Senator Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford) has sponsored an amendment to the Senate health care bill expanding access to MassHealth. Increased access is, after all, the whole point of this exercise.
From Health Care for All’s email, the amendment would:
* Increase MassHealth eligibility for
parents from 133% to 200% of the Federal Poverty
Level.
* Provide MassHealth coverage for childless
adults with incomes up to 100% of the Federal
Poverty Level.
* Restore dental and vision benefits
for all adults enrolled in MassHealth.
* Restore
MassHealth coverage for legal immigrants.
I called Sen. Pat Jehlen’s office, and she’s already signed on to the amendment. Give your Senator a call (State House switchboard 617-722-2000) to nudge them towards including these things — at the very least!
Update: Also, the Senate passed some amendments to their bill yesterday. From the summary (pdf):
? Establishes more flexible requirements for insurance plans and creates incentives for insurers to provide coverage to the uninsured.
? Requires health plans to offer coverage to young adults up to age 25.
? Offers individuals a tax deduction for health savings accounts.
? Orders a study of the feasibility of requiring everyone to purchase health insurance.
? Expands subsidies for insurance for the self-employed and small business employees.
? Boosts Medicaid rates for hospitals, health centers and doctors.
? Assesses large employers who do not offer health insurance to their employees the cost of any Free Care Pool services used by their employees.
? Assesses employees who decline offered health insurance the cost of any Free Care Pool services they use.
? Invests money recovered from employers and employees improperly burdening the Free Care Pool in a reinsurance pool to cover catastrophic costs for small-group and non-group consumers.
? Reforms Insurance Partnership to create Health Care Plus Program, which raises the program eligibility level to 300% of the federal poverty level.
? Creates a new Deputy Commissioner of Health Care Access at the Department of Insurance.
? Creates Health Care Quality Board and website to provide the public with unbiased comparisons of the cost and quality of the health care provided by different hospitals and providers.
? Requires hospitals to adopt voluntary safe staffing plans for interns, residents and fellows to reduce physician fatigue and address extremely long hours and shifts.
? Streamlines and expedites process for hospitals to acquire new technologies.
? Establishes consumer protections and other measures to promote purchase of long-term care insurance.
I prefer the Senate’s plan to the House and the Gov’ner since it doesn’t require citizens to buy health care, and I consider that requirement inappropriate.So, any changes to the Senate bill that expand coverage without making individuals required to purchase health care are great in my book.
That’s right, Stormy – actually requiring EVERYBODY to pay SOME PART of a UNIVERSAL plan would be wrong!BTW, remember this – if Montigny’s crackpot amendment passes, we LOST THE FEDERAL MATCHING FUNDS. So we get to pick up the whole tab.But that’s what Stormy wants, isn’t it?
Ah, but don’t forget – we gt at least ONE new state bureaucracy – Deputy Commissioner of Access – for all those unemployed MDC hacks to get a job in!
Hey there, WW, not content to troll Cape Cod Works, I see…Any proof to your contention that the Montigny amendment somehow scotches the federal bucks? That’s a serious question.
Would constituents please bug Sen. Steve Tolman. His office has not been cooperative at all. Allston-Brighton people need to say how important this is.
WW:First of all, it’s stomv. No ‘r’, and no ‘y’.Second of all, I’m quite liberal, but I do not believe the government should require individuals to enter into contractual agreements with private companies. There are no other instances I know of where this is done. Car insurance isn’t relevant, since the government doesn’t require somebody to own a car. I, for example, do not pay car insurance.I’d encourage everybody to buy health insurance, and I’d like to see Mass make it easier to do so. However, I believe it is fundamentally wrong to require people to enter contracts with private companies, and I couldn’t support any bill which made that requirement.Besides, so long as sales tax goes into general funds, and so long as general funds pay for parts of health care, everybody in Massachusetts is paying in one way or another. Sure, we’re talking vastly different amounts — but the lady living in public housing pays in far less then I do, and I pay in far less than the median household in my town of Brookline.And no, I don’t want to lose matching federal funds. MA already is a net payer of US taxes, and I certainly don’t want to exacerbate that situation.Maybe you’re in the market for a Jump to Conclusions Mat?
But the problem with not requiring people to buy insurance is the obvious adverse selection program. Having been out of MA (and stuck in a border state and now a red state) I am not all that familiar with any of the plans. But, it would seem to me that the best way to expand affordable access is to increase the size of the pool. Otherwise you end up with lots of unhealthy folks with skyrocketing premiums and relatively healthy people making the rational decision not to purchase insurance. Of course that just leads to formerly insured sick people being priced out of insurance and the problem starts all over again.BTW- stomv- love the Office Space reference.
Please do not confuse “universal insurance” with “universal, affordable access”. The two are not necessarily related. Justin– healthcare reform is not a “red/ blue” issue. Not when 60% of all medicaid dollars come from the federal government. Not when all of Medicare Part A funds come from the federal government. Not when 80% of all medicare part B funds come from the federal government. Not when all people with Tricare (ie. military) are paid for by the federal government.Suddenly increasing the pool from which you can get money does absolutely nothing to address the real issues in healthcare: how do you get the generally healthy (about 80%) of the population who spend 20% of the healthcare dollars to save for an emergency and how do you get the less healthy (about 20%) of the population who spend 80% of the healthcare dollars to utilize fewer resources.I strongly encourage you to bring this up in all discussions about healthcare policy. No answer to these questions equals no real plan.Also, check out The Healthcare Blog from Matthew Holt at http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/ and voice your opinion!
To answer what you may soon ask: “who is this rather lengthy post from?”–i am a community health nurse and long-time healthcare reform activist. 8 years ago our group, the Alliance to Defend Health Care, formed to unite the voices and advocacy of caregivers–health professionals from all disciplines–to work for fundamental health system reforms. i am currently the director of said group. and here is what we said recently about the legislature’s health reform proposals:Healthcare Reform Legislation Action Alert 11-11-05Voices of reason must be heard?call your elected officials and write aletter to your local paper and the Globe and Herald; choose what you can do. Sound the alarm for others to speak out too?PLEASE share this with colleagues, friends and family around the state. Make your calls early next week.Now that we at the Alliance to Defend Health Care have had time to begin analyzing the legislation and dialogue with others about it, we feelcompelled to sound an alarm. The health care legislation passed bythe Mass. House last week and the Senate on 11/9 containsimportant MassHealth eligibility expansions and restoration of previouslycut benefits, but it also contains some very alarming reform initiatives.We who work on the front-lines of health care delivery across the statemust speak up about the harm that will be done if changes are not made to the legislation. We must also give voice to the kinds of reform that are indeed needed to achieve universal coverage, affordibility and quality care for all. Details below in the form of talking points and a Letter to the Editor from Alice Rothchild, MD.When you call or write, introduce yourself as both a healthprofessional and a voter, that is a very powerful combination. To find outwho your state Senator and Rep are use this link:http://www.wheredoivotema.com/bal/myelectioninfo.phpStatehouse Switchboard for your Rep. and Sen.: 617-722-2000Same # can be used for House Speaker DiMasi, Senate President Traviglini, and Governor Romney.Preliminary critique of Legislation/ Sample talking points:1. While I support expanding MassHealth coverage to as many kids ANDadults as possible and restoring dental care and eyeglass benefits toMassHealth recipients, I am alarmed at other aspects of this legislation.2. It makes good economic sense for the business community as a whole and for our state?s economy to require employers who do not already provide insurance coverage for their workers pay an assessment, or tax, to help expand coverage to all. It is only fair that all must pay in. But this payroll tax must be enough to make it work; if many employers now spend 8-12% on insurance, then instituting a tax of only 5-7% will encourage employers to drop coverage?a very bad incentive. It is right to make all employers pay their fair share?a minimum of 8 % payroll.(side note: Getting all employers to contribute to health insurance couldbe a crucial step toward transitioning to a state-based streamlinedfinancing ?Medicare for All? model where coverage is efficiently andfairly funded thru individual and employer taxes.)3. I am alarmed?and outraged?that you are considering loosening insurance regulations to promote the sale of stripped-down benefits plans with high deductibles and co-pays. And then to legally require that individuals and families purchase these policies or be labeled as ?free-riders? to be reported to the state by employers and possibly have their wages held is an outrage.4. Forcing people to buy a health insurance product which they thencannot afford to use is obscene. Why are you not instead addressing where the 39% of every health care dollar that is NOT SPENT ON HEALTH CARE is going to, and REQUIRING that that figure be reduced to 10%? (source: Dec. 2002 LECG Final Report to the Legislature on Consolidated Health Care Financing in MA)5. Health insurance coverage must remain comprehensive with eachstakeholder group required to pay their fair share AND to demonstrate good stewardship of health care resources; cost-shifting to individuals and families is NOT the answer. 6. “Consumer-driven” or “consumer-directed” healthcare is really”consumer-getting-shafted” healthcare reform and the people ofMassachusetts will not tolerate this being considered as a viable option.FYI if you missed this. Finally, a political leader speaking truth to power on healthcare: On 11/2/05 Secretary of State William F. Galvin, a potential Democratic candidate for governor next year was quoted in a Boston Globe article where he… “criticized the [legislation] yesterday,calling it short-sighted and saying it catered to insurance companies.Galvin said a more thorough overhaul would have committed a long-term investment of public funds and probed more deeply into the HMOs that he said had too much influence in the bill’s assembly. ”I’m not happy with it,” said Galvin, ”I think it’s more an insurance bill than a healthcare bill. . . . It really does nothing to address the parallel problem, which is that of people who do have coverage and watch their premiums increase while their coverage is shrinking.”.” Right on, Secretary.Visit the Alliance’s website for more on this legislation (side by side comparison of house and senate plans done by Mass. Law Reform Inst. to be posted 11/14), including who the 6 Legislators will be that comprise the “Conference Committee” to write the final legislation.