Why Won’t Rep. Brenda Carter Hold a Hearing on Senate Bills 530, 531 and 575?
It has been over four months since the Senate passed a package of bills (SB 530, 531 and 575) aimed at ending the Crisis in Care with bi-partisan support. These bills provided narrow solutions with a reasonable fee schedule for essential post-acute rehabilitation and long-term care services, as well as an adjustment to allow more autonomy and choice for families to provide direct care to their injured loved ones. Despite the testimony provided by providers, physicians, and family members, as well as the posthumous words of Brian Woodward, sharing the need for urgent passage, the bills have languished in the House Insurance and Financial Services Committee.
State Representative Brenda Carter, chair of the House Insurance and Finance Committee
While the Legislature was on winter break, several elected officials, including House Speaker Joe Tate and Governor Whitmer, made public comments, expressing an understanding of the need for legislative action and a commitment to getting it done. Unfortunately, public comments were also made by the Chair of the House Insurance and Financial Services Committee, Brenda Carter, expressing skepticism that the Senate bill package is the appropriate “vehicle” for the needed fix.
It appears that Chair Carter’s basis for making a unilateral decision to not allow hearings in her committee is based on the vague letter submitted by former insurance defense lawyer and current Director of the Department of Insurance and Financial Services (DIFS), Anita Fox, at the last moment in the Senate committee process. The letter, which reads more like a press release by the insurance lobby than legislative testimony by a state department, uses broad language to express their opposition to the bills – warning of increased insurance premiums and an impact on drivers’ ability to purchase auto insurance. However, the letter did not provide any details on what aspects of the bills would do so and what objective data was used to reach such conclusions.
This is precisely why further public hearings on these bills are appropriate and necessary. DIFS needs to be held accountable and answer specific questions such as:
What specific language/provisions in the bills will “significantly impact…auto insurance premiums paid by more than seven million drivers across the state”?
How much would the MCCA per-vehicle assessment fee be increased?
What specific language/provisions in the bills would “disproportionately affect” drivers that choose lower levels of PIP because they will “exhaust their PIP medical coverage limits much more quickly”?
Setting aside the MCCA fee increase, what specific language/provisions of the bill lead to “increase insurance rates”?
What specific level of increase in insurance rates will occur that will “lead to more uninsured drivers and less competition in the insurance marketplace”?
What is meant by “broad-brush reimbursement rate increases”?
How do they define “a narrower solution” to address concerns over access to care?
Are there aspects of these bills (if other provisions are removed) that meet this definition?
Furthermore, crash survivors, families, and care providers should have the opportunity to elaborate on the devastating impact of an arbitrary 50% cut in reimbursement and hourly limits on family-provided care. They should also be asked more questions about the urgent need for solutions and the relief the proposed policies in the Senate bills would bring.
Instead, it appears that DIFS and their collaborative partner, the Insurance Alliance of Michigan (IAM), have convinced Chair Carter that she must not allow further public dialogue and debate – and certainly not allow a vote on the bills.
Why not allow a vote on the bills?
One must ask the question ‘why?’. Why is there continued pushback against any proposed amendments to the auto no-fault reform law that has caused the well-documented Crisis in Care for crash survivors? The continued rhetoric has been that any changes will result in increased insurance premiums. But the reality is any perceived reductions in rates have been a mirage built on, at best, manipulated data and, at worst, blatant misinformation. The fact is that premiums have been on the rise over the last two years – well before any Court decision and without any legislative amendments. In 2023 alone, DIFS approved nearly $1.5 billion in rate increases. This underscores the need for further questioning of their concerns over increased premiums resulting from the proposed policies of the Senate bills.
The Department’s opposition partner, IAM, also continues their irresponsible rhetoric. In a recent press release, they once again labeled the current fee schedule as “reasonable.” Their contention remains that the reimbursement system – which has caused unnecessary turmoil and suffering for thousands of people and continues to cause medical providers to shut their doors to crash survivors – is perfectly reasonable. We’ve already taken a deeper dive into this matter. And they continue to tout savings – all the while, Michigan drivers feel no significant relief from the burdens of high auto insurance.
IAM and their partners continue their campaign against legislative solutions that will lead to the access to care their own consumers are expecting when they contract with them for lifetime benefits. They have no intention of working on a legislative fix to ensure their consumers are taken care of – instead, they take every opportunity to oppose proposed solutions without offering any alternatives. For example, one of their talking points with legislators – which has also been echoed by DIFS – is that the post-acute solutions in Senate Bill 530 are “made up” rates by the medical providers despite the fact that that testimony was provided in the Senate committee regarding the methodology and systematic approach to establishing a fee schedule that meets the intent of the law. But, for the sake of argument, let’s say the rates in the proposed law are “made up” (without a defensible, honest, and well-thought-out approach); the next question should be – are the rates reasonable?
The reason IAM does not want further hearings on these bills is because they know the answer to this question – a resounding ‘yes’! The rates for services such as home healthcare aide, in-home nursing, and residential treatment align with what other payer sources (Veterans Affairs, Workers Compensation, and Medicaid, for example) reimburse. IAM and DIFS would rather have closed-door meetings, without the presence of the provider community, to dismiss the method and product for post-acute services than have Chair Carter’s committee hear more about the proposed legislation.
Making an informed decision
This is how we got into this mess in the first place – an abrupt ending to the public hearing process in favor of closed-door meetings without all impacted stakeholders. And this is precisely the reason why the House Insurance and Financial Services Committee should hold hearings on the Senate bills. The committee members deserve to hear more about the opposing perspectives in order to make an informed decision as to whether to vote the bills out of their committee for further debate and a vote on the House floor.
Chair Carter and her committee have been educated on the Crisis in Care and the need for urgent action in previous testimony (starting at the 49-minute mark). Every day that goes by, about three more people will be injured in a car crash that will require significant post-acute rehabilitation and care. However, since the bill was referred to the House chamber, the Michigan State Police estimate that nearly 1,000 people were seriously injured in car crashes. And every day that goes by, there will be more broken promises to Michigan drivers who contracted with their insurance company for certain levels of care. It is time to end the crisis in care and stop the scam!
There is no reason not to allow the Senate bills to move forward with more public discourse. The advocates who have fought for four years to get to this point and consistently brought forward reasonable solutions deserve the process to continue. If it does not, it is clear who is to blame: the powerful lobby arm of big auto insurance and those in Lansing who continue to partner with them.
Sincerely,
Tom Judd
Executive Director
