Alaska House to vote on establishing subscription-based health care

Has been updated: 31 few minutes ago release date: 31 few minutes ago

The Alaska House of Representatives is poised to vote on a bill that, if passed, would legalize subscription-based access to health care providers.

Direct care contracts allow patients to receive designated care by paying a monthly subscription fee. It is a service that can serve as an alternative to traditional health insurance and improve access to care for people enrolled in high-deductible insurance plans or who have difficulty accessing certain medical services through insurance. It is explained as. Such plans are also used by people who are willing to pay high prices in exchange for personalized, on-demand care known as “concierge medicine.”

The bill passed the Alaska Senate last May. The bill passed a hearing in the House Labor and Commerce Committee last year, but no floor vote was scheduled before the legislative session adjourned. The House finally considered amendments to the bill on Friday, setting the stage for a House vote on whether to pass the bill next week.

Senate Bill 45 is supported by conservative advocacy groups Alaska Policy Forum and Americans for Prosperity. They argue that they can lower health care costs by cutting out the red tape and red tape inherent in private health insurance plans.

Skeptics of the measure say it would embolden health care providers to discriminate against patients with serious medical conditions by setting unaffordable service fees and relying on public health insurance such as Medicare and Medicaid. They argue that this could further limit patients' medical options.

The House of Representatives considered more than a dozen amendments to the bill in a contentious three-hour plenary session on Friday.

Lawmakers agreed to limit the bill to primary care providers, meaning that professionals would no longer be allowed to enter into direct medical contracts.

Additionally, primary care providers offering these arrangements must continue to accept new patients enrolled in Medicare and must have at least 20% of their patients enrolled in Medicare or fully enrolled in health insurance. They also agreed to require non-participating practices to maintain their membership. A similar provision was included in a bill adopted by the Senate last year, but was removed from the bill by the House Labor and Commerce Committee earlier this year.

Supporters say the provision is necessary to avoid further worsening Alaska's shortage of health care providers willing to accept patients enrolled in Medicare.

Rep. Zach Fields, an Anchorage Democrat, would require clinics to be directly contracted and owned by Alaska residents to stop private equity firms from increasingly acquiring clinics across the country. An attempt was made to amend the bill.

The amendment narrowly failed by a vote of 20 to 18.

“Without a stakeholder in the health care provider, someone who is sworn to provide quality care, those on Wall Street are trying to squeeze as many people into these insurance policies while providing the least amount of care possible.” You're going to be trying to get them to sign up. That's not a good path to go down,” Fields said.

Lawmakers also voted 20-17 to reject an amendment proposed by Rep. Jenny Armstrong, D-Anchorage. The proposed amendment would explicitly prohibit health care providers from discriminating against patients in direct contracting based on “sexual orientation or gender.” Identity, gender expression. ”

Alaska law does not specifically prohibit such discrimination, per the advice of the state's attorney general, Treg Taylor.

Current state law does not allow direct medical contracts. However, some providers already offer such deals and have been doing so for several years. Insurance Department Director Lori Winghier said last year that if the state does not legalize the plans, the state could begin taking action against providers who offer such plans even though state law does not allow them. Stated.

If the House passes the bill next week, it would need to be sent back to the Senate for final approval because of changes made to the bill by the House.

• • •