The news story “Pa. House bills aimed at protecting consumer health care access, lawmakers say” (Oct. 3 and TribLIVE.com) reported on state lawmakers proposing a law that would bind UPMC and Highmark if they do not end their dispute.
House Bill 1621 would require integrated delivery networks to contract with “any willing insurer.” This is a subtle twist on the “any willing provider” laws in many states, but in essence they are the same. I believe, as a student of health policy and management, that any type of “any willing insurer” or “any willing provider” law hinders competition and would be harmful to patients.
In theory, this bill would enable patients to visit any provider they wish by forcing the provider to accept the patients' insurance. However, myriad economic studies inform us that laws prohibiting exclusive networking between payer and provider only inhibit both parties' ability to compete and provide lower-cost services. The Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice have also stated that these types of laws harm patients by limiting discounts that can be passed on to consumers. In reality, this bill would probably result in collusion between insurance providers, raising costs and leaving patients with nowhere to go.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Pedro must go
- Steel at stake, too
- Not taxpayers’ responsibility
- Duty to disclose
- Reverse red-kettle ban II
- Oberdorf firing
- Beware this Wolf I
- Reverse red-kettle ban I
- Good riddance
- PETA & its tactics II
- Don’t blame bus drivers I