Minnesota Senate Bill SF1105

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/6/25
• Refer: 2/6/25

Caption

A resolution to restore patient protection laws; urging certain federal agencies to repeal waivers of antitrust, anti-free-splitting, and anti-self-referral laws and urging an amendment to the federal law to require that clinics and hospitals have freedom to contract or not contract for payment contingent on the volume of orders for care

Summary

SF1105 is a Minnesota Senate resolution that urges federal action to reverse certain health care payment and contracting arrangements that the author describes as waivers of antitrust, anti-fee-splitting, and anti-self-referral laws. The resolution calls on the President to direct the Federal Trade Commission and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to repeal those waivers, and it asks Congress to amend federal law so clinics and hospitals can choose whether to contract for payment arrangements tied to the volume of orders for care. The measure is framed as a patient-protection memorial and argues that current federal waiver policies encourage consolidation, collusion, referral-based profit sharing, and care rationing. It also directs the Minnesota Secretary of State to transmit the memorial to federal officials and Minnesota’s congressional delegation, making the bill a formal expression of the Legislature’s position rather than a change to Minnesota’s own regulatory code.

Impact

Because SF1105 is a memorial resolution, it does not directly amend Minnesota statutes or create state-level regulatory requirements. Its practical effect is to formally urge federal agencies and Congress to change Medicare-related waiver policies and federal law governing antitrust, fee-splitting, self-referral, and value-based payment arrangements in health care. The resolution is aimed at clinics, hospitals, physicians, managed care organizations, insurers, and accountable care organizations that participate in these federal payment structures.

Sentiment

The available context suggests the bill is strongly supportive of traditional patient-protection rules and skeptical of managed care and accountable care organization payment models. The resolution’s language is highly critical of federal waivers and portrays them as harmful to patients and professional ethics. No committee testimony or vote record is provided, so there is no evidence here of bipartisan support or organized opposition from the legislative process itself.

Contention

The main point of contention is the bill’s premise that federal waivers of antitrust, anti-fee-splitting, and anti-self-referral rules enable collusion, rationing, and conflicts of interest in health care. Supporters of the resolution appear to favor stricter limits on payment arrangements tied to referrals or volume, while opponents of this view would likely argue that such waivers support coordinated care, cost control, and value-based payment innovation. The resolution specifically targets accountable care organizations, managed care organizations, insurers, and federal agencies responsible for Medicare policy.