Vermont House Health Care Committee Chairman Steve Maier is proposing legislation that would not allow hospitals to allocate funds for advertising or marketing in the future. Maier believes that advertising is actually increasing health care costs for consumers.
According to the Burlington Free Press, Maier cited non-profit hospitals, which he argues should not have to compete and thus has no need to advertise. Still, non-profits still needs to attract patients to stay in business.
Opponents to the proposal also see problems with what constitutes advertising and marketing, unintended consequences of banning advertising and if the ban restricts hospitals’ right to freedom of speech.
Cheryl Hanna, a constitutional law professor at Vermont Law School, feels the proposal violates basic constitutional rights. She points out that the law requires a “compelling reason and narrow focus “ of why hospitals should not advertise and Maier’s proposal might not be enough. On the other hand, if the legislation can prove that banning advertising would reduce health care costs, then it complies.
The article also points out that some of Vermont’s hospitals advertise because the hospitals hold health-care lectures and programs that are available to the public. Without advertising, residents would be unaware of programs that they could take advantage of and use. Other health care providers are small and need to advertise as a way to compete against larger, well-known hospitals.
And of course, many economists argue that advertising drives competition, promotes awareness of effective programs and actually reduces costs.
It sounds like Vermont still needs more evidence the bill will result in lower health insurance and health care costs for consumers.