Bill Description: House Bill 788 would create a prior authorization exemption for medical practitioners who make certain career choices the state wishes to incentivize.
Rating: -1
NOTE: House Bill 788 is similar to House Bill 655, but expands the scope of the program it creates from just physicians to also include physician's assistants, and advanced practice registered nurses.
Does it violate the principle of equal protection under the law? Examples include laws that discriminate or differentiate based on age, gender, or religion, or that apply laws, regulations, rules, or penalties differently based on such characteristics. Conversely, does it restore or protect the principle of equal protection under the law?
Physicians are generally subject to certain prior authorization requirements for medically necessary services billed to Idaho Medicaid plans.
House Bill 788 would create Section 56-276, Idaho Code, to create a special exception for “an eligible practitioner who provides three hundred sixty (360) hours or more of preceptorship in a calendar year, with at least sixty percent (60%) of those hours occurring in a qualified rural or underserved area.”
Such practitioners would “qualify for a twelve (12) month exemption from prior authorization requirements for medically necessary services billed to Idaho medicaid plans.”
The bill would define an “eligible practitioner” as “a physician, physician's assistant, or advanced practice registered nurse practicing an eligible specialty.” It would define an “eligible specialty” as “family medicine, psychiatry, or obstetrics and gynecology.”
It would also limit how many practitioners could qualify, saying, “No more than one hundred (100) eligible practitioners from each eligible specialty shall receive an exemption from prior authorization requirements pursuant to this section per year.”
The bill’s statement of purpose lays out the reason for this concept, saying, “The legislation is intended to encourage physician participation in training programs, strengthen Idaho's healthcare workforce pipeline, and improve access to care in rural and underserved areas.”
It is fair to ask if it’s necessary or worthwhile to make physicians jump through procedural hoops like seeking prior authorizations for medically necessary services billed to Idaho Medicaid plans, but that question should be evaluated on its own. It is wholly inappropriate to dangle the suspension of such requirements as a carrot to incentivize practitioners to make certain career choices that align with the preferences of the politicians and bureaucrats seeking to centrally plan the healthcare sector of the economy.
(-1)
