Making it difficult or unlikely that health care workers get paid for their services does not make health care more affordable in our state. It shifts some people’s costs onto others, and it treats providers unfairly.
Medical debt doesn’t just disappear. Providers recover unpaid medical debt through higher charges, and higher insurance premiums for paying patients also result. Hospitals report that the result of even fewer payments could bring less access.
Still, Senate Bill 5993 passed the Senate and had a hearing today in the House Civil Rights and Judiciary Committee. It would limit interest charged on new medical debt to a simple interest rate of 1 percent per year, prohibit the charging of interest during certain time periods, and require the refund of interest paid on portions of medical debt that are reduced or eliminated because of hospital-provided charity care, among other details.
In the Wednesday morning hearing, the bill sponsor said the bill was a compromise, as it started off asking for zero percent interest on medical debt. Going from 9% to 1% is no compromise. It doesn’t cover delay or collection costs, and it could further reduce recoveries — especially when combined with policies that weaken repayment incentives.
Couple SB 5993 with last year’s bill that banned the reporting of unpaid medical debt to credit bureaus, SB 5480, and our state lawmakers seem to be pushing voluntary payment of health care bills, not affordable health care for all. Imagine if it was voluntary to pay for meals and groceries or iPhones. How would that work out? Bills for paying customers would rise.
I signed up to testify about how this proposal moves in the opposite direction of affordability and how, like many of the state’s policies, it helps some people in need and some not in need at the expense of others — who are also in need and not in need. I ended up submitting written testimony, as I was not called upon during the live hearing. My minute of prepared testimony is below.
I hope lawmakers consider how the math in this bill doesn’t work out. Fewer people paying for health care does not make health care more affordable. We need limited safety nets, and we need lawmakers targeting the drivers of health care costs — not making health care payment optional.
Thank you Chairwoman and committee members. I’m Elizabeth New with Washington Policy Center, opposed to 5993.
If you’re trying to create another safety net for people in need and people not in need at the expense of other health consumers — some who are in need and some who are not — this bill might be attractive. If you’re trying to make healthcare more affordable, however, this bill absolutely fails.
Continuing to make it difficult or unlikely that health care providers are paid for services does not make health care more affordable. It shifts cost onto others. Providers and insurers will recover unpaid medical debt through higher charges and higher insurance premiums for paying patients. Access also could be impacted, hospitals say.
If we want affordability in health care for all, we need to target the drivers of cost — not just shift who pays the bills. We have a lot of ideas we’re happy to help with.
Ending concurrent Medicaid payments is a great start. Fewer insurance regulations would help. Scope-of-practice changes, universal licensure reform and more competition and innovation should be prioritized. Ridding the state of outdated Certificate of Need practices needs to happen, as does reconsideration of the state’s low Medicaid reimbursement rates.
This bill is harmful to health care affordability. Please stop it.
