BILL ANALYSIS |
C.S.H.B. 3550 |
By: Muñoz, Jr. |
Insurance |
Committee Report (Substituted) |
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Interested parties have expressed concern that vision plan companies are harming small business optometrists and their patients by improperly interfering with the doctor-patient relationship. The parties assert that some of these companies require optometrists to disclose confidential medical diagnoses of their patients in order for the optometrist to remain in compliance with plan rules. The parties are concerned that these companies then use this information to market the companies to purchasers at the expense of patient privacy. Furthermore, the parties report that some vision plan companies also require optometrists to use an optical laboratory the vision plan owns, even when the optometrist knows that a different lab can produce glasses for a patient more quickly, at a lower price, and with better craftsmanship and quality control.
The parties point out that current state law prohibits manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers of ophthalmic goods from controlling certain aspects of an optometrist's judgment or practice, which protects patients by preventing these entities from improperly attempting to influence the optometrist. However, as vision plan companies have begun to own manufacturing, wholesale, and retail operations in the eye care industry, the parties contend that the prohibition needs to be updated to specifically include vision plans. C.S.H.B. 3550 seeks to address these issues.
|
||||||||||||
CRIMINAL JUSTICE IMPACT
It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly create a criminal offense, increase the punishment for an existing criminal offense or category of offenses, or change the eligibility of a person for community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision.
|
||||||||||||
RULEMAKING AUTHORITY
It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution.
|
||||||||||||
ANALYSIS
C.S.H.B. 3550 amends the Insurance Code to prohibit a managed care plan from directly or indirectly controlling or attempting to control the professional judgment, manner of practice, or practice of an optometrist or therapeutic optometrist; from employing an optometrist or therapeutic optometrist if part of the optometrist's or therapeutic optometrist's duties involves the practice of optometry or therapeutic optometry; from paying an optometrist or therapeutic optometrist for a service not provided; from restricting or limiting an optometrist's or therapeutic optometrist's choice of sources or suppliers of services or materials; or from requiring an optometrist or therapeutic optometrist to disclose a patient's confidential or protected health information unless the disclosure is authorized by the patient or is permitted without authorization under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 or under statutory provisions providing exceptions to the requirement that a covered entity be authorized to disclose nonpublic personal health information before disclosing such information.
C.S.H.B. 3550 establishes that the prohibition against a managed care plan paying an optometrist or therapeutic optometrist for a service that is not provided does not prohibit the use of capitation as a method of payment. The bill establishes that the prohibition against a managed care plan restricting or limiting an optometrist's or therapeutic optometrist's choice of sources or suppliers of services or materials does not restrict or limit a managed care plan's determination of specific amounts of coverage or reimbursement for the use of network or out-of-network suppliers or laboratories. The bill requires its provisions to be liberally construed to prevent managed care plans from controlling or attempting to control the professional judgment, manner of practice, or practice of an optometrist or therapeutic optometrist.
|
||||||||||||
EFFECTIVE DATE
September 1, 2015.
|
||||||||||||
COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL AND SUBSTITUTE
While C.S.H.B. 3550 may differ from the original in minor or nonsubstantive ways, the following comparison is organized and formatted in a manner that indicates the substantial differences between the introduced and committee substitute versions of the bill.
|
||||||||||||
|