This story was originally published on mynorthwest.com.
Washington lawmakers are debating a bill that would allow heart patients to schedule non‑emergency procedures in outpatient clinics instead of hospitals.
Supporters said patients could be seen sooner and pay less, while critics said spreading procedures across more sites could hurt the quality of care.
Dr. Rick Rosso, a cardiologist with the Pulse Heart Institute, testified in favor of the change.
“One of the biggest challenges that I’ve seen today is our limited hospital capacity,” Rosso said. “This leads to delayed cardiac care for both our inpatients and our elective patients, which see a bottleneck in the hospital settings.”
Lisa Thatcher with the Washington State Hospital Association testified in opposition.
“Spreading PCI (percutaneous coronary interventions) across more sites can potentially dilute case volumes,” she said. “And volume is directly tied to provider proficiency and safety and outcomes.”
Pulse Heart Institute Cardiologist Dr. Mortada Shams argued that Ambulatory Surgical Facilities have the staffing and equipment to handle these procedures.
“It’s not about the building where the procedure is performed,” Shams said. “It’s about who is providing the care, how that care is delivered, and to whom.”
Patients could pay 35% to 50% less, supporters say
Supporters of House Bill 2545 said if the bill is passed, patients could pay roughly 35% to 50% less than they would in a hospital setting. But Thatcher said hospitals rely on the revenue from those procedures to help sustain their cardiology departments.
“The revenue from these procedures subsidizes the 24/7 emergency PCI capability in our on-site cardiology cath labs,” she said.
A public hearing on the bill was held before the House Committee on Health Care & Wellness on Friday.
No vote was taken.