The lawmakers' letter - organized by Reps.
The controversy pertains to a section of the proposed final regulations focusing on arbitration. Patty Murray, Wash., chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, who wrote to the administration urging officials to move forward with their plan. Frank Pallone, N.J., chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Sen. However, the backlash has not won the support of some powerful Democrats, including Rep. "They very clearly wrote the law the way that they did after a year, or two years, of debate over which way to go." "The doctors in Congress are furious about this," says one staff member familiar with the call. Some members of Congress who are also doctors held a conference call with the administration late last month to complain, according to aides to lawmakers on Capitol Hill, who could not speak on the record because they did not have authorization to do so. Nearly half of the 152 lawmakers who signed that letter were Democrats, and many of the physicians serving in the House signed. Larry Bucshon, R-Ind., who is a doctor and helped spearhead a letter of complaint this month, told us in a written statement. "The Administration's recently proposed regulation to begin implementing the law does not uphold Congressional intent and could incentivize insurance companies to set artificially low payment rates, which would narrow provider networks and potentially force small practices to close, thus limiting patients' access to care," Rep. A letter of complaint signed by 152 lawmakersīut now, many doctors, their medical associations and members of Congress are crying foul, arguing the rule released by the Biden administration in September for implementing the law favors insurers and doesn't follow the spirit of the legislation. Lower premiums are an especially important goal for the administration and some of its allies, like patient advocacy groups and labor unions.
In releasing the rule, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services pointed to an analysis of the Congressional Budget Office that the No Surprises Act would lower health insurance premiums by about 1% and shave $17 billion off the federal deficit. The insurer would pay only a small part of the bill, and the unsuspecting patient would be responsible for the balance. It often happens when patients seek care at an in-network hospital, but a physician such as an emergency room doctor or anesthesiologist who treats the patient is not covered by the insurance plan. A bipartisan group of 152 lawmakers have been assailing the Biden administration's plan to regulate the law and medical providers, warning of grim consequences for underserved patients.įor years, patients have faced these massive, unexpected bills when they get treatment from hospitals or doctors outside their insurance company's network. The detente that allowed Congress to pass a law to curb surprise medical bills has disintegrated. Some doctors, medical associations and members of Congress are complaining that the rule released by the Biden administration this fall for implementing the law to stop surprise medical bills actually favors insurers and doesn't follow the spirit of the legislation.
0 kommentar(er)
