|
|
| |
| Sun, Jul. 20, 2008 |  |
 |
|
||
| | 'Any willing provider' bills approved by House
Tuesday, Feb 22, 2005 By Rob Moritz Arkansas News Bureau LITTLE ROCK - The Arkansas House on Monday passed two bills which allow patients more freedom to choose their physicians and requires health care management plans to pay those doctors at the plan's regular rates. Known as the "any willing provider" bills, Senate Bills 43 and 44 each passed 81-14. The measures now go back to the Senate for concurrence in amendments. "It was a good day for the little man," said Steve Faris, D-Malvern, sponsor of the bills. "Every member that voted for that bill can go home and hold their head high. Nothing will affect the average Arkansan more than this legislation for years to come." The vote came after some emotional speeches on the House floor, including one by Rep. Jay Bradford, D-White Hall, who spoke of former Rep. John Parkerson's battle with prostate cancer. Bradford said Parkerson, D-Hot Springs, originally wanted to receive treatment at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences but wasn't able because the hospital was out of his insurance network. Bradford said he later made some phone calls and got approval for the former House member to be treated at UAMS, but Parkerson refused, saying he didn't want special treatment. "He said, 'no dice, Jay, I will not take advantage. I want this for everybody,'" Bradford said, recalling his conversation with Parkerson. The Legislature passed similar "any willing provider' legislation in 1995 to prevent insurers from excluding from their health coverage plans any health provider willing to accept its payment terms. However, Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield took the law to court and a judge ordered an injunction to halt implementation. Last year, U.S. District Judge James Moody agreed to lift the injunction pending the outcome of an appeal by Blue Cross and Blue Shield, the state's biggest health insurance carrier, to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Moody, in his ruling, referred to a U.S. Supreme Court decision involving the any willing provider law in Kentucky. The high court said that the Kentucky law did not violate federal rules for employee health benefits, as had been argued. SB 43 was drawn based on the Kentucky statute. SB 44 includes the enforcement rules. The bills, once signed by the governor, would take effect only if the injunction is not lifted. In that case, the 1995 act would be repealed simultaneously. During debate Monday, several House members said SB 43 and 44 would give patients greater choice in selecting their health care providers. Others, including Rep. Jim Medley, R-Fort Smith, said the bills will drive up health care costs. "Do you want to offer a choice to the extent that a company can no longer offer health care?" Medley asked. "Isn't it better to have health care benefits with limited choice, than no choice at all?" Bradford, the House sponsor of the two bills, said the bills would not cause insurance rates to rise and said each House member had a letter from the Kentucky insurance commissioner saying that. "This allows the people that you and I represent to choose their medical provider," Bradford said. "Only if that provider agrees to accept the amount of money that insurance is contracted for any other hospital. "This will save money because the people will be competing," Bradford said. Rep. R. Dwayne Dobbins, D-North Little Rock, said the bills raised too many questions. "Just because something looks good on the surface doesn't mean it's always good," he said. "We have to look at its intent and its unintended consequences." |
