Lawmakers will now allow the attorney general to reject statewide citizen initiatives based on their titles, a dangerous expansion of powers that promises partisan abuse. We already saw that this past November, when AG Dave Yost changed the title of Issue 1 to create a false narrative that helped lead to the measure’s defeat.
But it’s HB 173 that caught my eye. It’s a perplexing and bloated bill with good intentions that prompts confusion instead of clarity.
HB 173 requires hospitals to publish certain price information, a law that mirrors existing federal price transparency rules. Wading through HB 173′s text is like trying to read the ancient language Sanskrit. Consider this gem noting, in part, what hospitals must post:
The payor-specific negotiated charge, listed by the name of the third-party payor and health plan associated with the charge and displayed in a manner that clearly associates the charge with each third-party payor and health plan.
I think that means hospitals have to post what the insurers pay them, but that’s my Sanskrit interpretation.
Premier Health and Kettering Health, the dominant health concerns in the greater Miami Valley, each post prices on their websites. While some of the charges are easy to understand, others will make your head explode.
In this straightforward example, A c-section at Kettering facilities listed on their price sheet costs $16,264 as if January 1, 2024. Premier hospitals charge $17,967. That’s simple to comprehend.
But diving deeper can prove complicated. Both companies provide a longer list of services and fees that require downloading a .json file and, in my case, opening Excel before wading through a complex list of confusing medical procedures. The hospitals are following federal guidelines but what in the name of Sanskrit is this?
HC DEBRIDE SKIN/SUBQ/MUSCLE AND/OR FASCIA/BONE,1ST 20 SQ CM
That’s one of the listed services that “refers to the removal of dead, damaged, or infected bone tissue from a wound area that is 20 square centimeters or less,” according to MD Clarity.
I would have said I had some dead skin removed.
Bills to protect consumers are always a good thing. But most people don’t need to sort through hundreds of befuddling codes and medical speak.
HB 173 could have taken a different approach that would have lessen the burden on hospitals while helping patients who don’t need mind-bending details.
The bill should take a page from Premier and Kettering. They list hospital costs for what appear to be their most standard procedures. It would be simple for any hospital to take their top 10 procedures in five common surgical areas — orthopedics, cardiovascular care, to name two — and list costs. A patient will more likely have an angioplasty than a heart transplant. Forget the procedures few people have.
The bill could have also mandated doctor’s offices to clearly post office visit fees, wait times, and cancellation rights. Offices let patients know that if they miss an appointment they can be charged and might not be able to see the physician again.
That’s fair. But it’s also fair to tell your patients, who are your customers, what they can expect when they walk into your office. If there’s a wait, what is it? And if it’s longer than a specific time (30 minutes? 45 minutes? More?) the patient can reschedule with no penalty.
Confucius said, “Life is simple but we insist on making it complicated.”
HB 173 didn’t need to be this complicated.
Ray Marcano’s column appears on these pages each Sunday.
About the Author