DENVER – Colorado doctors and health care professionals from across all parts of the state provided hours of testimony voicing concerns about patients’ access to care under the proposed state government-run health insurance system outlined in House Bill 21-1232 during the first hearing before the House Health and Insurance Committee. Lawmakers should listen to the calls to slow down, allow for more analysis and work together to build on and improve what’s working in health care – not push forward with a flawed bill without considering alternative solutions.
 
Dr. Lonnie Loutzenhiser, Panorama Orthopedics & Spine Center: 

There will likely be a mass exodus of physicians providing high-quality care from the state of Colorado, which will ultimately decrease access to care, not increase. It will be difficult to recruit new physicians to the state of Colorado under those conditions in general, reimbursement from government set plans, such as Medicaid are insufficient to cover costs of care.

Patricia Johnson-Gibson, Healthcare Vice President, SEIU Local 105:

My fear is that it would create a situation where immediate layoffs and cuts would be required, which would truly impact our economy and more over thousands of families. This would be devastating for the health care industry…Cutting costs 20 to 30% just is unrealistic to us and we don’t feel that it’s fair.

Dr. Jeff Krawcek, Pediatrician, Colorado Permanente Medical Group:

This bill takes us backwards and doesn’t address quality or outcomes in any form. This proposal will also have a devastating impact on Colorado’s health care system. It will drive private health plans, physicians and hospitals out of the state. I’m not exaggerating when I say that Colorado’s medical community will shrink – shrink dramatically.

This may result in coverage, delays and gaps in rural communities and metro communities alike. In addition, Colorado will no longer be a destination for the best and brightest doctors to come and practice out of a medical school beyond sustainable payment model proposed in this bill will send physicians to other states and keep them away from Colorado.

Kelly Erb, Policy & Advocacy Manager, Colorado Rural Health Center:

We have significant concerns about the unintended consequences of this legislation and are worried that it might diminish access to the care it seeks to create. Either phase of the Colorado public option threatens access to rural health care.

We continue to hear it. This bill is intended to benefit rural hospitals. However, either phase of the bill has potential to do just the opposite.

Dr. Mark Johnson, Public Health Physician and President-elect Colorado Medical Society:

I personally worked in state and local public health for more than 30 years and fought for health access and equity for my entire career. Anyone in public health is also well acquainted with the popular concept of cutting resources while demanding the continued provision of services with apparently minimal concern for quality. Our nation’s initial public health response to the Coronavirus pandemic revealed how poorly that approach works.

I’d like to share some results of a CMS survey of both member and non-member physicians across Colorado. 83% of respondents are opposed to mandatory participation and 73% are opposed to provider rate setting. Respondents expressed grave concerns about…the impact of this legislation on physician burnout.

Jeannetta McCain, Licensed Practical Nurse at Kaiser Permanente East Denver Medical Offices and Executive Board Member, SEIU Local 105: 

As a 19-year nurse, I can appreciate what you all are trying to do with this bill in regards to cutting costs. However, because of the type of care we provide at Kaiser, this bill will greatly and negatively impact Kaiser causing us to lose business and a large part of our workforce.

 Dr. Rich Zane, Chief Innovation Officer, UCHealth and Chair, Department of Emergency Medicine at the University of Colorado School of Medicine:

The unrealistic targets in the bill will stifle UCHealth’s ability to educate and do research. Expanding health coverage and access to affordable and high quality care is a goal broadly shared by Coloradans, however, there’s a real danger of stifling that with this bill.

 Dr. Gary Ghiselli, President of the Colorado Orthopedic Society:

Washington’s really the only state that we have as far as a system that we can kind of say, they’ve tried the public option and they set it at 160% of Medicare. And still they’re having trouble finding physicians that want to participate.

…To me, the biggest concern is the decreased ability to recruit high quality, highly trained specialists here to take care of you. All of us, your parents, your kids, it’s going to be harder. We’re already 43rd on the reimbursement rate…I think the way it’s drafted right now, I think it’s designed to fail. It’ll fail physicians, and I think it’ll fail Coloradans.

Dr. Patrick Pevoto, Colorado Medical Society:

Mandatory participation in the public cost option with threats of sanctions against my license would make the already difficult task of recruiting and retaining positions even more daunting. No other state requires mandatory participation in commercial insurance plans, and the same is true for Medicare and Medicaid.