Tuesday, November 30, 2004

HEALTH ACCESS UPDATE
Tuesday, November 30th, 2004

HEALTH ADVOCACY EVENTS UPCOMING

• Post-Prop 72 Message Forum on December 17th
• Health Actions Tomorrow, December 1st; Conferences This Week

As health consumer advocates begin to plan the next two years, with a new two-year legislative session, a new budget that will include "Medi-Cal redesign" and California Performance Review proposals, and a renewed conversation about health reform, the calendar is filling up.

Health Access is continuing to maintain the Health and Budget Advocacy Calendar, which includes information about public events of interest to health advocates, sponsoring by a range of organizations. You can see the calendar at:
http://www.health-access.org/calendarhome.htm

The calendar is not only for those who are interested in joining and attending these events, but also to help your organization's planning in picking a date for its own events, to prevent scheduling conflicts. You can request that your event by publicized on the calendar by going to our website at:
http://www.health-access.org/calendar_request.htm

Below are some events of note. Check out the Health and Budget Advocacy Calendar for other events, including conferences this week sponsored by the California State Rural Health Association, and the California Association of Public Hospitals, respectively.

* Post-Prop 72 Forum on Message and Health Reform: Health advocates are invited to a special forum to learn the lessons about messaging from the Proposition 72 campaign. The forum will be on FRIDAY, DECEMBER 17th, at 10am, at the Sacramento Convention Center.

"Voters, Values, and Health Reform: An Applied Message Forum for Health Advocates" will feature consultants and leaders from the Proposition 72 campaign, including Larry Grisolano from The Strategy Group and David Binder of David Binder Research. The forum will go over post-election polling to discuss who voted for the measure and why, the focus groups that helped shape different ways to talk about the health crisis, and the advertising that was and was not used. The forum is intended to help advocates become better equipped in future efforts on health reform.

Space limited and registration required. To register: contact Louise Jones, Health Access Foundation, ljones@health-access.org, or 916-442-0923.

* Major December 1st Actions on Hospital Quality: Nurses, hospital workers, and other health providers will be conducting a one-day strike, rally, march, and picket tomorrow to protest Governor Schwarzenegger's attack on safe staffing nurse ratios for hospitals, to raise the standards for patient care, and to get Sutter Health to adopt reforms already in place at other hospitals designed to address serious staffing and worker related issues.

A rally will take place at 11am on the North Steps of the State Capitol, hosted by the California Nurses Association. A march will go from the Capitol at 12noon to Sutter General Hospital (L St. between 28th & 29th, near Sutter's Fort). A picket will hosted by Service Employees International Union, Local 250. For more information, or download this flyer from CNA:
http://cna.radicalfusion.net/assets/1104_RatioRally_Flyer.pdf.

For more on the issues with Sutter Health, go to http://www.suttercorporatewatch.com/

* "Budget Allies" Meeting: Organizations concerned about budget cuts in health and other areas will meet to plan for next year, at a meeting on Tuesday, December 14 at 10 a.m. at the conference room of the California Labor Federation, 1127 11th Street, Suite 425.

* California Working Families Policy Summit: This conference is scheduled for Friday, January 7, at the Sacramento Convention Center. This half-day event is an important opportunity to preview policy proposals on a host of issues affecting Californa's working families, including health and welfare, nutrition and physical activity, and child care. Many of the state's leading advocates will share their priorities for the upcoming year, including Health Access. Register now as seating is limited. The invitation can be downloaded from:
http://www.ccrwf.org/working/index.html.

* Families USA Conference: The national health advocacy conference will be held from January 27-29, 2005, at the Renaissance Mayflower Hotel, in Washington, DC. Among the topic discussed will be the major proposals of concern at the federal level with regard to Medicaid, Medicare, and health coverage in general. California advocates often hold an informal gathering during the conference to update each other as well. Register at:
http://www.familiesusa.org/.

Labels: Updates

posted by Anthony Wright | Permalink | 1:55 PM


 

Monday, November 15, 2004

HEALTH ACCESS UPDATE
Monday, November 15, 2004

GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER’S FIRST YEAR: REACTION AND INACTION

• Consistent Record Against Health Care Consumer Interests
• Budget Cut Proposals, Legislative Vetoes, Proposition Positions
• Most Glaring Omission: Lack of Proposaled Solutions on Uninsured, ER Closures, Etc.
  

In his first year in office, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has taken a consistent position against health care consumers and their access to health care. This has included proposing severe cuts to limit care and coverage to children and people with disabilities, vetoing health care consumer legislation, and campaigning against important health care propositions. His biggest fault is his lack of any plan or proposal to address the ongoing health care crisis in California. However, voters and legislators are parting ways with Governor Schwarzenegger on health care issues, and this could be a major political liability into the future.

THE CAMPAIGN: When he was first elected to his position a year ago, Governor Schwarzenegger was a complete enigma on health care issues. He never voluntarily raised the issue in his campaign during the recall election, and had no previous record or statements on health issues to figure out his positions.

His one major statement was during the one debate he participated in, where he stated, “we have to make sure that every child in California is insured. That is the most important thing.” He promised to use his salesmanship abilities to help enroll more children in the Healthy Families program. Other than that, he made few other comments on health care, focusing on other issues.

BUDGET: Directly contrary to his debate statement, the Governor’s first budget proposal was to cap enrollment in the Healthy Families program, as well other programs for children and people with disabilities, which would have denied care to hundreds of thousands of Californians. He also proposed major cuts to Medi-Cal provider rates, which would have further reduced access to care. After those proposals were rejected by legislators and analysts, he withdrew the proposals in his May Revision of the budget. These proposals could return in some form, given the continuing size of the budget deficit.

He has proposed a sweeping “redesign” of the Medi-Cal program, intended not to expand coverage but to yield budget savings. Most of the proposals discussed as part of this design would serve to restrict access to care for the over six million children, seniors, and people with disabilities that have Medi-Cal coverage. The proposal’s release was delayed until January, as is the Governor’s consideration of several recommendations from his California Performance Review, which also are of concern to health advocates.

LEGISLATION: The Governor was sent numerous bills on health policy, and he consistently vetoed bills that would assist health care consumers. With his vetoes, he stopped reforms that would prevent bad business practices by various elements of health care industry. The vetoes thus allow drug companies to price-gouge, HMOs to deny maternity coverage, and hospitals to overcharge uninsured families and use aggressive billing and collection techniques. He also vetoed legislation to require community notification in the event of hospital and emergency room closures.

The most high-profile issue was on prescription drugs, where the Governor vetoed four bills that would have facilitated the re-importation of prescription drugs from Canada, to help reduce the cost of these needed treatments for seniors, the uninsured, and others that don’t have pharmaceutical coverage. He opposed these bills, even through elected officials of both political parties had supported them in other states, and the drug companies seemingly rejected his attempts to support a compromise solution.

Ironically, many of the Democratic legislators that he opposed in the campaign used the prescription drug issue to successfully gain voter support, and to successfully counter the Governor’s opposition.

ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT: When faced with considering a merger that would create the largest health insurer in the nation, the Governor's Department of Managed Health Care didn't have an open process. In fact, it was only after protest from the state legislature and consumer groups that the Department even held a public hearing on the merger of Anthem and Wellpoint, which owns Blue Cross of California. When the deadline came, the Department approved the merger, despite concerns about its impact, while independently-elected Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi rejected it. Garamendi eventually gave the green light after further negotiations yielded more consumer protections and benefits for California patients. Despite the fact that he only had authority over a small portion of the deal, Garamendi got a better deal out of the insurers than Schwarzenegger. In another indication of the administration granting the wishes of HMOs, the Department has also approved insurance companies' requests for high-deductible health plans.

PROPOSITIONS: The Governor campaigned against several health care measures, including a bond for children’s hospitals and two that would generate new revenues to fund mental health services and emergency rooms, respectively. The only health care measure he supported was a bond for stem cell research supported by major biotechnology firms.

In a related issue, he supported Proposition 64, supported by a full range of corporate interests including HMOs, health plans, hospitals, and drug companies. With its passage, Proposition 64 will now restrict the ability of consumer and advocacy groups to sue to enforce public health, environmental, and consumer protections.

Most troublesome was his opposition to Proposition 72, a measure already passed by the legislature to protect the coverage that millions of Californians get on the job, and to ensure that large employers like Wal-Mart and McDonald’s pay for the coverage of their workers, so those health care costs are not burdened on taxpayers or a fragile health system. Voters broke with the Governor to support the millionaire’s tax for mental health services, and on the children’s hospital bond. And despite a $16 million opposition campaign and the Governor’s opposition, over 5 million Californians (49%) voted for Proposition 72.

LACK OF ACTION: Beyond these actions against the interests of health care consumers, Governor Schwarzenegger’s biggest fault has been his general lack of attention or priority to improving access to health care. As hospitals and emergency rooms close up and down the state, as California continues to have one of the worst percentage of uninsured and that number grows, and as the health system seems ready to collapse, the need for health reform is alarming. Yet Governor Schwarzenegger may be the only elected leader in the country without a health care plan or agenda.

In opposing Proposition 72, Governor Schwarzenegger opposed the only solution that was on the ballot, and has yet to propose anything as an alternative, or even pretend to address the problem. To the extent he has proposals that will be unveiled, they would serve to restrict access to care, rather than expand it.

The recent election results of both the state legislature and the initiatives indicate that Governor Schwarzenegger is no longer the “people’s governor” with regard to health care issues. Before his problem on health policy becomes a problem for his political health, the Governor would do well to change direction and support rather than undermine access to health care, by spearheading efforts to expand coverage for children, or for those workers at the malls and restaurants where he frequently campaigns.

Labels: Updates

posted by Anthony Wright | Permalink | 3:41 PM


 

Friday, November 05, 2004

HEALTH ACCESS UPDATE
Friday, November 5th, 2004

ELECTION WRAP-UP II: California State Politics

• Voters Part Ways with Governor Schwarzenegger on Health Care, Legislature
• Potential Health Care Champions in New State Legislature
• Health Care Issues, Including Prescription Drugs, Used Positively in Campaigns
• Results on Prop 64 & 72 Cause Concern for Health Care Consumers
• Also: Governor Appoints New Finance Director Tom Campbell

Despite the narrow loss of Proposition 72 (and still narrowing, as a million more votes continue to be counted), health care advocates have reason to be comforted by the results of the election in California, even as the national policy environment looks bleaker. Despite campaigning by Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Democrats maintained their majorities in the Assembly and the Senate, often using health care issues, such as the cost of prescription drugs, in their campaigns. The new composition of the legislature will contain a sizable core of health care champions and supporters. Governor Schwarzenegger’s failure to unseat several legislators, and his loss on some propositions, shows the limits of his personal popularity and political power.

A separate wrap-up of Proposition 72 was distributed earlier, and is available at the Health Access website, along with other updates, at:
http://www.health-access.org/blogger.html

CA LEGISLATIVE RACES: California Democratic legislators kept their majorities in the Assembly (48-32) and the Senate (25-15). All incumbents won, including several Democratic legislators that were targeted by the Republicans and the Governor, including Senator Michael Machado (SD5) and Assemblywoman Nicole Parra (AD30). In fact, the closest margin of the night was that of Republican Assemblywoman Shirley Horton (AD78), who won by less than two percentage points. In the seats vacated by termed-out legislators, the parties held onto those seats.

SCHWARZENEGGER FAILS TO CHANGE LEGISLATURE: These results were a significant blow to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who fundraised and campaigned for several Republican candidates. Many political observers were predicting that the personal popularity of the Governor would be a factor in these races, and that the Democrats could lose five or six seats. The fact that legislative Democrats withstood his assault should give them the political will to counter the Governor’s policies when they disagree, especially on budget cuts and health care and other issues.

HEALTH ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL: Advocates know they are truly successful when they not only they pass legislation, but when politicians run on their issues. This year, many candidates ran on health care issues, most notably on the cost of prescription drugs. The bills to facilitate the re-importation of prescription drugs from Canada (which Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed) were featured in many campaign mailers and materials.

None of the Democratic incumbents, who all voted for SB 2, lost. Despite the $16 million of scare tactics spent against SB 2 and Proposition 72, Democratic legislators and candidates proudly defended their positions in newspaper articles and media coverage, and achieved a good election-night result. Unlike the aftermath of the Clinton health care effort, the issue seemed to help, not hurt, the legislators and candidates who supported health reform.

THE NEW MAKEUP OF THE LEGISLATURE: The California state legislature next year will include many new committed voices for health care consumers. While health advocates will miss the loss of such leaders as Senator John Burton and Assemblyman Darrell Steinberg in budget and policy fights, there are new potential champions for our issues.

Health advocates need to start educating these newly-elected members about the issues they will confront, including Medi-Cal redesign, the California Performance Review recommendations, and other policy issues. Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez has already announced that health care issues will be a central component of his caucus’ budget and policy agenda next year.

GRIM NEWS ON PROPOSITION 64: Besides the narrow defeat of Proposition 72, health care consumers should also be deeply concerned about the passage of Proposition 64. Funded by a full range of corporate interests including HMOs, health plans, hospitals, and drug companies, Prop 64 will now restrict the ability of consumer and advocacy groups to sue to enforce public health, environmental, and consumer protections. This vote is a major setback for health advocacy and the consumer movement as a whole, both here in California, and nationally.

THE GOVERNOR AND THE PROPOSITIONS: Without any legislative changes over which to declare victory, Governor Schwarzenegger is pointing to his work on various ballot propositions. He claimed that voters followed his lead on 11 ballot propositions. However, many of those positions were already favored to win, including “no” votes on his two biggest priorities,

Propositions 68 and 70, on Indian gaming issues. Other ballot measures on his list that he recommended support for did not have significant opposition, such as measure 1A, on local government funding. Other ballot measures he opposed were already abandoned by their supporters, such as Prop 65.

His campaigning did seem to have an impact on Propositions 66, to modify the “three strikes” law, which he opposed with the bipartisan group of former governors. And he was quoted in the television commercials against Proposition 72, which failed but only by a narrow margin, the tightest race on the ballot. Despite over $16 million of scare tactics, over 4.5 million Californians voted for health care reform and Proposition 72. More Californians voted for Proposition 72 than voted for Governor Schwarzenegger in the recall election, in both percentage and in raw numbers.

Voters rejected the Governor’s advice on three measures, and two of those measures were on health care. Voters defeated the Proposition 62 open-primary measure, but approved Proposition 61, a $750 million bond for children’s hospitals, and Proposition 63, a tax increase on millionaires for funding mental health services.

THE GOVERNOR’S HEALTH PROBLEM: The victory of two health-related propositions that the Governor opposed, and the closeness of the vote on Proposition 72, suggests that voters place health care as a high priority and will part company with the Governor over health policy. Legislative candidates’ use of health care issues, such as the cost of prescription drugs, to blunt his attacks against them, also suggests that the Governor has political liabilities on health issues.

This is important, since Governor Schwarzenegger is poised to push some major changes in health policy, through his January budget, a proposed “Medi-Cal Redesign,” and the California Performance Review restructuring of health programs and departments.

On health care consumer issues, his record to date has been abysmal, including his previous budget proposals to cut access to health coverage for children and people with disabilities (which were ultimately withdrawn), and his vetoes of a range of health consumer legislation, on maternity coverage, prescription drugs, and hospital overcharging. But more than these actions, perhaps his biggest fault is the lack of attention or priority to improving access to health care, especially as hospitals and emergency rooms close up and down the state, the number of uninsured increase in California, and the health system seems ready to collapse. In opposing Proposition 72, Governor Schwarzenegger opposed the only solution that was on the ballot, and has yet to propose anything as an alternative, or even pretend to address the problem. All of these political developments and policy factors indicate that unless he changes his outlook on these issues, health care could be the Achilles’ heel of this Governor.

NEW FINANCE DIRECTOR APPOINTED

As health advocates await the January budget, Governor Schwarzenegger has appointed Tom Campbell, a former Republican congressman, as the state director of finance.

At the announcement of his appointment, he qualified his reputation as a social moderate: “My record in Congress and in the state Senate is one of a quite conservative positions on fiscal matters, against the growth of big government, as much government as we need but no more than we need…The governor makes the policy, but I will tell you my advice to the governor will be to not have any increase in taxes.”

Regardless, the new appointment is seen as a dramatic shift from the former finance director that resigned last month, Donna Arduin, the right-wing finance director who came from Florida Governor Jeb Bush’s administration with a reputation for a budget axe.
Here’s the description of Dr. Campbell from the announcement on the Governor’s website, at:
http://www.governor.ca.gov/state/govsite/gov_htmldisplay.jsp?sCatTitle=%20&sFilePath=/govsite/spotlight/november4b_update.html

“As Finance Director, Dr. Campbell will serve as the Governor’s chief policy advisor and work to ensure responsible spending in the state budget. Campbell, a former US Congressman, has served as the Bank of America dean and professor of Business at the Haas School of Business, at the University of California, Berkeley since 2002. Before assuming the deanship at the Haas School, he was a law professor at Stanford University for nineteen years. Campbell was a member of the California State Senate from 1993 to 1995 and a United States Congressman representing the Silicon Valley from 1989 to 1993 and again from 1995 to 2001.”

Labels: Updates

posted by Anthony Wright | Permalink | 7:46 AM


 

Thursday, November 04, 2004

HEALTH ACCESS UPDATE
Thursday, November 4th, 2004

ELECTION WRAP-UP: PROPOSITION 72

• SB 2 Repealed, But Close Vote Creates Momentum for Future Reforms
  

Proposition 72, to ensure that employees get basic health coverage on the job and to expand such coverage to a million more workers, was defeated yesterday, by a vote of 49% to 51%, a razor-thin margin of 160,000 votes out of over 9 million cast on the ballot measure. It was the closest margin of the many initiatives on California's November 2004 ballot.

THE IMPACT: The result of this referendum means that SB 2 (Burton), which was passed by the legislature and signed into law last year, is repealed. Large employers can (and will) scale back health coverage to their workers, or drop it altogether. Rather than take a significant step in reducing the number of uninsured, California is likely to see the number of uninsured increase, as well as other resulting problems in our health care system, such as emergency room and hospital closures. Taxpayers will still be asked to pay for the health care costs of the workers of Wal-Mart, McDonald's, and other large corporations that don't provide health coverage to all their workers, rather than having that money instead fund other Californians in need of health coverage.

BUILDING THE BASE FOR THE FUTURE: Despite the final outcome, health advocates should take important pride and solace in how well we did in supporting Proposition 72, and making it such a close fight. On election day, nearly half of the California electorate voted for health care reform. Health advocates can build on this base of over 4.5 million people to win the reforms we so clearly need.

The campaign educated millions of voters that many large corporations don't provide health coverage to their workers or their families, and such corporate practices have consequences, not only for these working families, but for the taxpayer, the health care system, and society in general.

SIGNIFICANT OBSTACLES: Supporters of health care reform faced tough odds with Proposition 72:

* The opponents of health reform chose the time and the venue for this fight. SB 2 was written and passed as legislation, and was never intended to placed on the ballot, and not written with this in mind. The opponents placed this on the ballot, not the supporters.

* Due to the nature of the referendum, supporters of SB 2 had the burden of getting a “yes” vote. The general rule is that if voters are confused or undecided, they vote “no.” In the history of California ballot propositions, only one-third (35%) have passed with a "yes" vote.

* Proposition 72 had a well-funded opposition, making the odds of passage even tougher and less likely. While we started ahead in the polls, we know that a funded opposition reduces the support of a measure significantly. The opposition, with the biggest fast-food and retail corporations in the country, spent over $16 million to barely eke out their win.

* The history of health reform is littered with ballot measures and legislative efforts that ultimately went down to defeat. While voters care about health care, the subject is complex and easy for people to be scared about their own health care issues and vote for the status quo. In the early '90s in California, Prop 166 got 32%; Prop 186 got 27%. From Earl Warren to Ken Maddy and Willie Brown in California, and from Truman to Nixon to Clinton nationally, this is the closest we have come to winning major health care reform for working people.

* By calling their coalition “Californians Against Government-Run Healthcare,” the opposition against Proposition 72 signalled that it wasn’t above using outright distortions in order to scare people. There is a honest debate to have about Proposition 72, but the opposition used many of the misleading arguments that were used to demonize health reforms in the past, even if they were very different in substance. They even used a reprise of the “Harry and Louise” commercial that helped sink the Clinton health plan--and that wasn't the most deceptive of the commercials. That honor goes to the ad with the actress talking about how the measure would impact "her" restaurant--even when the restaurant shown only employed 12 people and thus would be exempt.

* Since the passage of SB 2, California elected a new Governor, who devoted his media star power to advance a Chamber-of-Commerce message about economic insecurity, and against regulations, taxes, and employer responsibilities like worker's compensation insurance, all described as "job killers." This primed the electorate to accept this label when it was used to describe Proposition 72, and gave the opponents a powerful spokesperson late in the campaign.

* Proposition 72's requirement on employers caused some unusual allies for the restaurant and retail opponents, including some school administrators, a few social service providers, and other employers that don't provide health coverage for all their employees. Another such opponent was newspaper publishers--which were scaling back their health benefits to their workers, and are dependent on advertsing from retailers--that had the ability to use their papers to editorialize against the proposal.

* Finally, the initiative fight was one of a long line of ballot measures, on a crowded ballot overshadowed by a historic presidential election. For a long time, it was hard to get attention from media and financial contributors on what was a historic opportunity for health reform. With "hot button" issues like stem cell research and "three strikes" reform also on the ballot, it was also hard to get voters attention to focus on this initiative, to look beyond sound bites and scare tactics. Even on the last day before voting, polls indicated that the number of undecided voters was abnormally high.

THE COALITION TO WIN: Despite all these reasons for caution, a diverse coalition of over 200 organizations came together to support Proposition 72. Having already passed the bill, it was not a fight for which we planned, but once the gauntlet was thrown, health advocates understood we needed to defend this important advance in health policy. The coalition in support of SB 2, with the leadership of the California Medical Association, the California Labor Federation, and others, came together again, and made new alliances with a range of health provider, community, religious, grassroots, labor, senior, ethnic, and constituency organizations. This was the first time that health reform was supported by all elements of the health care community: doctors, nurses, consumers, hospitals, and even some health plans.

The organizations in support of Proposition 72 worked tirelessly, working to educate their members, expand the coalition, get local endorsements, garner media attention with rallies and press conference up and down the state, distribute flyers and E-mails, sponsor and write reports and fact sheets, translate materials, donate money, make phone calls, walk door-to-door in precincts, write letters-to-the-editor, and otherwise just do all that was asked of them. Much thanks should go to this incredible coalition, and the organizations and leaders in them. Additional thanks should go to a lean campaign team that worked incredibly hard, led by Larry Grisolano and Josh Pulliam at The Strategy Group.

THE MESSAGE: The opponents spent much of their time falsely scaring those with good coverage (which are the majority of voters) that Proposition 72 would negatively impact them and their health care, when in fact it would make their coverage more secure. A lot of effort was spent to counter these scare tactics, simply explaining the concept, that Proposition 72 simply set a standard for on-the-job benefits, like the minimum wage does for pay. This analogy also helped rebut the "job killer" argument, since minimum wage increases have yet to actually result in a loss of jobs, despite ongoing dire predictions by its opponents.
The late focus on how taxpayers often have to pick up the cost of the health care of the workers of Wal-Mart and other large corporations helped cut through the clutter of the election season, and brought home the overall impact of the uninsured, and the fact that the uninsured are largely workers and their families.

FOR THE FUTURE: There is much more to say about this campaign, and what it accomplished, in terms of the message, the money, the media, and the mobilization of the masses. Health Access and other entities will provide analyses and convenings to review the lessons we learned for future fights. Next time, we will be better equipped to win, and we will.

We will win because we have to, because the health care system is unravelling. Employers are entering into a "race to the bottom" in terms of the health benefits they provide: in fact, in the past three years, there are five million more jobs in the country that no longer provide health coverage. With state and federal deficits forcing budget cuts, our public insurance programs like Medicaid and Medicare, which provide coverage for millions of children, seniors, and people with disabilities, are under attack, and will be even more so in the newly hostile environment in Washington. More Americans are uninsured, and the health care system of hospitals and clinics that we all rely on are overburdened and some are even closing.

NEXT STEPS: The status quo is not an option. The opponents of Proposition 72 kept saying "right problem, wrong solution," but failed to ever provide their alternative. Health advocates always said that Prop 72 was only a piece of the puzzle. We need to continue with our multi-pronged efforts--to expand coverage for children, to control drug and other health care costs, to educate voters about the problems, to oppose budget cuts--as well as continue to fight to ensure that employers keep their health care responsibility to their workers.

Advocates and legislators in other states, including Massachussetts, Washington, Illinois, New York, and Maryland, are ready to go with their own health reform plans that borrow from the work done here in California. The results in California provide them with hope that this is a winnable issue, and we will support them in their efforts, with our expertise, and the lessons we have learned.

Eight years ago, HMO consumer protections were defeated at the ballot box in California, by a wider margin. Yet in four years, most of what was proposed on the ballot in 1996 had been passed by the legislature as the HMO Patient's Bill of Rights, and were signed into law, creating the Department of Managed Health Care. Also in that time, many out-of-state advocates had taken the concepts pioneered in California and worked to pass them in dozens of states around the country. A defeat at the ballot box, especially one this close, is often not the end of a fight, but the beginning.

When we finally win quality, affordable health care for all in California and the nation, the vote on Proposition 72 will be seen as a historic moment, when people and policymakers realized that health care reform is possible and achievable. Even if we had won, the fight would not have been over. For those who support of health reform, the effort has just begun.

Peace,

Anthony Wright
Executive Director
Health Access

Labels: Updates

posted by Anthony Wright | Permalink | 1:27 PM


 

Digging a bigger whole for reform...

 

Scoring at home...

 

We are hiring, to make a difference...

 

Field Poll: strong opposition to the health cuts.....

 

An Unhealthy Trend

 

Dressing up the Individual (Market)

 

A great debate on the great divide...

 

Jones to be chair of Health Committee...

 

Bass on the budget...

 

Pretty soon, the insureable will be a pretty exclu...