Free subscription to the Capitol Journal keeps you current on legislative and regulatory news.
CT Senate Passes Sweeping Consumer Protection Bill The Connecticut Senate passed an expansive consumer protection bill ( SB 5 ). Among other things, the measure would require service providers such as...
Social Media Warning Label Legislation Catching on in States Although Congress hasn’t responded to former U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy’s call last June to take up legislation requiring...
OR Lawmakers Pass Age Discrimination Bill Oregon’s legislature passed a bill ( HB 3187 ) that would prohibit an employer from requesting an applicant’s age, date of birth or date of graduation...
WI Assembly Passes Multiple Healthcare Bills Wisconsin’s Assembly passed multiple healthcare-related bills with broad bipartisan support. One ( AB 43 ) would allow pharmacists to prescribe birth...
A nightmare may be coming to life for social media companies in Minnesota. There, Democrats in the state Legislature have embraced a pioneering bill, SB 3197 , which seeks to levy the nation’s...
A bill in committee in the California Senate (SB 242) would require state-regulated private health insurance plans to reimburse doctors and dentists for “medically necessary” expenses related to the pandemic, including personal protective equipment and staff to screen patients for COVID-19 symptoms before their appointments.
Judee Tippett-Whyte, DDS, president of the California Dental Association, who also has a dental practice in Stockton, said a box of 100 gloves that cost $2.39 at the start of the year now costs $30, and the N95 masks her practice now uses cost over 12 times more than the 20-cent surgical masks it used before the pandemic began.
“We’ve sustained a lot of financial costs,” she said. “We shouldn’t have to bear the cost of this for ourselves.”
California’s medical and dental lobbies also say insurers have cash to spare, having continued to collect premiums during the pandemic while paying out less in claims. UnitedHealth Group, the country’s biggest health insurer, recently reported that it earned 44 percent more in the first quarter of 2021 than in the same period last year.
Mary Ellen Grant, spokesperson for the California Association of Health Plans, however, said insurers don’t typically cover the cost of nonmedical supplies.
“Here we are with treatment and office levels back at pre-pandemic levels,” she said. “Now they want additional payment from plans to pay for nonmedical expenses.”
California doctors have also received nearly $10 billion from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for PPE and other pandemic expenses via the Provider Relief Fund, and medical and dental practices have obtained loans through the Small Business Administration’s Paycheck Protection Program.
“They’ve gotten plenty of help from the feds to cover these costs,” Grant said.
But Allison Hoffman, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Carey Law School who specializes in health insurance policy and regulation, said, “We’re starting to see a kind of broader definition of what health insurance might pay for in order to keep people healthy.”
“There’s nothing like a public health emergency to shine a light on the fact that sometimes it’s not a prescription drug or surgical procedure that’s going to improve health.”
Washington enacted legislation last month (SB 5169) allowing healthcare providers to add $6.57 to the amount they bill insurers for each patient they see to help cover their pandemic costs. Sen. David Frockt (D), who introduced the bill, said it was surprisingly uncontentious, given that it pit the state’s medical association against its insurance association.
Deliberations over California SB 642 appear unlikely to be as rancor-free.
As Anthony York, spokesperson for the California Medical Association, said of the state’s health insurers, “We’re not surprised plans don’t want to pay more, but ultimately this is a fight we’ll have in the Legislature.” (KAISER HEALTH NEWS, STATE NET)
The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association has lifted a cap on the share of its 35 member insurers’ revenues that must come from business under the Blue Cross Blue Shield brand. Formerly, the licensees had been required to derive two-thirds of their revenues from such business.
The rule change was prompted by an antitrust settlement the insurers reached with their customers last year, which has yet to receive final judicial approval.
By allowing the member insurers to vie more with each other for non-Blue-branded business, the change “certainly should increase competition,” said University of California Hastings Law Professor Tim Greaney, although he added that it was unclear how long it would take to have an impact. (WALL STREET JOURNAL)
Oklahoma has enacted legislation (HB 1006) requiring healthcare providers to post the cost for cash-paying patients of their 20 most common procedures and services. The price lists don’t have to include charges for complications or rates for procedures and services negotiated with insurers. (TULSA WORLD, STATE NET)
Workers from three Southern California facilities owned by Tenet Healthcare planned to protest against low wages, understaffing and unsafe working conditions at the for-profit healthcare system’s annual shareholders meeting last week. The demonstration was backed by the National Union of Healthcare Workers, which represents about 600 respiratory therapists, medical technicians and other employees of Fountain Valley Regional Hospital. (FIERCE HEALTHCARE)
Pfizer expects global sales of its COVID-19 vaccine to reach $26 billion this year. That would far exceed the $20 billion in annual sales of the world’s current top-selling drug, AbbVie’s rheumatoid arthritis medication Humira. (WASHINGTON POST)
Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R) announced last week that fully vaccinated staff at nursing homes and assisted-living facilities no longer have to be tested each week for COVID-19. Coronavirus cases at the state’s 960 nursing homes have plummeted from 3,785 on Jan. 6 to 214 on April 21. (PLAIN DEALER [CLEVELAND])
-- Compiled by KOREY CLARK
* The views expressed in externally authored materials linked or published on this site do not necessarily reflect the views of LexisNexis Legal & Professional.