BILL: Lower Costs, More Transparency Act

Tell your reps to support or oppose the bill.

  • 8,476

    Dr. Quack Trump keep believing in what Trump tells you, you can end up in prison or die!

  • 8,476

    Toxoplasmos gondii (parasite) infection is classically associated with the frequency of schizophrenia, suicidal attempts and "road rage". 1 out of 3 people have the parasite, I think it's low?

  • 3,876

    Patients at private-equity-owned hospitals get more infections and fall more often, says a new study by Harvard researchers

    ban acquisitions and management of health care providers by hedge funds & pvt equity who have zero interest or knowledge of health care and only know how to cut flip rape & run! Hold them accountable with heavy penalties. Make it illegal for congress to accept any contributions for favors

    problem lies with congress not the crooks

  • 6,775

    It's a start, but just barely.  

    For the necessities of life including healthcare and medicines, all the providers should be non-profits.  

    The best way to get there is Bernies' Medicare For All!

  • 3,876

    As long as congress continues to be attached to the teats of insurers, hedge funds who now own hospitals, med providers and pharma - doctors & patients will get the short end of the stick! 

  • 2,448

    I'm witr Brian, I think I can support this, but since it was introduced by a Republican I have some reservations.  I also agree that no exceptions should be allowed re. big corporations/drug companies.  Generally, more trnsparency is always a good thing, but when a Republican introduces a bill that would really benefit the consumer, I have to wonder about the fine points of that bill.

  • 27.8k

    "Lower Costs, More Transparency Act"

    Yeah, sure.


  • 51.7k

    I think I can support this, although there should be no exceptions for corporate healthcare entities.

    If the Republicans will actually pass something that might improve healthcare without taking it away from anyone, I'm all for it.

  • 27.8k

    Seems a little late to make influential comments. I would have advocated my representative to vote No! 

    This has already passed evidently without addressing some legitimate concerns. For example:

    Just from the lede's "Opposition and Concerns:"

    Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.) and other Democratic lawmakers shared concern that the bill lacks ownership transparency requirements for private equity purchases of healthcare facilities. 

    One of my friends was formerly a PT at a onetime prestigious NYC Upper East Side Nursing Home. She eventually took the early retirement option after the new owners took over and began deconstructing the excellent care that was once provided. She wanted nothing to do with the place after she saw what they were doing. Basically pretending that the facility was unchanged all the while turning it into a "families' worst nightmare nursing home."

    During the transition I learned that a distant family member with dementia was sent there for a month. Among several problems we learned that this elder cousin was left in the hallway for hours for "observation." My friend said it was stuff like that that made her want to leave.

    Hospitals and PBMs have expressed opposition as well, specifically to the site-neutral payment policies.

    Another friend in nursing thinks this means the facility gets a fixed amounts per patient regardless of condition.  A quick serve gave me a little more:

    Site-neutral payment policies are policies that require Medicare Part B to pay the same amount for the same service with the same case-mix regardless of where the service is provided. This means that Medicare generally pays different rates for the same service depending on where it is provided. The goal of site-neutral payment policies is to ensure that patients receive the right care, at the right time, in the right setting. However, the American Hospital Association (AHA) strongly opposes site-neutral payment cuts, which would reduce access to critical health care services, especially in rural and other underserved communities. The AHA argues that hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) should not be paid the same Medicare rate as a stand-alone physician office, as HOPDs treat more patients from medically underserved populations who tend to be sicker and more complex to care for than Medicare patients treated in independent physician offices and ambulatory surgical centers. Implementing site-neutral payment policies could force hundreds of outpatient clinics to close or cut back on critical services, resulting in reduced patient access and job losses. The cost of care delivered in hospitals and health systems, including HOPDs, is fundamentally different than other sites of care and thus needs to take into account the unique benefits that only they provide to their communities. 

    (Site-neutral Payments - AAF.
    Site-Neutral Payments - FAH.
    Fact Sheet: Medicare Hospital Outpatient Site-Neutral Payment Policies.
    BCBSA: Site-neutral payments would save $471B over 10 years.
    Congress seems inclined to expand site-neutral payment policies ... - HFMA.

    We have to do better! 

  • 99.0k

    Bipartisan Legislstion that has already passed the House (320-71) and headed to the Senate with a 30% chance of enactment (2022 average enactment was 21%) provides transparency on hospital and lab tests prior to procedures, reduced spread on drug pricing, and pay the same price for outpatient versus inpatient hospital treatment. 

    Healthcare providers are pushing back on site neutral payment which doesn't go into effect for 2 years but will save $3.7B over 10 years.

    "mandating greater hospital price transparency that would curb pharmacy benefit manager spread pricing."

    "further tackle high drug prices by improving the generic drug approval process,"

    "provides price transparency for clinical lab tests so that patients will get more clarity into the prices they'll pay for these tests."

    "site-neutral payment cuts for drug administration services furnished in off-campus provider-based departments. This policy would result in a cut of over $3.7 billion over 10 years to HOPDs that provide essential drug administration services, including for vulnerable cancer patients who may require a higher level of care than is available at other care settings. Expanding site-neutral cuts would endanger the critical 24/7 role hospitals and health systems play in their communities, including providing access to care for patients."