DENVER—A bill aimed at barring health insurers from paying doctors to switch patients’ drugs was killed by the Senate Appropriations Committee on Monday amid fears it would also block companies from rewarding doctors for improving patient care.
The amended bill, based on a California law, would have banned health insurers, drug manufacturers and medical equipment makers from offering incentives for denying, reducing or delaying care.
It was backed by drug maker Pfizer and some patient advocate groups. It was opposed by insurers like Kaiser Permanente and AARP despite last minute changes to make it clear that it wouldn’t stop programs to improve patient care.
Kaiser Permanente lobbyist Susan Cox said the bill could have stopped her company, for example, from paying doctors for reducing the number of diabetes patients needing amputations by keeping close watch on patients through routine exams.
“We shouldn’t be seduced by a headline ‘Fight Kickbacks’,” Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield, said during earlier floor debate on the bill. Senators opposed to the bill succeeded in sending the bill to the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Opponents also criticized the bill because it wouldn’t prevent the less direct incentives drug manufacturers use to encourage doctors to buy their drugs, such as free dinner presentations to plug a drug they make.
Sponsor Sen. Paula Sandoval, D-Denver, said that was a legitimate business practice that shouldn’t be banned. However she said there had been reports of health insurance kickbacks and settlements in other states and passing the measure would protect against it happening in Colorado.
The Senate also voted 24-11 to give final approval to another measure (Senate Bill 246) that would allow retailers to sell a wide range of discounted prescription drugs. The bill, which heads to the House for a hearing, would change the state’s anti-monopoly law to say that overhead costs no longer have to be considered in calculating whether a retailer is selling below cost.
Rural lawmakers from both parties opposed it, fearing it could also be used to help large retailers edge out smaller stores in other areas besides drug sales.
