AMAC joined other stakeholders in a joint statement regarding surprise medical billing which is an element of S. 1895, “The Lower Health Care Costs Act”. AMAC would like to see that open-ended arbitration, which is currently not a part of the Senate version of this bill, stays out of any final legislation negotiated with the House. Considering open-ended arbitration as a solution to the surprise medical billing issue has the potential for unintended consequences that could lead to additional costs and convoluted processes.
Press Release from Manhattan Institute
WASHINGTON – This week the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is expected to mark-up the “Lower Health Care Costs Act” (S. 1895), which among other things, attempts to address the problem of surprise medical bills.
As members of Congress on both sides of the aisle propose ways to tackle the surprise billing issue, 28* health policy experts released the following joint statement today to voice concern about the use of “open-ended arbitration” as a solution to the problem. A full list of signatories is below.
“We appreciate that both the House and the Senate are addressing the problem of surprise medical bills in a constructive and bipartisan way. Yet, this is not the first time that Congress has attempted to protect individuals from the problem, and so it is important to ensure that reforms enacted achieve their intended purpose, and do not merely add more cost and complexity to American healthcare.
“Specifically, we are concerned about proposals for open-ended arbitration, which have been floated as a solution to the problem. If arbitration appears innocuous, it is to a large extent because it is not transparent. Experience suggests that arbitration would be cumbersome to deploy, and highly favorable to those health care providers who charge high prices today. If Congress were to endorse arbitration, it could potentially open the door to a system quite unintended – establishing an inflationary dynamic that accommodates and encourages the rapid growth of costs.
“While we hold different views on the merits of using benchmarks or network matching to address the problem of surprise bills, we are encouraged that the Senate HELP Committee left arbitration out of its most recent legislative proposal. We hope it stays out, and that other committees and members follow their lead.”
Daniel Weber, Association of Mature American Citizens
Joe Antos, American Enterprise Institute
Josh Archambault, Foundation for Government Accountability
Brandon Arnold, National Taxpayers Union
Doug Badger, Galen Institute and Heritage Foundation
Tim Chapman, Heritage Action for America
Lanhee J. Chen, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
Ryan Ellis, Center for a Free Economy
Kaitlyn Finley, Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs
Beverly Gossage, HSA Benefits Consulting
Heather Higgins, Independent Women’s Forum
Dave Hoppe, Hoppe Strategies
Ben Ippolito, American Enterprise Institute
Karen Kerrigan, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council
Bethany Marcum, Alaska Policy Forum
Tom Miller, American Enterprise Institute
Mark Pauly, University of Pennsylvania
Daniel Perrin, HSA Coalition
Sally C. Pipes, Pacific Research Institute
Chris Pope, Manhattan Institute
Eric Redman, former Idaho state legislator
Avik Roy, The Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity
Thomas Schatz, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste
Jameson Taylor, Mississippi Center for Public Policy
Grace-Marie Turner, Galen Institute
Joel White, Council for Affordable Health Coverage
Saulius “Saul” Anuzis, 60 Plus Association
James L. Martin, 60 Plus Association
(Affiliations listed for identification purposes only.)