Rep. Readshaw Introduces Health Care Pricing Disclosure Bill
'Now is the time for hospitals to display their prices in a uniform system, just as gasoline stations, grocery stores and other retailers display the cost of goods and services.' - Dr. Joseph Rudolph
State Rep. Harry A. Readshaw, a Democrat whose 36th Legislative District includes parts of Baldwin and Whitehall boroughs, has introduced legislation that would require medical facilities to reveal the cost of a procedure or medical test prior to a doctor ordering it for a patient.
Readshaw said that the proposal is the result of information brought to him by Dr. Joseph Rudolph, a physician in Allegheny County.
Rudolph brought to the attention of Readshaw many Pennsylvanians, including Medicare beneficiaries, who have been experiencing new, larger health insurance deductibles or are now participating in Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Rudolph said that patients need to know the cost of services in order to maximize the value of their out-of-pocket health care costs.
"Now is the time for hospitals to display their prices in a uniform system," Rudolph said, "just as gasoline stations, grocery stores and other retailers display the cost of goods and services. Pennsylvanians must know what portion of their costs will be paid by their health insurance company in order to select the best value for their health insurance premium.
"The (proposed) Patient Medical Access and Affordability Act (Readshaw's House Bill 2179) will empower Pennsylvanians to save 50 percent or more on health care costs without any taxpayer subsidy."
House Bill 2179 would require medical providers to list all services, supplies and charges on a publicly accessible website. Likewise, health insurance providers would post a fee schedule for what it will pay for specific tests and procedures. An individual patient would be responsible for making up any differences in the cost for a specific item.
Facilities that would be governed by the legislation would include hospitals, long-term care facilities, outpatient diagnostic facilities, medical equipment providers, medical practices not owned by private practitioners, and outpatient surgical centers.
Medical providers exempt from the requirement would include physicians who are private practitioners, private-duty nurses, chiropractors, dentists, podiatrists and independent psychologists.
Patients covered by government-provided services such as Medicaid, Medicare or workers' compensation would not need to pay the difference between provider charges and the government allotment.
"My legislation would eliminate the mystery behind medical billing by allowing individuals the freedom to conveniently shop around," Readshaw said. "If they are considering an insurance provider, they would see how its reimbursement rate compares to others. If they, or a guardian, have a long-term care decision pending, they could much more easily get information that would help them in the selection."
The bill has been referred to the House Health Committee for consideration.
Thoughts on the bill? Share them in the comments section below.
---
Follow the Baldwin-Whitehall Patch on Facebook and Twitter.
Sign up for the daily Baldwin-Whitehall newsletter.
jjtss
2:50 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
I have to wonder who benefits from this medical disclosure costs bill? You either have the insurance coverage or you get the service for free (meaning you either can't afford it or you are on some government welfare plan). How is tis bill some big deal? Just don't get it.
Robert Edward Healy, III
12:30 pm on Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Sunni, what happened to your comment?
Sandra
1:54 pm on Wednesday, February 29, 2012
I think this is a great idea. I went to a dermatologist appointment in October at UPMC in the Fulk Building in Oakland. It has been a couple of years since my last visit and they told me I would be considered a new patient again. It was a 5 minute appointment, I had no special procedures done. After the appointment I received the bill from the doctors office, which I expected. I also received an additional bill for a "facility charge" for $235.00. I called to question it and they told me since they are under the UPMC umbrella, that office is now considered a facility and it's a charge to use their facility. I was never advised of this prior and they told me that they had a sign in their office which nobody brought to my attention. They told me it was my responsibility to notice the sign. I was never billed this in the past, this is something new they are doing. I am currently fighting these charges. I think with the UPMC monopoly there will be more of this to come in the future.
Sandra
1:57 pm on Wednesday, February 29, 2012
jjtss - I have health insurance through Cigna. They only covered about $15 of the facility charge.
jjtss
6:56 pm on Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Sandra, I agree with you on the facility charge, but I still feel the notion of listing charges wouldn't of mattered in this case. You probably need a brochure from your healthcare provider in order to determine what Dermatologist provides services without charging a facilities fee.