BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 1365 Page 1 SENATE THIRD READING SB 1365 (Hernandez) As Amended June 16, 2016 Majority vote SENATE VOTE: 26-11 ------------------------------------------------------------------ |Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------| |Health |18-0 |Wood, Maienschein, | | | | |Bonilla, Burke, | | | | |Campos, Chiu, Gomez, | | | | |Roger Hernández, | | | | |Lackey, Nazarian, | | | | |Olsen, Patterson, | | | | |Ridley-Thomas, | | | | |Rodriguez, Santiago, | | | | |Steinorth, McCarty, | | | | |Waldron | | | | | | | |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------| |Appropriations |20-0 |Gonzalez, Bigelow, | | | | |Bloom, Bonilla, | | | | |Bonta, Calderon, | | | | |Chang, Daly, Eggman, | | | | |Gallagher, Eduardo | | SB 1365 Page 2 | | |Garcia, Holden, | | | | |Jones, Obernolte, | | | | |Quirk, Santiago, | | | | |Wagner, Weber, Wood, | | | | |Chau | | | | | | | | | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUMMARY: Requires a general acute care hospital to notify each patient scheduled for a service in a hospital-based outpatient clinic when that service is available in another location that is not hospital-based. FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee any costs to the California Department of Public Health to enforce this requirement are minor and absorbable (Licensing and Certification Fund). COMMENTS: According to the author, this bill is intended to notify patients when a hospital is scheduling them to receive services in an outpatient setting, that is not on the hospital campus, which charges a hospital facility fee. The author states that in many of these instances, these hospital-affiliated clinics are simply providing primary care services that could easily be performed in a physician's office. The author notes that patients often have no idea that the clinic where they are receiving care is part of a hospital, since it is miles away from the actual hospital campus, and are therefore getting care in a more expensive setting. The author also notes this has two significant consequences: 1) consumers may have higher out-of-pocket costs, particularly those patients served by a Preferred Provider Organization; and, 2) health insurance premiums will be driven up as a result of patients unwittingly, and unnecessarily, receiving care in more expensive settings. With the passage of the Patient Protection and SB 1365 Page 3 Affordable Care Act, we are now requiring everyone to purchase health insurance and it is incumbent upon policymakers to contain costs to keep insurance rates as affordable as possible. The author concludes this bill will at least make sure that patients are aware that they may face higher costs at these types of facilities, and gives them an option to seek care at a less expensive alternative location. Facility fees. Medicare rules have historically established the payment structure that is used throughout the insurance industry. Under Medicare's payment policies, when a service is provided in a physician's office, Medicare makes a single payment to the physician at Medicare's physician fee schedule "non-facility rate." When the service is provided in a hospital outpatient department (HOPD), however, Medicare makes two payments: one payment at the physician fee schedule "facility rate" and a second payment to the hospital at the hospital outpatient prospective payment system rate, often referred to as the facility fee. While the facility rate payment for physician services at an HOPD is a little lower compared to the non-facility rate paid at a doctor's office, when the two separate charges for services at an HOPD are combined, the total charge is higher for the same service. The argument for the higher payment rates for services in HOPDs is that these higher reimbursements are necessary to compensate for the additional costs associated with maintaining a hospital - costs such as maintaining an emergency room, more extensive equipment, and increased staffing. However, this facility fee can be added to bills even when the service is provided in a setting up to 35 miles away from the actual hospital, if the outpatient setting is on the hospital's license. In many of these cases, the hospital's outpatient clinics look nearly indistinguishable from a physician practice that is not associated with a hospital (and are not permitted to charge a facility fee). This has created a situation in which patients go to what they believe is simply a medical doctor's office, but are billed a much higher fee than expected. SB 1365 Page 4 GAO report and Medicare's new "site neutral" payment reform. The United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report in December 2015 titled "Increasing Hospital-Physician Consolidation Highlights Need for Payment Reform." According to this GAO report, Medicare expenditures for HOPD services have grown rapidly, and there have been questions raised about the extent to which this growth in spending can be attributed to services that were previously performed in physician offices shifting to HOPDs. The GAO report stated that "regardless of what has driven hospitals and physicians to vertically consolidate, paying substantially more for the same service when performed in an HOPD rather than a physician office provides an incentive to shift services." Corporate Practice of Medicine. Across the nation, the push for "site neutral" payment reform has been driven, in large part, by an escalation in hospital-physician consolidation, with hospitals acquiring physician practices, and then increasing charges due to the ability to charge HOPD rates. In California, however, this is mitigated by the ban on the corporate practice of medicine, which prevents corporations from practicing medicine, including the employment of physicians. However, there are a number of exceptions to the ban on hospital employment of physicians, established over the years through both statutory exemptions as well as case law. All teaching hospital systems are allowed to employ physicians, which includes the five University of California medical schools, as well as the three private medical schools at Stanford University, Loma Linda University, and the University of Southern California. Additionally, all 12 county-owned hospital systems are allowed to employ physicians. Other exemptions from the ban include nonprofit community clinics, health maintenance organizations, state agencies, and certain charitable institutions. SB 1365 Page 5 Analysis Prepared by: Lara Flynn / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097 FN: 0003875