The New Jersey Association of Ambulatory Surgery Centers has initiated a letter writing campaign to request changes to Proposal 163, the new personal injury protection regulations proposed by the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance (DOBI), according to Jeffrey Shanton, chair, Advocacy & Legislative Affairs Committee, NJAASC.
The campaign comes just a few weeks after the New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company started its own letter writing campaign in support of Proposal 163.
"Our letter is not necessarily fighting against NJM; it is more about getting some of our key problems with the legislation out there, namely exclusion of procedures that are currently being performed in an ASC, and consumer's right to go anywhere, be treated by anyone, without any ramification," says Mr. Shanton.
The NJAASC is encouraging its members, physicians (particularly those who handle PIP cases) and patients (particularly those with PIP cases) to send the following comments to Robert J. Melillo, chief, legislation & regulation, for the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance (NJAASC members can visit the NJAASC online to participate through its website):
--
Robert J. Melillo, Chief
Legislation & Regulation
New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance
20 W. State St.
Trenton, NJ 08625
legsregs@dobi.state.nj.us
PRN 2011-163
I strongly urge the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance to change some of the terms of Proposal 163. While I recognize and support the need for reform, I believe that the proposed regulations are remiss in several key areas.
One of the primary reasons for this reform is to reduce the cost of PIP benefits for the consumer. Unfortunately, procedures routinely performed in an ASC setting are excluded, depriving consumers of the ability to choose the most cost effective, and efficient setting for their treatment. Exclusion of these procedures from being performed in ASCs would increase costs instead.
I believe that consumers should retain the ability to have their procedures performed wherever they choose, by a healthcare provider of their own choice, regardless of network participation, and without fear of a financial penalty.
Sincerely,
--
"If one of the cornerstone goals of this regulation is to reduce cost, then DOBI has missed a golden opportunity," Mr. Shanton says. "By irrationally excluding procedures currently and commonly performed in an ASC setting from said venue, the cost for these procedures will not be subject to any fee schedule, if performed in a hospital. An ASC is categorically the most cost effective and efficient setting for these procedures."
The commentary period on Proposal 163 closes Sept. 30.
More Articles Featuring NJAASC:
New Jersey Association of ASCs Announces 2011-12 Board
New Jersey ASC Licensing Bill Amended; NJAASC Applauds Revisions