The "Health ACCESS Act" amends the Social Security Act to create exceptions for certain payments to online platforms that help patients find healthcare providers, ensuring these platforms operate transparently and don't steer patients based on financial incentives.
Bill Cassidy
Senator
LA
The "Health ACCESS Act" amends the Social Security Act to create an exception to anti-kickback rules, allowing healthcare providers to pay online platforms for listing services without violating the law. This exception applies if the platform meets specific conditions, including not steering patients based on payment, not offering medical services, and disclosing financial relationships with providers. The goal is to facilitate consumer access to healthcare information and self-scheduling.
Booking Your Doc Online? New Bill Allows Platforms to Charge Fees, Raising Questions About Steering
This bill, the "Health ACCESS Act," tweaks the rules around healthcare kickbacks. Specifically, it carves out an exception to Section 1128B of the Social Security Act, which normally prohibits payments that could influence patient referrals. The change would allow healthcare providers (like doctors or clinics) to pay fees to websites or apps that list provider information and offer online appointment scheduling.
The Deal with Digital Directories
So, what does this mean for you when you're searching online for a new dentist or specialist? The idea is to make it easier for these helpful websites – called "information service providers" in the bill – to operate and potentially offer more robust services. However, there are strings attached. These platforms can't rig the game by ranking doctors higher just because they pay more. They also aren't allowed to offer medical advice, guarantee treatment, share your contact info unless you pick a specific provider, arrange rides, or aggressively market to you via calls or texts if you haven't opted in.
Reading Between the Lines: Safeguards and Potential Snags
The legislation tries to keep things fair. Payments from providers to platforms must be set in writing beforehand, reflect "fair market value" for the listing or scheduling service, and not be based on how much business the provider gets from Medicare or other federal programs. Platforms also have to clearly tell users about their financial ties to the providers listed and use objective criteria for including providers. The goal is transparency and consumer choice. But terms like "fair market value" can be tricky to pin down, potentially opening the door for platforms to subtly favor higher-paying clients despite the rules. Will the required disclosures be obvious enough to actually inform your choice, or buried in the fine print?
Real-World Impact: Convenience vs. Cost
On the plus side, this could lead to better, more user-friendly online tools for finding and booking healthcare appointments – a definite win for busy people juggling work and life. Providers get another way to reach potential patients. However, there's a potential downside. If platforms rely heavily on provider fees, smaller clinics or independent doctors might not be able to afford prominent listings, potentially limiting visibility even if they offer great care. While the bill prohibits direct steering based on payment, the design and algorithms of these platforms could still subtly influence choices. It also raises the question of whether this adds another cost layer that indirectly filters down.