Socialized Medicine Continues Its Creep, Even During a Pandemic
Beyond the Rhetoric
Harry C. Alford & Kay DeBow OW Contributor | 3/26/2020, midnight
As the novel coronavirus continues to consume our nation’s attention, we must remain vigilant in protecting ourselves, helping our neighbors, and strengthening our communities. At the same time, we must guard our nation’s healthcare system from any effort by the federal government to implement socialized medicine. These attempts would crush medical professionals – and devastate their patients – at the worst possible time.
It’s now easy to forget that the 10-year anniversary of the Affordable Care Act is this month. At the time, opponents were quick to label President Obama’s health plan as “socialized medicine”. Fast forward to today, and there is a stream of other healthcare proposals that fit the same bill. Democrats in the House of Representatives are rallying around H.R. 3, legislation that would enable the government to set prices for hundreds of prescription drugs. There’s also of course Medicare for All, which Senator Bernie Sanders has been cheering up and down the presidential campaign trail. Yet, another important health issue is quietly falling victim to this socialized approach: surprise medical billing.
Patients receive surprise bills when they seek treatment – usually in emergency situations – and return home to find that their insurance provider ultimately won’t be covering the cost of their care. The outcry over these outcomes has been far from quiet. Leading proposals in the Senate to address surprise billing, namely the Lower Health Care Costs Act (S. 1895) and the STOP Surprise Medical Bills Act (S. 1531), claim to help patients with this dilemma. These bills, however, amount to “Medicare for Almost All”.
How did socialized medicine creep into attempts to protect patients from surprise bills? Within the combined 470 pages of these two legislative proposals, one who reads closely will see that these purported fixes empower the government to set payment rates for all healthcare service providers. In S. 1895, senators want to use the median in-network rate as the benchmark for out-of-network providers.
Similarly, while some say it’s a better bill, S. 1531 calls for a mandated arbitration process where the arbitrator must only consider the benchmark in-network rate. Arbitration that only considers in-network rates is little different from benchmarking to in-network rates. That’s just putting lipstick on a pig. And just last week, Members of the Senate Health and House Energy and Commerce Committees tried to sneak their socialized medicine approach to “fix” surprise medical bills into the third Covid-19 relief package. Thankfully, this shameful attempt was not included in the legislative language.
Should these flawed policies ultimately be enacted, patients and their providers would fare far worse than just a shot in the arm. Our African American community is especially at risk. The rate of Black Americans worried about medical bills is nearly 50% more than white Americans. Moreover, as Dr. Benjamin Chavis wrote for these pages last month, “This outrageous situation benefits one group and one group alone: powerful insurance executives, who have managed to get off the financial hook for such bills, even as insurers shrink insurance coverage networks to wring more and more profits out of the system.” However, there are market-based alternatives that put patients, their families, and providers first.