Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act: How Our State Can Protect Patients' Rights

ALEC's Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act
How Your State Can Protect Patients' Rights


Press Release - State Legislators Last Line of Defense Against ObamaCare



In December 2008, ALEC's Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act became model legislation. The model language mirrors Arizona Proposition 101, which was narrowly defeated in 2008.



ALEC's Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act protects the rights of patients to pay directly for medical services, and it prohibits penalties levied on patients for declining participation in a particular health plan.



The Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act, which was recently the subject of a front-page New York Times article, has already been filed or prefiled in 35 states—Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Most notably, Arizona's HCR 2014, a revised version of the ALEC model, will be put on the ballot in 2010.



Lawmakers in an additional five states—Montana, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Texas, and Utah—have publicly announced their intentions to file the legislation. A citizen-led initiative has also been announced in Colorado.





California: (0 active)
Connecticut: (0 active)
Hawaii: (0 active)
Maine: (0 active)
Massachusetts: (0 active)
Montana: (0 active; 1 announced)
Nevada: (0 active)
New York: (0 active)
North Carolina: (0 active; 1 announced)
Oregon: (0 active)
Rhode Island: (0 active; 1 announced)
Texas: (0 active)
Utah: (0 active; 1 announced)
Vermont: (0 active)

Source: American Legislative Exchange Council

As anti-freedom health policy—such as an individual mandate, an employer mandate, and the "public plan"—surface at the state and national levels, ALEC's Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act has become an essential tool in securing the rights of patients to make their own health care choices.


Ensuring Access to Health Services—Without Waiting Lists

When consumers control the dollars, they make the decisions. On the other hand, a single-payer health —which forces patients to enroll in a one-size-fits-all plan with rich benefits and weak cost-sharing—will cause spending to skyrocket and policymakers to ration care as a cost-containment measure.



Look at what's happened in New Zealand, where breast cancer patients were blocked from accessing the lifesaving drug Herceptin—because it cost too much. Or think about brain injury patients in Canada—a country that ranks 19th among 26 reporting OECD nations in access to CT scanners.



Under a socialized medicine scheme, many patients will suffer, and some will die on a waiting list. Patients don't deserve that kind of treatment. ALEC's Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act will prevent patients from being enrolled in a single-payer health system that will simultaneously pay for everyone's health care and limit access to it.



Protecting the Doctor-Patient Relationship

ALEC's Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act ensures a person's right to pay directly for medical care. Single-payer systems, like in Canada, make it illegal for citizens to go outside the government's health care plan and contract for their own medical services. Cost overruns require most single-payer plans to restrict patient choices, and instead mandate an "evidence-based" treatment schedule that standardizes care.



ALEC's Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act ensures that patients—not government officials—should decide which doctor to see, what treatments to get, and whether or not to get a second or third opinion.



Preventing Costly, "Free" Universal Coverage

States should heed the painful lessons set by Wisconsin's high-cost universal health plan. In 2007, that state proposed—and rejected—a single-payer health plan for its citizens. The Wisconsin plan would have required all citizens to drop their private health coverage and instead enroll in a state-administered plan. Financing the plan would have meant a $15.2 billion dollar tax increase—the largest tax increase ever enacted by any state. And the plan would have become more expensive every year—comprising nearly 40 percent of Wisconsin's budget in the first year alone.



With ballooning budget deficits, states can't afford costly, "free"-in-name-only universal health coverage. ALEC's Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act will save taxpayers from crippling, health-related tax hikes and budget cuts.



Guarding Against Mandates That Don't Work

ALEC's Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act would block legislation that imposes costly, bureaucratic penalties for choosing to obtain or decline health coverage. This provision strikes at the heart of an individual mandate—implemented in Massachusetts and elsewhere—that penalize individuals and businesses for failing to purchase health insurance.



The Massachusetts example is particularly instructive for states facing an individual mandate. Three years into the mandate, Massachusetts still hasn't achieved 100% coverage—in fact, the Bay State still has more than 200,000 uninsured residents. Many of the uninsured were exempt from the mandate because coverage was too expensive. Over half of those who did get insurance got fully- or partially-subsidized coverage, courtesy of Massachusetts taxpayers.



What's worse, health spending has increased by 42 percent in Massachusetts since the mandate was enacted; taxpayers, doctors, and hospitals are facing increased taxes and fees; and patients are finding it hard to see a doctor.



Simply put, ALEC's Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act would protect against intrusive mandates that just don't work.


http://www.alec.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=ALEC_s_Freedom_of_Choice_in_Health_Care_Act&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=12858