The main arguments against Initiated Measure 17, the "Any Willing Provider" law, appear to be that insurance salesmen need more freedom and that our costs will go up. The former just makes me laugh; the latter is up for debate.
But a press release from the Yes on 17 crew points me toward a recent Yankton Press & Dakotan article in which state medical association president Dr. Mary Milroy says there is no evidence that AWP laws raise costs...
Milroy said there’s a lack of evidence that prices would rise, based on the experience of other states that have implemented similar programs.
“The interesting thing is (those other states) have not seen any increase in cost,” she said. “The opponents to 17 have said that it will increase costs. I will say there really is no credible evidence to suggest that would happen. ... I really think some of the main opposition has come from the business aspects of medicine” [Rob Nielsen, "Choice or Chaos?" Yankton Press & Dakotan, 2014.10.17].
...and David Owen, Chamber of Commerce chief and IM 17 opponent, concedes the point:
Owen said while they haven’t found a concrete example of price hikes in other states that have implemented similar programs, he says the scale isn’t quite comparable.
“Half of the states are pharmacy-only — South Dakota has any willing provider for pharmacy costs,” he said. “Very few of the states would have as broad of ‘any willing provider’ as we have here. What gets interesting is we have not been able to find a smoking gun by finding another state and saying, ‘Their rates are higher now because they adopted ‘any willing provider’” [Nielsen, 2014.10.17].
If you're going to make a cost argument, you'd better have some examples. The IM 17 opponents' cost alarm is ringing more faintly all the time against the clear gain in medical choice (also known as freedom) for health insurance customers.