Illinois antimark up bill

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Whiskeyjack

Full Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Messages
83
Reaction score
1
See below. There is so much BS here I don't know where to start. Please add comments that can be used to refute the dermatologists assertions about killing this bill.

ACTION ALERT:
CONTACT YOUR STATE LEGISLATORS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST SB 1630!
TO:
Illinois Dermatologists

FROM: Amy Derick, MD, President – Illinois Dermatological Society

SUBJECT: CONTACT YOUR STATE LEGISLATORS AND VOICE YOUR OPPOSTION TO SB 1630

DATE: September 9, 2014

STATUS UPDATE: The Illinois Dermatological Society (IDS), the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) are all united in opposition to SB 1630, a bill that unfairly regulates billing by physicians of pathology services. Thanks to the efforts of many throughout the state, we were successful in receiving an amendatory veto by the governor! We now have the task of educating Members of the Illinois General Assembly about the negative impact of this bill and encouraging them to vote “No” on any attempt to override the veto. We want legislators to let this bill die now so we can finally sit down with the proponents to work out language that we all can live with.

This bill, as it currently stands, will hurt thousands of dermatologists, OBGYN, urologists, and GI doctors, while potentially helping fewer than 500 pathologists. Insurance companies have reduced payments to doctors, and this will cut money used for overhead even more. Many practices might even be forced to lay off Illinois workers in order to cover the loss. Women will be disadvantaged both as patients (especially OB/GYN patients) and as the owners of medical practices. It will hurt low income patients in particular because of larger co-pays.

ACTION REQUEST: We are now up against a new deadline as this bill now faces final action by the General Assembly during the Veto Session in November and December. We need your help! Specifically, we’re asking you to take the following action:

CONTACT YOUR STATE SENATOR AND STATE REPRESENTATIVE NOW TO EXPRESS YOUR OPPOSITION TO THE BILL AND OUTLINE HOW IT WILL AFFECT YOUR MEDICAL PRACTICE. Ask your legislator to contact their Senate or House leader and request that the bill not be called this fall to allow us time to work out an agreement with the other side on this issue.

Below you will find talking points and instructions you or a staff member can use to communicate with your legislators quickly and effectively. THANK YOU for all your efforts to stop SB 1630!
LEGISLATOR CONTACT INSTRUCTIONS:


Your home and office Senate and House are printed below, according to the information for you we have listed in our database. (If your address is not correct you can look up your legislators by going to the website listed below… just enter your addresses and the district information will be displayed.
http://www.elections.il.gov/districtlocator/addressfinder.aspx
In your email or letter to the senator/representative, please use the following message as your guide:

I am a physician in your district and I am contacting you because I am opposed to SB 1630 – a bill that received an amendatory veto from Governor. I urge you to contact your respective House or Senate leader and ask them to not call the bill for a vote and allow us to work with the proponents to find language we can all agree to which can be considered in the spring. The merits of this bill were not properly considered because many of the state’s doctors were not even aware of the bill’s existence. If it becomes law, this bill will bar me and other physicians from recouping any overhead costs associated with ordering pathology from an outside lab.

ALSO, insert some specifics about your practice:
·How many patients you care for each year.
·How many people you employ in your practice.

This bill will impact thousands of physicians across the state. Many practices might be forced to lay off workers to cover the loss. It will hurt low income patients, women, and patients with large co-pays. The people of Illinois will also be harmed because this bill would conservatively move millions of dollars in taxable activity (now billed by in-state doctors) to out-of-state labs and non-profit (non-taxed) hospitals each year. In a period of severe budget austerity, this makes no fiscal sense.

It is best to put the letter on your office letterhead, or as an alternative, personal letterhead. Be sure to include your return address (and email), and sign your name.

Please send a “blind copy” of your email to the IDS office – [email protected] – or send your letter by mail to our administrative office:
Illinois Dermatological Society
10 W. Phillip Rd., Suite 120
Vernon Hills, IL 60061

If you have any personal relationships with Illinois State Senators or Representatives, let us know. Personal relationships in legislative advocacy are highly important! Contact the IDS if any senators or representatives are friends, neighbors, patients, etc.

Your Senators and Representatives

Following are the home and office addresses we have listed for you in our database, along with the corresponding Senate and House districts. You can quickly look up your legislators’ contact information by going to : www.ILGA.gov


Home Senate district: 09 Office Senate district: 26
Home Representative district: 017 Office Representative district: 051800-838-3627847-680-1666
Fax: 847-680-1682
[email protected]

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
How does eliminating markups hurt low income people? That makes no sense at all. It hurts the derms and obgyn incomes.

Here is the line that really sums up their real position:
" Insurance companies have reduced payments to doctors, and this will cut money used for overhead even more."

The MARKUPS from lab testing are a good source of income and they don't want to lose it.

Some jobs might be created in illinois if the physicians quit using out of state laboratories that seduced them with low client pricing.
 
The fact that this is happening in the CAP's home state should be embarrassing, but it really isn't.

The CAP makes money if they let this die. Most of their funds come from accreditation procedures, not from membership.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Sorry but that's Bull Over9000. Put your thinking "CAP" on.

Seriously, CAP funding would not change a cent. Labs don't go out business because of direct billing laws. Stupid kickbacks used as laboratory business model does. And yes, thousands clinicians that now get a free lunch at the expense of the public will end.

CAP has supported these measures vigorously in every state they can. The legislation has been very helpful in Arizona. The work was supported by the Arizona Path Society and CAP.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Lol.

"Hurts low income people" - Hurts a handful of high income people much more. Left unsaid is that these practices don't treat a ton of low income people because they don't take medicaid. And the low income patients they do treat won't see any change in their treatment.
"cut money for overhead" = in order to preserve our salaries, we will have to fire lower paid people. We could take less money and employ these people, but we're not going to do that!
"hurts thousands of derms,uro, gi, etc and only helps 500 pathologists" - don't forget all the people that hospitals and labs would hire if they got this business back. So it's kind of a wash now, isn't it?
"overhead costs associated with sending specimens to an outside lab" = no one is going to pay me to collect specimens anymore, thus I don't profit from it.
"move millions of dollars in tax activity to out of state labs and non-profit hospitals" = I'm going to get paid less, and you'll get less taxes from me. Screw the local hospitals!

This would be such a farce if it wasn't such serious business. Amazing that it is "unfair" that the state would take away their ability to (over)bill for things they don't even do. Gee, I guess that is unfair! If I was getting paid a fee for every procedure done that results in a biopsy, in addition to the biopsy fee, I might think that is unfair too if they wanted to take it away.
 
Top