“Regardless of the bills proposed there is a need to address this issue. Indiscriminately charging a person for emergency or ancillary services at rates that are excessive is unethical especially in cases where the patient has no ability to render a decision.”

“Unfortunately, I have used emergency services such as ambulances and air transport for my infant son. The resulting bills came at a time of trauma and hardship. These bills were inappropriately timed and arrived when, mentally and emotionally, the family was not able to deal with insurance and investigation. We had to do it, however, since they amounted to over $1 million. During my fact-finding phone calls, I spent outrageous amounts of time on hold. It was immense, overwhelming and lacked empathy for the patient. I am grateful (extremely grateful!!) for the medical expertise which saved my son’s life, but I am confident that there is a more responsible way to approach billing and payment for these services.”

“It is nefarious to take advantage of someone in such a tenuous position as when they are in an emergency room. No, they cannot discuss their bill while they are receiving emergency services. They cannot shop around to find a better price or a provider who is in network. How could an ethical business charge people for these things?”

“I believe the surprise billing process is predatory in nature and preys on those unable and incapacitated to make decisions for themselves. No one is given an option in these billings, no prices are given, and “shopping around” isn’t an option. Asking the government to step in and tell this business to treat people fairly in this situation is reasonable and responsible.  Using a human tragedy or suffering as a means to a major profit line is not only irresponsible, but in my opinion almost criminal.”

“This is especially needed ASAP now! After an emergency hospitalization of 4 days, I ended up with over $200,000 in bills.  I could have filed bankruptcy as I was making around $28,000 per year and was already spending about $3,000 a year on co-pays.  But, I was able to make arrangements to make payments.  It took me 10 years, but I got them all paid off.”

“After reading about each of the five bills, HR 5800 seems to be the bill with the best approach. It draws on the successful aspects of the two largest state laws and, on paper at least, most effectively mitigates the drawbacks. Using the median price for insurers and indexing it to inflation makes good sense to me. Limiting IDR claims to bills $750+ will decrease the number of submissions while allowing specialties that cost less a seat at the table.”

“We are having this debate because the market has failed. Leaving all factors up to the market will result in more failure, so there needs to be some intervention with price controls. Middle-men and insurance companies are going to be driven by profit. Limiting unnecessary bureaucracy while allowing for arbitrators is a compromise that allows the market to work but has protection for the common man.”

“I feel that H.R. 5826 promotes more of a free market position. I am adamantly opposed to price fixing by government for anything.  This is the surest way to reduce availability of services.  If providers cannot have a say in what they can afford to provide a service for, they will indeed stop providing or the quality of those who continue to provide will decline.”

“We forget that emergency services are required to care for all and be available at all times. This is expensive. We need to make a distinction between normal healthcare and emergency services and realize their inherent value. If they aren’t paid fairly, there will be no more available to help.”

“Sometimes Federal government intervention makes a problem worse. (Law of Unintended Consequences applies.) This country is not a ‘one size fits all’ country.”