Careful Review of SB 300 Shows Unacceptable Outcomes for Patients and Taxpayers
The following is an opinion editorial from Mark A. Piasio, MD, MBA, president of the Pennsylvania Medical Society, in response to a Steven B. Larchuk, Esq, editorial appearing in the Harrisburg Patriot-News on May 6, 2007. Dr. Piasio is a practicing orthopedic surgeon from Dubois, Pa.
Attorney Steven B. Larchuk, representing the Health Education and Legislative Progress Fund of Pennsylvania, would like the Pennsylvania Medical Society to support SB 300. In a recent Patriot-News editorial he claims the Pennsylvania Medical Society has not reviewed his bill and has dropped the ball on healthcare reform. In fact, the Pennsylvania Medical Society has reviewed the bill and the identical bills that were introduced last session. We are always appreciative when alternative health care reform proposals are offered and encourage the dialogue.
When Attorney Larchuk writes about his bill, one could easily believe that he has the magic solution to all health care problems. His bill proposes socialized medicine through a single-payer health system and dangles certain changes to the legal system as a charm to bring doctors on board. He believes that his bill would produce happy patients, happy doctors, happy lawyers, and a happy public.
Only five senators in our legislature have signed onto his bill. Last session three Senators were sponsors. All of the sponsors are from one political party. Outside of those senators, it has little support in the Pennsylvania Senate. There’s no evidence of great support in the Pennsylvania House either, and the Governor has reported as well that there are no votes.
It is not difficult to understand why Attorney Larchuk’s socialized medicine bill has little support.
During a hearing before the Pennsylvania House Democrat Policy Committee on February 27, 2007, Attorney Larchuk said SB 300 would require $45 billion in funding. To find $45 billion, Attorney Larchuk suggests a new 10 percent payroll tax in addition to a 3 percent increase in personal taxes. But, those new taxes still aren’t enough to reach the $45 billion price tag that Attorney Larchuk has put on SB 300. The tort reforms suggested, though interesting, are probably not constitutional in our state.
Furthermore, a recent op-ed to the Patriot-News from The Fraser Institute, a Canadian research organization, suggests that socialized medicine in Canada has produced many negative outcomes. For example, the overall wait time for all services has increased every year and is now at 17.8 weeks. The average wait time to see a neurosurgeon is 31.7 weeks, while it takes on average 40.4 weeks to receive care from an orthopedic surgeon. Medical equipment in Canada is said to be old and obsolete.
While health care reform in Pennsylvania is long overdue, the Pennsylvania Medical Society doubts that the public will accept a steep tax increase to fund Attorney Larchuk’s $45 billion bill. Nor does the Pennsylvania Medical Society believe that rationing health care as seen in socialized medicine is acceptable care when a patient is suffering. The single payer concept would work best, in our opinion, at the federal level as a national solution, and is not really optimally viable in any one individual state. However, there are operational efficiencies in a single payer system, and we welcome these concepts whenever system reform is debated.
The Pennsylvania Medical Society is always thankful for new ideas, and we do recognize Attorney Larchuk’s efforts. However, we believe there are better alternatives to improve access to health care for those who can’t afford health insurance. Likely, as suggested in Governor Rendell’s plan, this should include a combination of government and private business efforts as well as personal ownership and responsibility.
The Pennsylvania Medical Society will continue to carry the ball in advocating for patient care, quality and safety, and a rational tort system. The medical society has been and will continue to be at the forefront of health care reform in Pennsylvania. But, at this time, we cannot support Attorney Larchuk’s plan of significant tax increases, health care rationing, and loss of personal choice.
Last Updated: 11/14/2007