Just in case the ad with the paramedics wheeling a critically injured patient into an empty hospital was too subtle, the so-called “Doctor Patient Unity” has a new ad that could frighten some lawmakers and their constituents even more.
In the new ad, which I first saw last night on WDIV, the Detroit NBC affiliate, and again this morning on the same channel, three patients in a waiting room are called up.
But they’re not being summoned to see a medical professional, but rather a smug big insurance bastard who asserts that because of government rate setting, the hospital will be closed down right now. The lights turn off as if on cue.
The storyline does not quite stand up to a nitpicker’s scrutiny, but some viewers will be scared into calling Senator Gary Peters (D-Michigan) and telling him to oppose government rate setting, which is one potential way to end surprise medical billing.
The push to end surprise medical billing is bipartisan, and even Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) is on board. And he’s also being targeted by the dark money group, as well as his junior colleague Rand Paul, who is an ophthalmologist, according to Kentucky Health News.
There are plenty of good reasons to ditch Moscow Mitch, but his stance on this issue is not one of them. That probably goes for Rand Paul, too.
The “Doctor Patient Unity” ads are running in other states besides Michigan and Kentucky. Apparently any state where a senator is up for re-election next year and has reason to worry their incumbent status is not enough to keep them in Congress.
It looks like the dark money group does have doctors in its membership. But the clearest explanation of the group’s motivation that I’ve seen so far comes from Rachel Bluth and Emmarie Huetteman writing for Kaiser Health News, whose report on the topic has been picked up by the Daily Beast.
As proposals to ban surprise medical bills move through Congress and state legislatures with rare bipartisan support, physician groups have emerged as the loudest opponents.
Often led by doctors with the veneer of noble concern for patients, physician-staffing firms—third-party companies that employ doctors and assign them out to health care facilities—have opposed efforts to limit the practice known as balance billing. They claim such bans would rob doctors of their leverage in negotiating, drive down their payments and push them out of insurance networks.
... Nearly 40% of patients said they were “very worried” about surprise medical bills, which generally arise when an insured individual inadvertently receives care from an out-of-network provider.
It’s not just the ads, but also vigorous lobbying that’s going on here.
... as lobbyists purporting to represent doctors and hospitals fight the proposals, it has become increasingly clear that the force behind the multimillion-dollar crusade is not only medical professionals, but also investors in private equity and venture capital firms.
In the past eight years, in such fields as emergency medicine and anesthesia, investors have bought and now operate many large physician-staffing companies. And key to their highly profitable business strategy is to not participate in insurance networks, allowing them to send surprise bills and charge patients a price they set—with few limitations.
Then the bills against surprise medical billing are a threat to the status quo that venture capital firms have been taking advantage of?
Private equity firms and the staffing companies they own have a lot to lose, too. While doctors largely once worked for hospitals or had individual contracts, many hospitals now rely on these huge staffing businesses to provide doctors for various departments. ... Private equity firms back these ever-growing outsourced staffing companies.
Because patients have no effective way to protect themselves from unexpected medical bills, even knowledgeable, proactive people with comprehensive insurance can find themselves whisked away to an out-of-network hospital in an emergency or treated by an out-of-network anesthesiologist at the in-network hospital they selected.
So don’t worry about having an accident and being rushed to a hospital that has suddenly turned off the lights. Worry instead about getting a surprise bill for anesthesiology you mistakenly thought was in-network.
Several lawmakers have adopted the issue, one seemingly ready-made for campaign season: In fighting surprise bills, they are attacking a practice both reviled by the public and easy to explain.
What’s harder to explain is where the money on the other side of the campaign comes from. Coalitions like Physicians for Fair Coverage and dark-money groups with innocuous names like Doctor Patient Unity have flooded the airwaves with ads urging people to call their lawmakers and voice opposition to ending surprise bills.
I don’t recall having seen any Physicians for Fair Coverage ads, but it could be that they do have an ad targeting Senator Peters but I just haven’t seen it.
And those lawmakers are overwhelmingly senators facing difficult reelection fights next year, who might be hesitant to vote for change—especially if it means more expensive ad campaigns aimed at taking them down.
I have yet to contact Senator Peters on this issue. But I’m forming up what I will say. Something like: despite the misleading ads, I think you are looking out for my interest on this issue and most other issues, so I intend to vote for you next year.
As for Moscow Mitch, voters in Kentucky need to look not just at his stance on this issue but also other issues. If Moscow Mitch has the right stance on this one issue, it does not make up for all the times he’s prioritized his own interests over those of his constituents.
If I was a Kentucky voter, I probably would tell Moscow Mitch to vote to end surprise medical billing, and I’d be grateful if he does. But I would still be voting for Amy McGrath next year.