Wednesday, April 26, 2006

ASSEMBLY HEALTH COMMITTEE PASSES KEY CONSUMER BILLS

• Bills Passed: Limits on High Deductible Plans; Drug Discounts; Part D Report Card
• Individual Mandate Proposal Fails; Another Proposal Passes with Significant Amendments
• More Bills Up Wednesday, April 26th

Earlier today, the California Assembly Health Committee, chaired by Assemblywoman Wilma Chan (D-Oakland), heard a jam-packed agenda of bills, and passed legislation, in some cases with significant amendments, that would serve to protect health care consumers. Virtually all bills passed below on party-line votes, with Democrats voting for the measures that passed, and Republicans largely voting against those bills.

High Deductible Health Plan Consumer Protections: AB2281 (Chan), which would limit annual out-of-pocket costs to $5,000 for individuals and impose other consumer protections on high deductible plans, narrowly passed the Assembly Health Committee Tuesday.

A representative of the Department of Insurance said the bill would “keep the concept of ‘insurance’ in insurance products.’’ As it is now, plans with no limits on the level of deductible consumers must pay “flies in the face of what appropriate insurance is,’’ said Richard Figueroa, with the department. One witness was saddled with nearly $500,000 in debt, after her bare bones insurance covered only approximately 18 percent of hospital bills and treatment for her late husband’s cancer.

Others who turned out in support of the measure included: Health Access California, Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, Western Center on Law and Poverty, Older Women’s League, Gray Panthers, Consumers Union , California Neuro Alliance , Congress of California Seniors, California Medical Association, California Academy of Family Physicians, CALPIRG and MALDEF.

The opposition, which included health plans, the Chamber of Commerce and other business groups, said the option of high-deductible plans needed to be preserved. Yet Assemblywoman Chan pointed out that AB2281 does not abolish these plans – it merely sets guidelines to ensure that consumers have a minimum level of coverage and information if they decide on this option, or this is the only option they get from their employer. The representative from the insurers also stated that while many of their products abide by the guidelines in the bill, they want to "preserve flexibility" for the future to allow them to impose, for example, further out-of-pocket costs for in-network services.

Prescription Drug Discounts: AB2911 (Nunez/Perata), which would create a drug discount plan in California for uninsured and underinsured consumers, also passed.

In the aftermath of the battle between Propositions 78 & 79, the bill is a compromise measure between a “voluntary’’ discount program, which drug companies prefer, and one with a stronger enforcement mechanism, which health advocates prefer. Along the lines of a proposal by the independent Legislative Analyst's Office, if drug companies don’t provide satisfactory discounts by the end of the first three years of the "voluntary" program, then the state would have the authority to put an enforcement mechanism in place, using the purchasing power of Medi-Cal through the exisitng prior authorization system.

Assemblywoman Chan presented this bill for the Speaker, talking about a need to deal with ever-increasing prescription drug prices. Supporting testimony came from AARP, Consumers Union, Health Access California, CALPIRG, Older Women's League, California Alliance for Retired Americans, Senior Action Network, Congress of California Seniors, Latino Coalition for a Healthy California, California Labor Federation, MALDEF, as well as the California Pharmacists Association with a "support if amended" position.

Those with an "oppose unless amended" position included the drug companies, which said they wanted to be part of the "ongoing debate," and Western Center for Law and Poverty, expressing concern with the prior authorization process. Assemblyman Dario Frommer, of Glendale , the author of the still-pending AB75, also to create a prescription drug discount program, noted that this was a "nice compromise" and that Maine's program was able to get significant discounts with only the threat of enforcement. He did express hope that the qualifying income thresholds would be increased to 400 percent (or un-reimbursed medical expenses totally 5 percent of gross income) to mirror his bill. AB2911 currently has a 350% FPL qualifying income threshold, or un-reimbursed medical expenses totally 10 percent of gross income.

• On another note, AB2877(Frommer), to create a website to facilitate reimportation of safe and affordable prescription drugs, did pass out of Assembly Business and Professions Committee in the morning.

Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Plan Report Card: AB2170 (Chan), which would create a report card on Medicare Part D prescription drug plans, also passed committee. The report card would be added to the existing report card on HMOs already done by the Office of Patient Advocate.

With 47 prescription drug program options offered by 10 health plans, Chan said her bill would give consumers some information to make informed decisions about their health. Supporters that testified included Health Access, Congress of California Seniors, Older Women's League, Gray Panthers, California Alliance for Retired Americans, Consumers Union, CALPIRG, Latino Coalition for a Healthy California, AARP, and the California Medical Association.

The California Association of Health Plans opposed, since it would be funded by the same nominal assessment on managed care plans used for the current HMO report card. While there is significant overlap between the companies operating HMOs and Medicare Part D plans, the report card, in order to be comprehensive, would cover some prescription drug plans not related to HMOs.

Individual Mandates: AB2450 (Richman), which would have required Californians have proof of health insurance – regardless of affordability -- was defeated by the committee, garnering only one vote: the author’s.

While it was conditionally supported (with amendments) in testimony by the California Association of Physician Groups, the range of opposition was impressive: Health Access California, Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, SEIU, Western Center on Law and Poverty as well as Kaiser Permanente, Blue Shield, and the California Association of Health Plans. The bill got "no" votes from both Democrats and Republicans on the committee.

Assemblyman Richman described the problem of the uninsured, in terms of the costs to the overall system, he focused on "young invincibles" that don't have coverage. (While young people are more likely to be uninsured, it is because they are more likely to be low-income and work in jobs that don't provide coverage, rather than any desire not to have insurance.) The author did make comparisons to the "framework" of the Massachusetts proposal, but acknowledged that it wasn't the same.

AB1952 (Nation), a health care coverage proposal that includes requirements on both individuals and employers, did pass out of Committee, although with concerns and caveats expressed. Assemblywoman Chan recommended several significant amendments with the bill, which were accepted by Assemblyman Joe Nation (D-San Rafael). The chair continued to express concerns with the proposal, especially the individual mandate, but suggested that the committee pass out the bill to keep the conversation on health care reform alive.

Assemblyman Nation focused on the notion of "shared responsibility," with his proposal that would require individuals to purchase health insurance, require employers to spend 7 percent of their payroll for coverage on both full-and part-time workers, and also create an affordable health package for Californians below 300% of poverty level. The amendments served to deal with many of the concerns by the chair and consumer groups, including to:

• Clarify “medical necessity” to ensure it doesn’t exclude family planning, treatment of diseases and incurable diseases.
• Clarify “evidence-based medicine’’ standards so it includes standards currently found in the Health and Safety Code.
• Apply standards for affordability and availability of coverage to the larger market, providing community rating by age and geography for all Californians, so that no one is denied because of "pre-existing conditions."
• Clarify that existing protections in state law also apply – that the bill would not negate the HMO Patients' Bill of Rights or other consumer protections.
• Create programs to provide affordable coverage for the unemployed and uninsurable.
• Limit the individual mandate to be contingent upon availability and affordability of insurance.

Supportive testimony came from the California Medical Association, which cited problems but called it a "balanced bill" that should be allowed to pass through. In a similar vein, Jericho supported the bill as a way to deepen the conversation on health reform.

In spite of these changes that responded to its letter of opposition, Health Access California continued to express concern with the individual mandate, but acknowledged the improvements made through the amendments. Opposition was cited by a range of groups, from the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights against the individual mandate, to business groups opposed to the employer mandate, including the California Chamber of Commerce, California Manufacturers and Technology Association, California Retailer Association and the National Federation of Independent Businesses. The California Association of Health Underwriters noted a number of "technical problems," but noted that they were not opposed in principle to an employer mandate, and that they didn't oppose SB2 a few years ago.

BILLS UP WEDNESDAY APRIL 26: The following bills will be heard:

Senate Health Committee (those below all supported by Health Access California)

• SB1702 (Perata/Nunez) would create a prescription drug discount program, and is identical to Nunez’s AB2911, which passed today.
• SB1622 (Escutia) would give employers a notice to pass along to employees, advising them of the availability of Healthy Families and Medi-Cal.
• SB1804 (Florez) requires health insurers to disclose the number of physicians accepting new patients on a county-by-county basis.
  

Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee (those below opposed by Health Access California)

• SB1584 (Runner/Ackerman) allows holders of Health Savings Accounts to receive a tax credit in California.
• SB1639 (Dutton) gives businesses tax breaks if they contribute to employees’ Health Savings Accounts.

Labels: Updates

posted by Anthony Wright | Permalink | 9:14 AM


 

Thursday, April 20, 2006

KEY BILLS PASS HEALTH COMMITTEES; ORG LETTERS NEEDED FOR NEXT WEEK

• Senate and Assembly Committees pass bills on drugs, coverage; MRMIB budget reviewed
• LETTERS NEEDED TODAY for Committee votes next week on high-profile measures
• Up next week: High-deductible plans, individual mandates, drug discounts, Part D report card

The Sacramento weather has finally warmed up – and so has work at the Capitol. The building was abuzz this week with advocates from all corners, coming to fight for their bills. Health advocates enjoyed several victories this week in both the Assembly and Senate health committees. A quick report from the policy and budget committees is BELOW.

HEARINGS CONTINUE NEXT WEEK; LETTERS NEEDED

As deadlines approach, committee hearings will be packed next week with key bills. The following bills are expected to be heard, listed below with the bill number, author, description, and the position of Health Access California.

LETTERS NEEDED: Organizational letters in support or opposition of bills being heard in Assembly Health Committee next Tuesday are DUE TODAY, THURSDAY, April 20th. (Letters received after that are accepted but might not be included in the committee analysis.)

Organizations can FAX letters to the author of the bill, and to the Health Committee chair, Assemblywoman Wilma Chan, at Fax # 916-319-2197.

ASSEMBLY HEALTH COMMITTEE -- Tuesday, April 25

• AB2170 (Chan)- Would create a consumer report card on Medicare Part D prescription drug plans – SUPPORT
• AB2281 (Chan) – Provides information and protections to consumers with high-deductible health plans.– SUPPORT
• AB2607 (De La Torre) -- Provides consumer protections if seniors and people with disabilities in Medi-Cal are placed into mandated managed care – SUPPORT
• AB2911 (Nunez/Perata) -- Would create a prescription drug discount program in California -- SUPPORT

• AB2450 (Richman) – Would obligate every Californian to purchase bare-bones health coverage – OPPOSE
• AB1952 (Nation) – Requires individuals and employers to purchase health coverage, and removes benefits and consumer protections – OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED
  

Letters on bills heard on Wednesday, April 26th are DUE this FRIDAY, APRIL 21st,

SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE -- Wednesday, April 26

• SB1702 (Perata/Nunez) -- Would create a prescription drug discount program in California -- SUPPORT

SENATE REVENUE AND TAXATION COMMITTEE -- Wednesday, April 26

• SB1584 (Runner/Ackerman) -- Allows holders of Health Savings Accounts to receive a tax credit in California . – OPPOSE
• SB1639 (Dutton) -- Gives businesses tax breaks if they contribte to employees' Health Savings Accounts. -- OPPOSE

SAMPLE LETTERS AVAILABLE: For more information on any of these bills, or for sample letters, contact Hanh Kim Quach, Health Access California, at 916-497-0923, or hquach@health-access.org.

For a full list of bills this session that are of interest to health advocates, go to the Health Access website at:
http://www.health-access.org/advocating/docs/2006BillListApr13.doc

Here are some specific issues of interest to highlight in advance of next week's hearing in Assembly Health Committee:

HIGH DEDUCTIBLE PLANS: One of the high-profile bills next week is AB2281(Chan), which would provide information and protections for patients with high-deductible plans. It would place an overall limit on out-of-pocket expenses, require coverage for preventative services, and ensure that the insurer provides information to the consumer about the coverage and choices. A broad range of consumer groups are supporting the bill, but insurers are expected to oppose these modest safeguards.

PRESCRIPTION DRUG DISCOUNTS: Two bills, AB2911(Nunez/Perata) and SB1702(Perata/Nunez) seek to move beyond the Proposition 78 & 79 debate last year, and create a meaningful discount drug card for the millions of uninsured and underinsured Californians that now pay more than anybody else in the world for prescription drugs. Senior and consumer groups are supporting this renewed effort, in both Assembly and Senate Health Committees next week.

INDIVIDUAL MANDATE: While getting little legislative support last year, a proposal for an "individual mandate" to require all Californians to have health insurance has returned this year, in AB2450(Richman). The notion of an individual mandate has gotten more attention since it is one of many provisions in the recently-passed Massachusetts reform. Yet regardless of what one thinks of the Massachusetts measure, AB2450 suffers in comparison.

• Massachusetts had existing law on community rating, so that insurers could not deny people based on "pre-existing conditions," as well as existing regulations limiting deductibles and out-of-pocket costs. California does not.
• The Richman proposal places the entire burden on individuals, without any requirement on employers, unlike the Massachusetts plan.
• The Richman proposal does not expand public insurance programs or directly subsidize low- and moderate-income families, as the Massachusetts measure proposes to do.
• The Richman proposal would mandate at least high-deductible, limited benefit coverage. The Massachusetts plan does not, and in fact does not remove any mandated benefit.
• The Massachusetts "individual mandate" is limited to higher-income people for whom available health insurance is deemed "affordable." The Richman proposal has no such test or limit.

REPORT FROM THIS WEEK: HEALTH BILLS CLEAR KEY COMMITTEES

In Tuesday's Assembly Health Committee, chaired by Assemblywoman Wilma Chan, the following measures made it out with little problem:

• AB1971 (Chan), which extends the sunset on the state’s MRMIP program for uninsurable patients.
• AB2877 (Frommer), which would establish a website directing patients to safe national and international vendors of prescription drugs.
• AB2889 (Frommer), which would prohibit health plans from discriminating against consumers with pre-existing conditions, but who have been insured before.

In Wednesday's Senate Health Committee, chaired by Senator Deborah Ortiz, the following consumer health measures passed:

• SB1683 (Scott) would require all pharmaceutical manufacturers’ clinical trials results to be posted on the federal government website, in order to avoid selective disclosure by drug companies.

SENATE BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE REVIEWS MRMIB, DHS

Lawmakers on the Senate Budget Subcommittee on Health, chaired by Senator Denise Ducheny, this week also combed through the budgets of the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board (MRMIB) and Department of Health Services.

Among the budget actions taken, the subcommittee:

• Approved the Governor's proposed baseline budgets for the AIM and Healthy Families programs. The budget assumes a caseload of 933,000 children by June 30, 2007, reflecting a 12.8% growth rate. There was discussion in the committee about the pending renewal of the State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), the federal program that funds two-thirds of Healthy Families. In particular, there was concern about whether, as SCHIP is up for renewal next year, the Congress would provide enough funds to continue current and future enrollment levels.
• Approved a streamlining of the Healthy Families enrollment process, so as not to require a premium or plan selection up-front, especially when applicants may not know which program (and level of cost-sharing) they are eligible for.
• Rejected an increase in “incentive payments’’ to those who enroll more Healthy Families or Medi-Cal patients, for a savings of $2.5 million. Advocates argued that the incentive program was just implemented last year and that the money would be more effectively used in other outreach efforts.
• Modified the Governor's proposal to allocate nearly $20 million for county-based outreach, enrollment, and retention activities through a County Allocation Program, by established a pool for smaller counties.
• Rejected a $3.4 million media campaign for Medi-Cal and Healthy Families outreach proposed by the Governor. Advocates agreed with the subcommittee that a media campaign has not proven to be the most effective way to enroll children in the program.

Increase staff at MRMIB by four – six fewer than the department had initially requested.

There was also an extensive update on Medi-Cal managed care, for both the ongoing geographic managed care expansion, and on proposed pilot projects. For a detailed discussion of these issues, review the Budget Subcommittee analysis at:
http://www.senate.ca.gov/ftp/SEN/COMMITTEE/STANDING/BFR/_home/Sub3/041706Diane.pdf

All hearing agendas for the Senate Budget Subcommittee on Health are available at:
http://www.senate.ca.gov/ftp/SEN/COMMITTEE/STANDING/BFR/_home/NEWAGENDA.HTML#three

Labels: Updates

posted by Anthony Wright | Permalink | 9:08 AM


 

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

CITIZENS WORKING GROUP MEETING ON HEALTH REFORM

• Sacramento Community Meeting, Wednesday Evening, April 19th

Tomorrow evening, Northern California residents have the chance to speak out about the health care system, and what they think should be changed. A community meeting, in search of "Health Care That Works For All Americans," will be held by the Citizens' Health Care Working Group

This Sacramento community meeting will be held tomorrow, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 19th, 2006, from 6:00pm-8:30pm, at The Grand, 1215 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

The Sacramento event is locally co-hosted by the California Medical Association, the Inter-Tribal Council of CA, and supported by many organizations, including Health Access Foundation.

BACKGROUND: In January, a panel of 15 federally-appointed members began gathering public input on how to improve the nation’s health care system. Input from community meetings held nationally, from January to April, will serve as a basis for recommendations to decisionmakers in Washington , D.C. on improving the health industry.

These forums are interactive, with participants engaging in small group discussions and responding to a series of questions. The process, which is independently administered, will produce recommendations to the Congress and the President, and be the subject of Congressional hearings. Some of the materials, including the discussion guide that shows what questions will be asked, are at the Working Group's website, at:
http://www.citizenshealthcare.gov/community/mtg_kit.php
http://www.citizenshealthcare.gov/community/discussion_guide.pdf

Many advocates of health care reform, including the Universal Health Care Action Network, have been working to ensure that supporters of universal health care are represented. In some instances in other states, the groups have worked to reframe the questions asked of the small groups. In others, the assembled worked within the format to come out with recommendations in support of comprehensive health reform.

REGISTER: To register, go to their website at:
http://www.citizenshealthcare.gov/register/

For more information about this specific event, call the California Medical Association, at 916-551-2565.

For information about turnout efforts, including carpooling from the Bay Area, contact Jessica Rothhaar, Health Access, at 510-873-8787 x107, or jessicar@health-access.org.

Labels: Updates

posted by Anthony Wright | Permalink | 9:04 AM


 

CITIZENS WORKING GROUP MEETING ON HEALTH REFORM

• Sacramento Community Meeting, Wednesday Evening, April 19th

Tomorrow evening, Northern California residents have the chance to speak out about the health care system, and what they think should be changed. A community meeting, in search of "Health Care That Works For All Americans," will be held by the Citizens' Health Care Working Group

This Sacramento community meeting will be held tomorrow, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 19th, 2006, from 6:00pm-8:30pm, at The Grand, 1215 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

The Sacramento event is locally co-hosted by the California Medical Association, the Inter-Tribal Council of CA, and supported by many organizations, including Health Access Foundation.

BACKGROUND: In January, a panel of 15 federally-appointed members began gathering public input on how to improve the nation’s health care system. Input from community meetings held nationally, from January to April, will serve as a basis for recommendations to decisionmakers in Washington , D.C. on improving the health industry.

These forums are interactive, with participants engaging in small group discussions and responding to a series of questions. The process, which is independently administered, will produce recommendations to the Congress and the President, and be the subject of Congressional hearings. Some of the materials, including the discussion guide that shows what questions will be asked, are at the Working Group's website, at:
http://www.citizenshealthcare.gov/community/mtg_kit.php
http://www.citizenshealthcare.gov/community/discussion_guide.pdf

Many advocates of health care reform, including the Universal Health Care Action Network, have been working to ensure that supporters of universal health care are represented. In some instances in other states, the groups have worked to reframe the questions asked of the small groups. In others, the assembled worked within the format to come out with recommendations in support of comprehensive health reform.

REGISTER: To register, go to their website at:
http://www.citizenshealthcare.gov/register/

For more information about this specific event, call the California Medical Association, at 916-551-2565.

For information about turnout efforts, including carpooling from the Bay Area, contact Jessica Rothhaar, Health Access, at 510-873-8787 x107, or jessicar@health-access.org.

Labels: Updates

posted by Anthony Wright | Permalink | 9:04 AM


 

Monday, April 17, 2006

HEALTH ACCESS ALERT
Monday, April 17th, 2006

LAWMAKERS BACK; DEADLINES LOOM FOR LEGISLATION IN HEALTH COMMITTEES

• Last Two Weeks of April to Feature Bills on Coverage, Costs, Drugs, and More
• Key Legislation, on Rx drugs and MRMIP, in Assembly Health Committee April 18th
• List of Bills of Interest to Health Care Consumer Advocates
• Also: Medicare Part D Emergency Drug Coverage Extended to May 15th

The legislators here in Sacramento come back from spring break today, beginning a flurry of legislative and budget activity. In these last two weeks in April, policy committees will have packed agendas, as legislators seek to move their bills out of committee before constitutional deadlines.

BILL LIST: A full list of active bills of interest to health advocates appears at the end of this alert.

COMMITTEE HEARINGS ON CRUCIAL HEALTH-RELATED LEGISLATION
(Dates for bill hearings are subject to change at the author's request.)

Assembly Health Committee, in particular, will feature a range of bills of interest to health consumer advocates on Tuesday, April 18th and April 25th. Legislation will also be considered on the Senate Health Committee agendas of April 19th and April 26th.

Here, and at the end of this alert, are some of the bills, along with the position of Health Access California, the statewide health care consumer advocacy coalition. Here's a sampling of the bills coming up in committee in the next two weeks:

ASSEMBLY HEALTH COMMITTEE -- Tuesday, April 18

• AB1971 (Chan) -- Extend the sunset for the MRMIP program for those who are denied coverage in the individual market -- SUPPORT
• AB2877 (Frommer) – Establish a website directing consumers to sources of safe, affordable drugs in other countries – SUPPORT
• AB2889 (Frommer) – Would prohibit health plans from discriminating against people have been insured, but also have chronic or serious illnesses – SUPPORT

SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE -- Wednesday, April 19

• SB1683 (Scott) -- Requires pharmaceutical companies to report the results of their clinical trials -- SUPPORT

ASSEMBLY HEALTH COMMITTEE -- Tuesday, April 25

• AB2170 (Chan)- Would create a consumer report card on Medicare Part D prescription drug plans – SUPPORT
• AB2281 (Chan) – Provides information and protections to consumers with high-deductible health plans.– SUPPORT
• AB2450 (Richman) – Would obligate every Californian to purchase bare-bones health coverage – OPPOSE
• AB2911 (Nunez/Perata) -- Would create a prescription drug discount program in California -- SUPPORT

SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE -- Wednesday, April 26

• SB1702 (Perata/Nunez) -- Would create a prescription drug discount program in California -- SUPPORT

SENATE REVENUE AND TAXATION COMMITTEE -- Wednesday, April 26

• SB1584 (Runner/Ackerman) -- Allows holders of Health Savings Accounts to receive a tax credit in California. -- OPPOSE
• SB1639 (Dutton) -- Gives businesses tax breaks if they contribte to employees' Health Savings Accounts. -- OPPOSE

The Health Committee is a first, but crucial step, in the life of these bills. Please register your support or opposition for these bills for next week by writing to lawmakers on the appropriate committees by Wednesday of this week.

For a sample letter on any of these bills, or those listed below, contact Hanh Kim Quach, Policy Coordinator, Health Access California, at 916-497-0923, or hquach@health-access.org.


MEDICARE PART D EMERGENCY EXTENSION GRANTED THROUGH MAY 16TH

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced on Friday his decision to extend emergency prescription drug coverage to the one million seniors and people with disabilities who are eligible for both Medi-Cal and the new Medicare Part D private drug coverage. Under SB1233, this extension will continue to at least May 16, 2006, but cannot be extended unless there is new legislation is passed.

ORIGINAL PROBLEM: This means that these "dual-eligible" seniors and people with disabilities will be able to continue to rely on Medi-Cal to cover needed medications, in the event that their primary coverage under Medicare Part D fails to do so. This emergency coverage was put in place by California and numerous other states in January when there were widespread problems reported about the access to drugs for these patients, who had all had their drug coverage switched from Medicaid to Medicare Part D private plans at the beginning of this year. The Administration reports that over 220,000 individuals have received assistance through the emergency program in the past three months at least once.

CONTINUED NEED; DISCONTINUED FEDERAL FUNDING: While the emergency coverage is not getting the volume of use at the very beginning of the program, the use has plateaued at about an average of 9,000 prescription drugs a day, suggesting that ongoing problems are continuing. Advocates were pleased with the extension, especially in light of the federal government's lack of commitment to reimburse the state for its costs after March 31st. As of April 14th, the state has spent over $53 million, $47 million through March 31st, which will get reimbursed by the federal government. While the state has requested further federal assistance (since this emergency is to remedy a problem with this federal Medicare Part D program and the private plans under it), the $6 million already spent and any additional going forward will likely be the state's reponsibility to get reimbursement from the private Part D plans.

ONGOING SOLUTION NEEDED: An ongoing problem requires an ongoing solution, and many senior, low-income, health, and consumer advocates will be urging the Administration and the Legislature to create an ongoing "safety-net" coverage for these one million "dual-eligible" seniors and people with disabilities. In particular, even if the system issues of this program were all fixed, these vulnerable patients would be faced with more costs and less comprehensive coverage. California could follow other states in ensuring that these seniors and people with disabilities maintain the same coverage they had last year under Medi-Cal, by having Medi-Cal pay their co-payments, and cover drugs that the private plans won't cover. That budget item is listed below, along with other bills of interest to health advocates.

BILLS OF INTEREST TO HEALTH ADVOCATES

Health Access is also following more than two dozen bill in the state Legislature this year. Below is a list of the Health advocates are actively working on the following list of bills, which includes efforts to expend health care coverage and provide consumer protections for patients. Also listed is the position of Health Access California .

Health Care Coverage

Major Coverage Expansions

* SB437/ Escutia: Strong Support
Expands public insurance programs to provide comprehensive health coverage to *all* children

* SB840/ Kuehl: Strong Support
As the California Health Insurance Reliability Act, creates a universal, publicly-financed (single-payer) health care system, similar to Medicare

Related Legislation on Access and Coverage

* AB1840/Horton: Support
Requires the state to disclose names of employers who, rather than providing health coverage, have many of their workers and their families on Medi-Cal and Healthy Families

* AB1948/Montanez: Support
Simplifies application for Medi-Cal and Healthy Families using CHDP Gateway and electronic application

*AB1971/Chan: Support
Extends sunset for Managed Risk Medical Insurance Program, which covers patients who are unable to get coverage elsewhere

*AB2889/Frommer: Support
Prohibits health plans from discriminating against people who have been insured, but who have chronic or serious illnesses

*SB1448/Kuehl: Support
Expands coverage using money from state's federal hospital waiver

*SB1622/Escutia: Support
Gives employers a notice to be passed along to employees, advising them of the availability of Healthy Families and Medi-Cal

*AB1952/Nation: Oppose Unless Amended
Repeals HMO reform, while forcing businesses to provide health coverage and individuals to purchase it

*AB2450/Richman: Oppose
Obligates every Californian to purchase skeleton health coverage.

*AB2473/Wyland: Oppose
Intends to require personal identification for any kind of state-funded health care benefits.

Consumer Protections Against Medical Debt

Hospital Overcharging of Self-Pay Patients

*AB774/Chan: Support-Sponsor
Provides consumer protections against abusive hospital billing and collections practices, including those that charge self-pay patients multiple times what insurers pay for the same service.

Underinsurance and High-Deductible Health Plans

*AB977/Nava: Support-Sponsor
Allows the state to monitor and determine the fairness of out-of-pocket costs permitted by health plans

*AB2281/Chan: Strong Support
Provides information and protections to consumers with high-deductible health plans

*AB2010/Plescia: Oppose
Allows holders of Health Savings Accounts to receive a tax credit in California

*SB1584/ Runner-Ackerman: Oppose
Allows holders of Health Savings Accounts to receive a tax credit in California

*AB2737/Nakanishi: Oppose
Gives businesses tax breaks if they contribute to employees' Health Savings Accounts

*SB1639/Dutton: Oppose
Gives businesses tax breaks if they contribute to employees' Health Savings Accounts

Affordable Prescription Drugs

*AB75/Frommer: Support
Would establish a prescription drug discount program, to use the purchasing power of the state of California (through its Medi-Cal program) to negotiate the best possible drug prices for 8-10 million Californians who are uninsured or underinsured

*AB2911/Nunez-Perata: Support
Establishes a prescription drug discount program

*SB1702/Perata-Nunez:Support
Establishes a prescription drug discount program

*AB2877/Frommer:Support
Establishes a website listing sources that are safe for purchasing more affordable drugs from other countries.

*SB452/Alarcon: Support
Requires Medi-Cal contracts with drug manufacturers to be disclosed to the chairs of relevant legislative committees

Patient Protections

Prescription Drug Safety

* SB1683/Scott:Support
Requires pharmaceutical companies to report the results of all their clinical trials

* AB71/Chan-Frommer: Support
Establishes a clearinghouse for information about the safety and effectiveness of prescription drugs that are advertised on television

Medicare Part D Consumer Protections

* Budget Item: Support
Authorizes Medi-Cal to continue to be the safety-net provider of prescription drug coverage for "dual-eligible" seniors and people with disabilities

*AB2170/Chan: Support-Sponsor
Creates a consumer report card on Medicare Part D prescription drug plans

*AB2667/Baca: Support-Sponsor
Allows the state to monitor prescription drug coverage plans in the same way it monitors health plans

*AJR40/Chan-Berg: Support
Calls on federal government to make changes to the Medicare Part D prescription drug plans, including extending the deadline for it.

Insurance Oversight and Other Patient Protections

*AB2607/De La Torre: Support
Provides consumer protections if seniors and people with disabilities in Medi-Cal are placed into mandated managed care

*SB1405/Soto: Support
Creates a Task Force on Reimbursement for Language Services to recommend actions for achieving linguistic access to care

*SB1704/Kuehl: Support
Extends the sunset for the existing California Health Benefits Review program to 2010.

*SB1804/Florez: Support
Requires health insurers to disclose the number of physicians accepting new patients on a county-by-county basis.

*AB2855/Parra: Oppose
Allows fraudulent "discount health plans'' without needed consumer protections

*AB2979/Richman: Oppose
Shifts aged, blind and disabled patients into Medi-Cal managed care, which would disrupt care for this vulnerable population

For answers to questions about any of these bills, or to get a copy of a sample letter to submit to the Legislature for any of these bills, contact Hanh Kim Quach, Policy Coordinator, Health Access California, at 916-497-0923, or hquach@health-access.org.

Labels: Updates

posted by Anthony Wright | Permalink | 11:27 AM


 

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

HEALTH ACCESS UPDATE
Tuesday, April 11th, 2006

LEGISLATORS, CONSUMER ADVOCATES CONTINUE FOCUS ON PHARMACEUTICALS

• Cost, Quality & Access: New Push on Prescription Drug Prices, Safety
• Actions Needed to Fill Medicare Part D Gaps in Coverage and Oversight
• Action: Press Conference & Lobby Day April 18th; Start of Week of Legislative Hearings

High-profile prescription drug legislation will be considered in the next two weeks in the California legislature, to lower the cost of medicines, ensure their safety, and make sure that patients get the treatments they need.

Even after a year that included the start of the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit, major court decisions on Vioxx and other unsafe drugs, and a $80 million initiative campaign by the pharmaceutical lobby to prevent ballot reforms, this new burst of legislation indicates that these issues are not going away--in fact, the stakes and issues have been further clarified, and the time is ripe for action.

OURX COALITION: From the past three years, the OuRx Coalition—representing seniors, working people, consumers, communities of color, and California families—has worked on behalf of consumers' drug needs, battling the drug company lobby PhRMA and others in the health industry. The coalition is advocating for over 10 pieces of legislation to ensure consumers have access to safe, effective, and affordable prescription drugs that are purchased in a fair and transparent marketplace.

Members of the OuRx Coalition Steering Committee include AIDS Healthcare Foundation, California Alliance for Retired Americans, California Labor Federation, CALPIRG, Congress of California Seniors, Consumers Union, Gray Panthers California, Greenlining Institute, Health Access California, Latino Coalition for a Healthy California, Older Women’s League, and Senior Action Network.

HEARINGS: Consideration of these bills start in the April 18th hearing of the Assembly Health Committee, chaired by Assemblywoman Wilma Chan. That hearing will start by considering a new version of a bill, AB2877(Frommer), to facilitate the reimportation of safe, affordable prescription drugs from other countries, and a new bill, AB2667(Baca), to place additional state oversight over Medicare Part D prescription drug plans.

Up on the 19th in Senate Health Committee, chaired by Senator Deborah Ortiz, SB1683 (Scott) will be heard to prevent future cases like Vioxx. In the next week, on the 25th in Assembly Health Committee, AB2170 (Chan) will be considered to create a report card for those having to choose Medicare Part D prescription drug plans in the state.

Also on that hearing on the 25th, AB2911 (Nunez/Perata) will be considered, as a new effort by legislative leadership to create a meaningful, enforceable prescription drug discount plan, for those without comprehensive prescription drug coverage. A similar bill, SB1702 (Perata/Nunez) will be up on the 26th in Senate Health Committee. Based a structure suggested by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Office, these bills help create a framework for a legislative solution to prescription drug prices, coming after last year's Proposition 78 & 79 campaigns.

ACTIONS: April 18th will also feature a press event and lobby day on prescription drug issues. Organizations interested in participating should contact Anthony Wright at 916-442-2308, or awright@health-access.org.

LETTERS NEEDED: Letters in support of these bills are needed ASAP, to the Assembly and Senate Health Committees, respectively. For a sample letter on any of these bills, contact Hanh Kim Quach, at 916-497-0923, or hquach@health-access.org.

IMMEDIATE ACTION: Medicare Part D, with its various problems and issues, requires both emergency and ongoing fixes. This includes both ongoing budget and legislative changes, as described below. It also includes continuing the emergency coverage that the Legislature and the Governor enacted through SB 1233 (Perata) to prevent the most vulnerable seniors and people with disabilities from going without life sustaining drugs. Right now, emergency coverage will expire at April 16th unless the Governor uses his authority under the bill to extend it further.

Advocates are hosting a CALL-IN DAY on Wednesday, APRIL 12th, to urge Governor Schwarzenegger to "extend emergency Part D coverage," to ensure that the low-income seniors and people with disabilities continue to get needed medication. To call Governor Schwarzenegger, call 916-445-2841 (Press 2, then press 0).

Even if this emergency coverage is extended, advocate will be continuing to work to get a permanent solution for the "dual-eligibles," who had their Medi-Cal coverage replaced by the more costly, less comprehensive coverage of the private Part D plans.

OuRx BILL LIST: BELOW is the full list of the consumer, senior, and health groups are supporting these reforms to address the cost, quality and access of prescription drugs, including the following bills:

1. Cost

Americans, especially those that are uninsured or are underinsured, continue to pay more for prescription drugs than anybody else in the world. These bills include a new version of the bill to facilitate the reimportation of safe, affordable drugs from other countries, and a new effort by Assembly and Senate leadership to design a legislative solution to allow California to directly negotiate for cheaper drugs for its residents.

• AB75 (Frommer) would establish a prescription drug discount program to use the purchasing power of the state of California (through its Medi-Cal program) to negotiate for the best possible drug prices for the 8-10 million uninsured and underinsured Californians.
• AB2911 (Nunez/Perata) * would also establish a prescription drug discount program.
• SB1702 (Perata/Nunez) * would also establish a prescription drug discount program.
• AB2877 (Frommer) * would establish a website to facilitate Californians purchasing safe and affordable prescription drugs from other countries.
• SB163 (Scott) would require drug companies to tell the state how much of their budgets are spent on advertising versus on research.
• SB452 (Alarcon) requires Medi-Cal contracts with drug manufacturers to be disclosed to chairs of relevant legislative committees.
  

2. Quality

With more coming out about Vioxx scandal and other issues, California has the opportunity to advance the cause of prescription drug safety, to make sure that consumer get the most appropriate, safest, and most effective medicines they need.

• SB1683 (Scott) * would require drug companies to release the results of all of their clinical trials – good or bad – for every drug they sell in California.
• AB71 (Chan/Frommer) would establish a clearinghouse for information about the safety and effectiveness of prescription drugs that are advertised on television
  

3. Access

California needs to fill gaps in both coverage and oversight left by the Medicare Part D program. This includes both a budget effort to win protections for the state's most vulnerable. And despite federal attempt to pre-empt state oversight, legislators are still interested in finding ways to provide consumer protections over growing problems with private drug plans.

• Budget action (and/or legislation) to authorize Medi-Cal to continue to be a safety-net provider of prescription drug coverage for seniors and people with disabilities who are eligible for both Medicare and Medi-Cal.
• AB2170 (Chan) * would create a consumer report card on Medicare Part D prescription drug plans.
• AB2667 (Baca) * would allow the state to monitor and regulate prescription drug coverage plans in the same way it regulates health plans.
• AJR 40 (Berg/Chan) calls on the federal government to make changes to the Medicare Part D prescription drug plans, including an extension of the deadline for seniors to sign up without penalty.
  

* indicates a new 2006 bill up in policy committee in April.

Labels: Updates

posted by Anthony Wright | Permalink | 11:18 AM


 

Friday, April 07, 2006

HEALTH ACCESS UPDATE
Friday, April 7, 2006

MASSACHUSETTS PASSES MAJOR HEALTH REFORM; CALIFORNIA LESSONS

• Expands Public Programs, Reforms Insurance Market, Requires Employer Contributions
• Limited Individual Mandate Controversial; “Affordable” Definition Future Fight to Watch
• California Comparison: Governor Schwarzenegger Vetoed Two Components Last Year: Universal Children’s Coverage and Dependent Coverage Expansion
• Will Breakthrough States Provide Momentum for Additional Reforms in CA and U.S.?

In a move that has gotten national attention and re-ignited the debate about universal health coverage, the Massachusetts legislature passed a comprehensive health reform package earlier this week designed to cover 90-95% of the state.

DEAL REACHED: This was the result of lengthy negotiations by a legislative conference committee considering multiple pending proposals: not just one by the Democratic House, another by the Democratic Senate, but also a third by Republican Governor Mitt Romney, and a fourth that was pending in a ballot measure for which signatures were already collected by a coalition of health care and consumer advocates. Additional urgency was provided by the expiration of the state’s 1115 Medicaid waiver, and this plan was viewed as a way to preserve $770 million in federal funds.

The Governor is expected to sign the bill, which got near unanimous votes in the legislature. While he has suggested he might use his line-item veto power for some elements of it, the legislative leaders has been clear that they will override any such changes.

THE COMPONENTS: The full text of the bill, summaries of its many components, a catalog of media coverage, and even a blog giving some political context, is available at the Affordable Coverage Today (ACT!) webpage of Health Care for All, a Massachusetts consumer advocacy group that was a key supporter of the measure:
http://www.hcfama.org/act/

The measure is made up of many different building blocks toward universal coverage, many of which have been considered individually or as part of proposals here in California . Supporters of the Massachusetts measure are clear that the bill leaves many details to be worked out in implementation, and that other reforms and efforts will be needed to ensure the program works, and to actually reach full universal coverage.

This is a rough sketch of most of the key components, with some California context:

COVERAGE EXPANSIONS: Of the various elements, the most familiar to Californian health policy advocates is the creation and expansion of public insurance programs, which account for 300,000 of the potentially 515,000 additional covered lives that are estimated to be covered by 2009.

• CHILD COVERAGE EXPANSION: The bill expands children’s coverage through the MassHealth/Medicaid program to cover kids up to 300% of the federal poverty level ($60,000 for a family of four). This is an increase from the current level of 200%FPL and is similar to the current California efforts to cover all children, such as AB774 (Chan) that was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger last year, and the currently pending SB437 (Escutia).
• SUBSIDIZED HEALTH INSURANCE: The bill creates the Commonwealth Care Health Insurance Program, where adults (with or without children) under 300% of the federal poverty level can get subsidized private health insurance with no deductibles. Those under 100% of the poverty level would not pay any premium, and those up to 300% would face a sliding scale of premium payments based on affordability.
• MEDICAID ENROLLMENT: The bill also reverse cuts made to Medicaid during the recent budget crisis in 2002, such as lifting enrollment caps on specific programs, and restoring vision and dental services. It would put some funding into outreach for eligible but unenrolled citizens, and also increases provider payments, on a pay-for-performance basis, including on an emphasis on reducing racial and ethnic disparities.

INSURANCE MARKET REFORMS: Massachusetts already has significant insurance market reforms that California doesn’t, including a form of “community rating” for some parts of the insurance market, which means that a patient cannot be turned down or charged more for non-group insurance because he or she has a “pre-existing medical condition,” such as diabetes, asthma, or a heart problem. The state also has existing regulations of deductibles and co-payments. Supporters hope that these reforms would assist another 200,000 residents to get coverage.

• NEW AUTHORITY: The bill creates a new Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector, which would certify and offer new products. Importantly, all current mandated benefits are protected, including mental health. It would also allow multiple employers to contribute to the health care of a worker (such as a seasonal and part-time workers).
• MARKET REFORM: The bill merges the non- and small-group markets for health insurance products. Supporters say this would stabilize the individual insurance market, and lower rates for individuals by 24%.
• DEPENDENT COVERAGE EXPANSION: Young adults will be able to stay on the parents’ insurance plans for two years past the loss of their dependent status or until age 25. This is similar to a bill last year AB1698(Nunez), that was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.

FUNDING AND REQUIREMENTS: Massachusetts lawmakers were pushed into this effort by the potential loss of the Medicaid waiver, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and that continues to be the backbone of funding. In addition, Massachusetts has an existing uncompensated care pool to fund care for the uninsured who use hospital emergency rooms, which is paid for by an existing fee on insurers and employers who buy coverage. On top of these existing sources, and some money from the state’s general fund, are the requirements on individuals and employers, which are the most controversial parts of the bill. One potential funding source, a tobacco tax that was in the proposed initiative, was not included in the final bill:

• EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS: Employers of 10 or more that do not provide health coverage will pay $295/year for each uninsured worker, which goes to pay for the subsidized insurance plans. This follows a similar principle to SB 2 (Burton) and Prop 72 in California a few years ago, which was passed and repealed, which would have required employers to provide coverage or pay a fee into a program that would otherwise cover their workers. (Gov. Romney is accepting this as an “assessment,” rather than a “tax.”) As stated above, Massachusetts has an existing assessment on health insurance paid for by employers and individuals who purchase health insurance; This $295 charge helps eliminate the inequity that now penalizes those employers that provide coverage, as opposed to those that don’t. The Massachusetts bill also has a “free rider surcharge” if an employers’ workers use uncompensated care often.
• INDIVIDUAL MANDATE: All residents in Massachusetts would be required to obtain health coverage. However, the requirement is limited, in that there must be “affordable” coverage available, although that term is presently undefined. If no coverage is deemed “affordable,” there is no penalty. While those under 300% of the federal poverty level are eligible for subsidized insurance or public insurance programs, those over 300% of the poverty level are at risk for the penalty, which range from the loss of the personal tax exemption (around $150) to half the cost of coverage (perhaps around $1,000).

SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION: While the plan got some important business support, it is not surprising that some business leaders are attacking the employer assessment as a tax. The plan did get bipartisan, near-unanimous support from elected leaders in Massachusetts , and from a broad coalition including many consumer, and health advocates.

WHAT IT IS AND ISN’T: Some of the critiques of the Massachusetts proposal, especially from traditional supporters of universal health care, is to point out various elements missing from the proposal. First and foremost, even supporters of the Massachusetts measure are clear that the proposal is not universal, despite some of the characterization in media coverage. There are criticisms that it leaves some residents without coverage; that it doesn’t control costs; that it is either underfunded, by not raising enough money through the employer assessment, or by not wringing savings from insurers or providers.

Boston physicians Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein, co-founders of Physicians for a National Health Prorgam, and veteran advocates for a universal single-payer system,stated: “The legislation will do nothing to contain the skyrocketing costs of care in Massachusetts .... Indeed, it gives new infusions of cash to hospitals and private insurers… The program is simply not sustainable over the long- or even medium-term.”

Many supporters of the Massachusetts measure also support a universal, single-payer health care system, and would admit that the package isn’t all that they wanted—it was a compromise that didn’t include all that was in the pending ballot measure, such as a much larger employer assessment and a tobacco tax to help fund the program. But they state that given all the issues in the health care system, it isn’t fair to criticize a plan for what it isn’t, but critics should focus on what it does do.

John McDonough, director of the Massachusetts group Health Care for All, states in his online blog: “We are confident the new law will result in new coverage for hundreds of thousands of uninsured in Massachusetts , with the best help going to those at the bottom of the economic ladder, as it should be. We would love it if we had been able to raise a lot more money to push the subsidies higher...Wish we could have gone further. Still, this is a damn good improvement.”

He also states: “Fundamentally, this law is about expanding access to affordable coverage, not about reducing costs. Everybody has favorite ideas how to lower costs, and most of them lack sufficient political support to be achieved.” Other supporters indicate how this proposal can serve as a foundation toward additional reforms, including bigger program expansions, employer assessments, and cost controls, as well as the ultimate reform of publicly-financed universal health care.

OPPOSITION TO INDIVIDUAL MANDATE: Despite the multiple components of the measure, what has gotten the most attention in the media is the “individual investment” section, which is being attacked from both the right and the left. The right-wing chorus includes attacks from the libertarian Cato Institute and the Wall Street Journal, which challenge this as “big government,” both in the programs created, and the intrusion on individuals.

Of those forces that support reform, the most prominent critique was from AFL-CIO chief John Sweeney, who stated, “Forcing uninsured workers to purchase health care coverage or face higher taxes and fines is the cornerstone of Mr. Gingrich’s health care reform proposals. And it is unconscionable that Massachusetts has adopted this misguided individual mandate.”

“The bill protects workers with the lowest incomes, but punishes middle-income families. A typical family in which the husband and wife each earn a little more than $30,000 and who have two children would be forced to purchase health care, but would not be qualified for any help even if their employer does not offer any coverage or they can’t afford their share of the premium.. We believe that workers have to participate in the solution to the problem, but this plan puts the entire burden on workers while letting employers off the hook.”

Supporters argue that they accepted individual requirements as part of a package that includes requirements on employers, that 2/3 of the uninsured are under 300% and would get significant assistance, and that the mandate would not apply unless there was an “affordable,” meaningful plan available.

CALIFORNIA DEBATE ON INDIVIDUAL MANDATE: Many consumer advocates are concerned that the media’s focus on the individual mandate (rather than on the many other provisions) places the emphasis on a problem that really doesn’t exist: that people overwhelmingly take up coverage when offered, but either are not eligible through an employer or by a public insurance program, and otherwise find it unaffordable or unavailable, due to “pre-existing conditions.” Consumer advocates have often opposed such individual requirements that are not in the context of a social insurance program (such as Medicare) that ensures access and affordability. And there is disagreement about whether the Massachusetts bill provides such a context.

An “individual mandate” proposal that was vastly different than the Massachusetts bill, AB1670(Nation/Richman), was considered last year in the California legislature. The proposal, which shifted the entire burden of the cost of health care on to the individual, and mandated high-deductible, bare-bones “skeleton” policies, was opposed by Health Access California and numerous other health care and consumer organizations, and ultimately only got two votes on the Assembly Health Committee.

A new “individual mandate” bill, AB2450 (Richman) is also pending this year, set to be heard later this month in Assembly Health Committee, again without the consumer and financial protections, shared responsibility and systematic reforms in place in Massachusetts. Health Access California opposes AB2450 (Richman) in its current form.

DIFFERENCES WITH CALIFORNIA : As California advocates evaluate the Massachusetts proposal, it is important to note the differences between the policy environment in the two states. As stated above, Massachusetts starts with a different public policy foundation, including an existing pool of funds for uninsured care, and a broader range of regulation on insurers.

The scope of the problem is almost twice as great in California , where nearly 1 in 5 residents are uninsured, as opposed to in Massachusetts , which is closer to 1 in 10. Finally, the scale is different, as Massachusetts is smaller than Los Angeles County . Massachusetts has to close a gap in health coverage. California has to close a chasm.

MOMENTUM FOR REFORM FROM THE STATES: Despite these differences, there are lessons to learn from the Massachusetts proposal, both the policy, and the politics that led to its passage. Most importantly, the discussion is re-igniting national interesting universal health care and possibility of moving ahead with major health reform.

California helped start this conversation with the passage of SB2 in 2003, which was hailed, along with the Dirigo Plan in Maine , as the start of state-based efforts to expand coverage to the uninsured. Just this past year, Illinois won universal coverage for children, Maryland passed a minimum health care contribution for very large employers, and now Massachusetts has put forward this multi-pronged program. The hope is that if enough states breakthrough with reforms, this will force health care reform onto the national agenda.

CALIFORNIA PROPOSALS: California has multiple proposals pending, to continue to provide leadership in this regard:

• Of particular note is SB840 (Kuehl), the California Health Insurance Reliability Act, which would establish a universal, publicly financed, single-payer health care system in California, similar to the Medicare program.
• There are new attempts to set a standard for on-the-job health care benefits, most prominently at the local level in San Francisco .
• Many advocates are ramping up efforts to cover all children in California , with an urgency to pass something this year, through bills including SB437(Escutia/Chan), the budget, and a ballot box initiative pending for November.

The momentum continues to build for the goal of quality, affordable health care for all. Health advocates can use the attention to this Massachusetts measure to ensure that these and other proposals move forward, that candidates feel obliged to talk about health reform in this upcoming election season, and to make it clear that comprehensive health reform is not just urgent, and necessary, but achievable.

Labels: Updates

posted by Anthony Wright | Permalink | 11:12 AM


 

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...