Don’t overly politicize Fed Reserve

It is impossible to divorce politics entirely from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Individual members have political philosophies.

The institution itself, often regarded as the fourth branch of the federal government, has tense relations with the administration, or Congress, or both.

And its policies inevitably highlight the eternal tensions between consumers and the banking industry from which most Fed governors come, between labor and capital, and all of the subdivisions within the vast American economy.

But ever since the Fed’s creation in 1913 to help standardize and stabilize the economy, presidents mostly have striven to avoid overtly politicizing the Fed.

In recent times, for example, three presidents have reappointed chairmen who had been appointed by their predecessors — Ronald Reagan chose Paul Volcker; Bill Clinton chose Alan Greenspan and Barack Obama retained Ben Bernanke.

Now, however, President Donald Trump has blamed the Fed for almost any negative economic news, even though the 10-year expansion following the Great Recession has continued under his and the current Fed’s stewardship.

And the administration has nominated Club for Growth founder Stephen Moore, and has floated nominating former Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, for 14-year terms on the 12-member Fed board. Moore’s record is dubious. He predicted incorrectly that Fed interest rate cuts and “quantitative easing” following the Great Recession would drive inflation to unmanageable levels.

He was a key adviser on former Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback’s disastrous tax cuts.

Cain advocated a series of bizarre theories during his presidential run, including his farcical “9-9-9” tax plan and a call to return the country to the gold standard.

Neither man deserves confirmation on their records. Their political activism adds to the case for the Senate to reject them. — The Scranton Times-Tribune, The Associated Press

Surprise billing

A local resolution to one of the nastiest aspects of American health care — “surprise billing” — should point state legislators to a broader solution.

Surprise billing occurs when a patient who believes he is covered, but receives multiple services from multiple providers, receives a bill from a doctor or hospital who was out of the insurer’s network.

One of the most common sources of surprise billing is the hospital emergency room. Hospitals often contract with outside groups for physician services in emergency rooms. So a patient might be covered for ER facilities and nursing services, but not for treating doctors who work for a different employer.

Recently, Geisinger Community Medical Center in Scranton and Emergency Services PC, of Dunmore, agreed to a new contract under which the emergency services provider will accept the same insurances as those accepted by the hospital, thus eliminating surprise billing.

And surprise billing is just one problem that arises for patients from business relationships between medical providers and insurers. Northeast Pennsylvania has experienced many cases where some medical groups suddenly have been rendered “out of network” by insurers, often disrupting the continuity of care for long-time patients.

That is a major element of a dispute in Western Pennsylvania between the University of Pittsburgh Medical System, the largest health care system in the state, and Highmark, the largest health insurer.

Amid the increasing pace of mergers of health care systems and between health care systems and insurers, state lawmakers finally should protect consumers’ interests by requiring all health care providers to accept any valid health insurance.

The state also should establish an arbitration panel to handle payment disputes between insurers and providers.

People with health insurance should not be denied care. State lawmakers can cure not only surprise billing, but basic access to care. — The Citizens’ Voice, The Associated Press