Foes: Ballot issue on health insurance may raise costs

Opponents of a ballot issue concerning patient choices in health care said Tuesday that the proposed law would not increase freedom of choice and would end up raising costs of care.

Supporters of the law change immediately disputed those points.

South Dakota voters will decide the outcome on the issue, called Initiated Measure 17, in the Nov. 4 election.

The ballot describes IM17 as 'an initiated measure to require health insurers to include all willing and qualified health care providers on their provider lists.'

The South Dakota Chamber of Commerce, along with the Sanford and Avera health systems, spoke against the measure in a joint press conference that 29 people attended in the downtown public library in Sioux Falls.

Dr. Preston Renshaw, chief medical officer of the Avera Health Plan, said consumers already have the options the new law supposedly would create.

'I want to be able to choose my provider. And the answer is you can. You can do it today. You can do it tomorrow. You can do it whenever. We've always had that option,' Renshaw said.

Dr. Allison Suttle, chief medical information officer with Sanford Health, also advised a vote against IM17.

'If you vote no for 17, what you're gaining is the ability to choose the type of a plan that you want,' Suttle said. 'You're gaining the ability to have the health institutions really compete and then give you different prices for a health plan. So we're not all forced to choose just one health plan that's the more expensive plan. I can choose what I need for my family and someone else can choose if they want to go out of network, they can choose to do that. I don't have to supplement that. We can all make our own choices.'

David Owen, president of the state chamber, said health care is different from other decisions in a free market.

'Health care is not a marketplace ... like groceries or anything else. When people are making purchases in health care, they rarely are using their own dollars. We use group dollars. We use insurance. We use health management kinds of systems where we've contributed some. And then we have dollars available to us through a pool.'

Competition that helps hold down prices is not at the individual level, but at the pooled level through insured groups, he said.

'They're the ones that can ... create the financial incentive for people to go to those networks, which is how we achieve cost reduction,' Owen said. 'That's why IM17 is a threat, because it's going to sever that incentive, and at that point of negotiation, we're going to lose any reason at all for those negotiations to move forward because there will be no advantage to health care providers.'

In the audience Tuesday were representatives of two groups who afterward handed out statements supporting IM17.

Shannon McCoy, campaign manager for Yes On 17, said the ballot issue concerns freedom of choice and quality of care.

'You shouldn't have to change doctors because your job or insurance changes,' McCoy said in a prepared statement.

A representative from South Dakota State Medical Association, which backs IM17, issued a statement from Dr. Mary Milroy, a Yankton surgeon who is president of the group.

'The South Dakota Patient Choice ballot measure, if passed, will make it possible for patients to maintain an ongoing relationship with their physician, which is key to successful management of one's health,' Milroy said in the statement. 'Patients should have the right to make decisions regarding their health care, and that means selecting a physician who understands and treats their specific health care needs.'

South Dakota voters will approve or reject Initiated Measure 17 in the Nov. 4 election. Details:

Vote no on 17 website

Read or Share this story: http://argusne.ws/1pcm4BI