Voters Support the No Surprises Act
By Rep. Jan Schakowsky
In December 2020, the No Surprises Act was signed into law, finally putting an end to the egregious practice of sending “surprise” medical bills to consumers when they go to the hospital. For years, Americans would seek medical care, thinking that they were going to a facility that was within their insurance network. Then a surprise bill would show up. The numbers are staggering: one in five patients who go to the emergency room, have an elective surgery, or give birth in a hospital receive surprise bills, with average costs ranging from $750 to $2,600 per episode.
Despite attempts to convince consumers that the No Surprises Act would allow insurance companies to underpay hospitals and providers, and lead to closures and less access to care, new polling shows that consumers cannot be fooled. An overwhelming majority of voters— 89 percent— across all parties support the ban on surprise medical bills.
Eighty percent of voters also agree that the legislation was the right step towards standardizing rates for medical procedures to lower prices and the cost of health insurance coverage for patients.
Only 10 percent of voters believe the lie that the law unfairly decreases the power of health care providers to negotiate the costs of treatment, or that insurance companies will use this as a reason to underpay hospitals. Why, then, are hospitals and private interest groups continuing their efforts to overturn the Congressional intent of this pro-patient, pro-consumer legislation? It’s not hard to guess.
Recently, a federal judge in Texas overturned a key component of the No Surprises Act. The court struck down important language to ensure that providers are not overpaid for services and that consumers are protected. If hospitals and provider groups get their way, it could lead to higher premiums for consumers.
As Energy & Commerce Chairman Pallone said, “These lawsuits endanger patient protections and will raise costs for consumers. This decision ignored the clear letter and intent of the No Surprises Act. It is [a] vast overreach by the district court and should be appealed immediately.” If this ruling prevails, patients and access to care will suffer, and private equity and out-of-network providers will be laughing their way to the bank. Patients must be protected against private interests. The appeals court must right this wrong. The intent was clear, and so is the data.