposition to the bill from the insurance industry, the business community and the AFL-CIO, as well as concerns expressed by the Daniels administration, Senate Republicans elected to let the bill die.
The ISMA Government Relations staff would like to thank all ISMA members who called or e-mailed state legislators on HB 1055. We will continue to educate the General Assembly on the issue this summer and debunk false claims by opponents that assignment to out-of-network providers would prompt the disintegration of provider networks and drastically increase health care costs.
The second bill is scheduled to be evaluated soon. It also would help physicians with the sneaky contract language that insurers place inside contracts and is detrimental.
BILL: SB 159 – Silent PPOs
AUTHOR: Sen. Beverly Gard, R-Greenfield
SPONSOR: Rep. Phil Hoy D-Evansville
ISMA POSITION: Support
THIS WEEK: The full Senate concurred on the bill.
SB 159 would require conspicuous language in a physician contract if a network wishes to sell a physician's discounted reimbursement rate to third parties. The network also would be required to maintain a Web site or toll-free phone number listing all networks to whom the contracting network has sold the discount.
In addition, the bill would require third parties who purchase the discount to include contact information on explanation of benefits statements for the network who sold the discount.
Finally, the bill would prohibit aggregators from selling or leasing physician reimbursement rates. SB 159 now awaits the governor's signature.
Labels: insurance, legislation
posted by Anonymous at 6:08 AM
3 Comments:
Since the bill now awaits the governor's signature, I assume this means it has cleared both the House and the Senate.
CAn you please discuss the significance of this bill? I don't understand how it is going to negatively impact MD's.
The first bill was allowed to die and that was not good for patients or physicians. If it were to have passed, patients could have gone to a physician out of network and the insurance company would have been required to pay that physician the assigned benefits of the patients contract to the out-of-network physician.
Insurers were opposed because they would lose their ability to tell physicians to "take it or leave it" in the contract negotiation. Patients therefore are stuck with only the network physicians their company chooses in the plans they sign up for.
Sorry for the misunderstanding...my question was referencing SB159. I th ink your answer refer to HB1055
Post a Comment
<< Home