Measure altering IM17 law thought to be one of the more controversial measures this year.

I had to chuckle a little this morning at the County GOP meeting as legislators were getting a briefing of what is currently going on in Pierre are, and what they see coming up.

One legislator mentioned that he sees the alleged IM17 repeal bill (*confirming that there’s something out there*) as being one of the most controversial measures early on this session, and jokingly referred to it as “the lobbyist employment act,” given the ever increasing numbers of people working the issue in either chamber.

He said this week he had been approached by lobbyists on both sides of the issue, and indicated to me that while he was not a big supporter of legislation that eventually led to IM17, he’s not going to climb on board a proposal to rewrite a law that was supported by 63% of the electorate.

Stay tuned.

12 thoughts on “Measure altering IM17 law thought to be one of the more controversial measures this year.”

  1. The people spoke loud and clear in 2014: Give Blake Curd and his fellow conflicted physicians the power to cherry pick patients and drive up the cost of health insurance – Doctor Choice…err… I mean Patient Choice! Nothing says free market like a sweeping, self-serving government mandate that interferes with private contracts. I think Curd and his Media One friends left out a few details when they spent seven figures pounding their messaging into the heads of voters. That Doctor-Patient(wallet) relationship is clearly quite sacred. South Dakotans deserve better. Legislators of all stripes should step in and right this wrong.

    1. I guess we know which side is paying you, Mr. “Purge the Conflict.” Did you write your own talking points or are you reading from the Sanford script?

    2. Awfully sour grapes. It must really burn the Sanford folks that they couldn’t buy the electorate too. They’ll try to buy a repeal of IM17. Legislators have to be smarter than to buy into this right??? I mean you vote for the Sanford bill and you’re just telling your constituents that they are too dumb to vote!

  2. I find it really interesting that Sanford screams that the physicians are self dealing when what is it that Sanford wants more than anything?? — to write insurance polices that send those insured to their doctors and their facilities.

    I find the whole thing quite funny. But I have to tell you, if I was insured through my work by a Sanford policy I wouldn’t want to be forced to only go to their doctors and their clinics. Seems like they want to own the state and a health care monopoly.

    1. You are exactly right, IM 17 will work to keep costs down. Monopolies by the big hospitals that also run the insurance companies will only continue to drive costs up, and be less patient-friendly.

    2. The fact is your employer is paying the bulk of your health insurance costs, if a narrow network is less expensive the employer makes the call, not you. Unless you want to cough up the extra dough.

  3. Gosh, if only there were a way for people to have a choice in health insurance that allows them to see virtually any doctor with maximized coverage. Like an open network plan or something. We’re probably years away.

  4. I find the comments about Curd and doctors and their finances to be QUITE rich, coming from the Sanford/Krabbenhoft supporters. Sanford wants to own them too, and can’t, and doesn’t like it.

  5. I couldn’t care less what is good for Sanford, Avera or Specialty Hospital. I’m grateful both of them are here providing us darn good health care and at costs lower than provided in most of the US.

    I just want to get a handle on these issues:

    1) Which is best at overall cost containment of health care costs? IM17 expands competition which forces a focus on efficiency and pounding out waste. Thus, this makes me inclined to like IM17.

    2) Which is best at providing opportunity for containment of health insurance costs? IM17 adversely impacts health insurance costs because health care providers who also provide insurance can’t offer discounts in exchange for the assurance of volume.

    3) Does the net benefit of the two above overshadow the limiting of provider choice? I lean to IM17 but arguing about this from what is good for Sanford vs. Specialty Hospital doesn’t help me weigh all this.

    1. There are no assurances of volume in these insurance contracts / policies. Only assurances of exclusivity to the healthcare provider (which is also the writer of the policy). To some extent, this exclusivity is anti-competitive. The healthcare consumer is forbidden from seeking other solutions which might be more convenient (travel) or as economical as that provided by the exclusive captive health insurance plan offered by (pick your large anti-competitive SD healthcare conglomerate).

Comments are closed.