The Argus Leader has an article this afternoon coming after the introduction of HB1067 where it appears that the prediction of it being controversial is not an overblown statement. To say the least.
If approved, the bill would essentially legalize the way Sanford Health Plans interpreted Initiated Measure 17. Sanford began offering a plan that includes all providers who want in, but it has also continued to offer narrow-network plans to consumers and employers who want them.
Rapid City-based orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Stephen Eckrich, said the measure is an attempt by lobbyists to reverse South Dakota voters’ 2014 decision.
“This is an insult to the people of South Dakota,” Eckrich said in a statement Wednesday. “When the vast majority of the public say they are in favor of choosing their own doctor, they have spoken. However, Sanford thinks they are above the law and are putting their selfish interests ahead of the will of their patients.”
Rep. Tim Rounds, R-Pierre, defended the measure, which he is co-sponsoring in the House. He said the debate would provide a good opportunity for resolving some of the conflict between doctor-owned hospitals and non-profit hospital systems.
HB 1067 is currently scheduled to be heard in House Commerce and Energy, which will likely come up in the next week, as it is not currently calendared. At least three of the measure’s sponsors are on the committee, including the prime sponsor of the bill, Tim Rounds, who also serves as the chairman of the committee.
Given how controversial this measure is, I question whether it will actually be heard in the committee, or if there’s a chance it could be recalled, and assigned to State Affairs. It’s already sounding like this could be a cat fight.
And we haven’t started the bills on increasing taxes for teacher pay or medicaid expansion yet!
Very weak lead talking point from Rounds. I would expect that his handlers would have been able to prop him forward with a little better material.
Yes, I thought so as well. He wants to mediate something? What? Did they not tell him the voters decided this issue during the last election and everyone but Sanford is living with it?
So I assume this can be referred if they pass the bill?
A simple solution would be to require the specialty hospitals to offer the full complement of care primary care hospitals do. Let’s see how long their doctor-owners like bleeding money caring for indigent clients like Sanford, Avera and RC Regional do.
And if that ever happens, perhaps the big hospitals will start paying taxes. Wonder how much they don’t pay in property taxes every year?
I would assume that noble challenge any day. Before you interject such an inaccurate, biased myth into this debate I suggest you check your facts and review the 990 IRS reports for each system.
http://www.guidestar.org
This is public information and tells an entirely different story. If physician-owners reported profits(gains) like the systems you might have a legitimate point but until then get your facts straight.
My facts are dead on. Pull the 990 on on Avera McKennan, back out contributions and investment earnings and compute their operating profit margin on roughly $750MM in operating revenues. Then tell me if you’d buy stock in a company with those margins. The net looks like a big number until you compute little things like ROI and ROA on a balance sheet that size. I guarantee you physician-owners would not be in the specialty hospital business with the kinds of ROI primary providers experience.
So I must have missed the part of the initiated measure that said that every plan offered by an insurance company needed to cover every provider. The way I read it and the reason I voted in favor of it was that it just said that insurance companies needed to cover all providers. The initiated measure was worded in such a manner that the “important” parts were very grey and open for multiple interpretations.
Someone should check the pricing of the hospitals vs. the specialties. I know my personal experience is that the Specialty hospital was significantly cheaper than my local hospital for a fairly common diagnostic procedure. Just sayin. Seems to me that competition and choice is good for the patient. Just glad I was allowed to pick my doctor and not forced to only go to one system.
This is going to go irrespective of voter wishes. Fischer-Rounds needs it, Avera/Dakotacare wants it, and Sanford demands it. Money talks, and the cash coming in to get this done literally shouts. Tim is a poor figurehead, but rest assured that it will go.
Sanford can’t compete so they try to change the rules. Avera has complied with IM 17 and take a look at the rate hikes for 2016. Compare and you’ll find Avera actually had a smaller ACA rate increase and Sanford and Avera were in a dead heat in off exchange plans. The facts and rate filings don’t lie. Sanford wants to manipulate the market. The D’s who support this bill have their blinders on and can’t see they are sanctioning the assault on the initiated measure process, the only way they pass anything meaningful. Be careful what you wish for…
Seems to me that Sanford wants your insurance premium, your deductible, and your copay.
I see they use this cable bill analogy. But in what world do we let our employers choose the channels we watch? Yes, many people get their insurance through their employer, but those employers shouldn’t get to choose the doctors those employees go to.
The other trouble I have with their little cable tv analogy is that Sanford wants to sell you ONE channel — the Sanford channel. No Avera, no independent doctors, no specialty clinic, no Mayo, no chiropractor, etc. Just Sanford.
If the big healthcare systems are able to overturn IM 17 through this bill, we will need to change our State Motto from, “Under God the People Rule.” to “Under SDAHO the people are Ruled.”
(SDAHO= South Dakota Association of Heathcare Organizations)