The May 16 article “Senators introduce surprise medical bill ban with arbitration” says, “A bipartisan Senate coalition made its long-awaited pitch to end surprise medical bills, with arbitration as a final resort if providers and insurers aren’t happy with proposed pay rates.”
It seems peculiar that the government thinks it is acceptable to indirectly set physician fees. I would ask by what acceptable logic a physician must accept a reimbursement rate from an insurance company with whom he or she has no relationship and no contract. Under what authority can this be done?
If it can be done to physicians then certainly it can be done to other individuals participating in what was once a free market. Certainly, lawyers, CEOs and others ought to have their pay set under the same arguments used to defend this intrusion into a physician’s market freedom.
It seems that the true underlying motivation here is to buy votes at the expense of sacrificing what little remains of market freedom for doctors.
Dr. Allan Dobzyniak