Drug Money

Saturday, June 14, 2008

Assemblyman John Laird, chairman of the Assembly Budget Committee, put up a good fight for the yet-to-be implemented California Discount Prescription Drug Program, which was signed into law in 2006 but delayed because of budget constraints.

The Senate has proposed delaying this again this year for a $5.8 million savings (.006 percent of the state budget). I wanted to clarify something that Assm. Laird said. This program would allow approximately 5.4 million unisnured low- and moderate-income Californias (below 300% of poverty) to buy prescription drugs at a *fair* price (between 40 to 60 percent off). Right now, this population pays the sticker price for drugs -- or they go without.

Sen. Denise Ducheny, chair of the Senate Budget Committee, did not think as much was being lost if the program had not yet been implemented.

The item remains open.

Labels: Budget, Drugs

posted by Hanh Kim Quach | Permalink | 12:19 PM


 

We live to fight another day for drug discounts...

Friday, May 23, 2008

Wednesday morning, without taking testimony, the Senate Budget Subcommittee chaired by Senator Elaine Alquist, with Senator Alex Padilla concurring, voted to eliminate funding for the drug discount program.

At noon time, I came back to the office and looked at the blog post by my colleague, Hanh Quach, with that wonderful picture of Governor Schwarzenegger signing the bill, framed on either side by supporters including Anthony Wright, Health Access executive director, and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, who stepped down from that position a week ago yesterday.

I found it hard to believe that only a week after Nunez had stepped down as Speaker, the Assembly would just agree with the Senate and eliminate funding for the drug discount program that every article on his tenure as Speaker cited as one of his major accomplishments.

At 1:30pm, I found out I was wrong. The Assembly Budget Subcommittee convened and we discovered that they too planned to eliminate funding, in the technical language of the legislature, “conforming” to the Senate action. Things can move quickly around the Capitol.

I noticed that somehow the drug companies had found out that they were about to win a delay in this program that they had fought so hard to stop—I saw several of their lobbyists in the back of the hearing room.

Fortunately, the Assembly Budget Subcommittee allowed public testimony. Bill Powers, advocate for California Alliance of Retired Americans (CARA), and I spoke. I pointed out that Health Access had sponsored a ballot measure that Pharma spent $80 million to defeat and that the law was a compromise based on the Legislative Analyst Office (LAO). Consumers and labor supported the law, Pharma bitterly opposed. I said we strongly opposed not funding the program.

Bill Powers spoke about the travesty of the Medicare drug program where Medicare cannot negotiate prices with the drug companies. He pointed out that the State of California negotiates with drug companies for both Medi-Cal and for this new program for the uninsured. Medi-Cal gets very good prices from the drug companies—that is why they opposed this new discount program. If we don’t get the new program, Bill said, we will never know for sure how much we can benefit the uninsured.

And rare in what all too often feels pre-scripted, Assemblymember Patty Berg, the Budget Sub chair, moved to hold the item open, postponing action to another day. The Democrats present, Assemblymembers Jim Beall and Ed Hernandez, concurred. I was so relieved I forgot to notice what the Republicans did.

So we still have a chance to win. But it is a slim one. At any time, the Assembly could agree with the Senate and consumers will be out of luck on drug discounts and the drug companies will have won through the backdoor because of the bad budget year. It seems a poor tribute to the work Speaker Emeritus Nunez has done on health care.

Labels: Budget, Drugs, Nunez, Perata, Schwarzenegger

posted by Beth Capell | Permalink | 10:13 AM


 

Senate Committee says No to Prescription Drugs

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

The Senate budget subcommittee that oversees the state's health budget voted to eliminate funding that would have implemented the California Discount Prescription Drug Program.

As many may recall, health advocates went through a bruising battle against Big PhRMA in 2005 ($80 million spent against us) on the ballot, and then won a year later when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the bill and even had a fancy signing ceremony in the Capitol Rotunda.

The discount drug program would have allowed the state to negotiate discounted drug prices from pharmaceutical company, helping approximately 5.4 million uninsured families -- the people who now pay FULL PRICE for prescription drugs -- buy drugs at fairer prices. If drug companies did not give satisfactory discounts, then the state could have used the purchasing power of Medi-Cal to leverage lower prices.

Californians below 300% of poverty ($63,600 for a family of four) would have been able to buy drugs at 40-60% off the sticker price. While that's still more than many of us pay for our drugs (insured Californians often pay a fixed co-pay), it's still a lot less than what they pay without the program.

So that means middle-income and low-income Californians, who are already seeing the substantial reductions in their health benefits through public programs for their children, and schools, will now have to pay more for drugs.

Labels: Budget, Drugs, Schwarzenegger, Uninsured

posted by Hanh Kim Quach | Permalink | 11:22 AM


 

Drug cost-sharing and other wonkery...

Thursday, April 17, 2008

Maggie Mahar and Niko Karvounis at Health Beat host this week's Health Wonk Review. In addition to a better-than-the-original summary of our post on ER overcrowding, the blog hightlights lots of good issues and posts.

There's lots of commentary (some compiled by Brass and Ivory) on the recent New York Times article by Gina Kolata (reprinted in the Sacramento Bee and elsewhere) about the astonishing co-payments and cost-sharing for a new "tier 4" class of prescription drugs.

Here's the Wonk summary and links on this issue:

"...many insurers are now insisting that patients suffering from diseases such as MS, Hepatitis C and some cancers pay a percentage of the cost of super-expensive drugs.

Normally patients are asked to pay a flat fee of $10, $20, or $30, depending on whether an insurer classifies a drug as tier 1, tier 2 or tier 3. But now patients are forced to pay 20 percent to over 30 percent of the cost of “tier 4” drugs that can cost $100,000 a year—or more. Emrich presents the full range of responses coming from MS Bloggers, Health Policy Wonks, and Medical Professionals.

While some think that “Patients have been shielded from costs far too long, subsequently leading to an entitlement mentality,” others sympathize with MS bloggers like Jeri who writes: “I am terrified about what will happen when this Fingolimod trial ends and I no longer get my medication for free. I strongly believe that the medicine is the reason for this long period of remission that I am enjoying, and the health care system is putting a price on that for me. I know it will be out of my reach once it has gone to market and I am forced to pay for it."

Meanwhile, at the Sentinel Effect, Richard Eskow quotes a surprising industry response from Robert Zirkelbach of America’s Health Insurance Plans: "When plan designs are no longer made to change behavior, but simply to transfer high-cost items back to the insured party, that’s risk transfer and not benefit design. As a result, the insurance concept is being subtly modified - and arguably undermined." [Note: this, from an interview by American Prospects’s Ezra Klein.]

Lisa ends by tipping her hat to Merrill Goozner of GoozNews, re-printing Goozner’s post on tier 4 in its entirety.

At Colorado Health Insurance Insider, blogger Louise offers her own very sharp take on tier 4 drugs, and offers her solution for keeping costs down without imposing an unfair burden on a smallgroup of very sick patients. Her concluding paragraph deserves to be reprinted in full: “Charging insured [patients] slightly higher prices for common drugs - the ones that are prescribed to millions of Americans - and not having to charge dramatically higher prices for the rarely prescribed, expensive drugs would be a better way of spreading the rising cost of prescriptions out over the whole population, instead of dumping it at the feet of those who are already battling against some of the nastiest illnesses around.” Amen to that.

Finally, for Health Beat's take on Tier 4, check out Maggie's last post, where she asks “Who Sets the Price at $100,000” and, does anyone happen to know, “Are These Drugs Effective?”

Labels: Drugs, InTheNews, OtherBlogs

posted by Anthony Wright | Permalink | 3:01 AM


 

PHRMA strikes back...

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Big PhRMA today smothered AB 2821 (Feuer), which would have limited the value of gifts given to physicians to $250 (about one-tenth of what is current practice for many companies), and required them to disclose any gifts (which includes meals, subscriptions, travel, trinkets, etc) of $50 or more. To read more about the bill, and research about pharmaceutical company gifts to physicians, see CalPIRG’s report here, UCSF's research on the issue here, and our previous post about the issue here.

AB 2821 was a far more modest proposal than what the Journal of the American Medical Association had recommended for its community, but not this year and not this bill. It needed nine votes to pass, it got five.

Dr. Michael Steinman, a UC San Francisco medical school professor, spoke of his research, which showed gifts from pharmaceutical companies created an "expectation of reciprocity'' -- that doctors needed to somehow return the favor. His research has also shown how 84% of physicians believed their colleagues were influenced by drug company gifts

CalPIRG staff attorney Mike Russo testified that physicians are visited by drug company representatives an average of 28 times a week – or six times a day. These frequent visits, he said, harmed patient care by increasing the cost of drugs (extra marketing costs and the prescribing of higher-cost drugs when generics would be fine) and creating the appearance of a conflict with the doctor-patient relationship.

Pharmaceutical companies argued -- as is their wont -- that the legislation would be too cumbersome, expensive, yada yada.... The bottom line is, if this type of marketing didn't work, they wouldn't dedicate $19 billion annually to push their drugs to the fore.

The California Medical Association – which was neutral on the bill – said “Sunshine is necessary’’ but believed there were some “differences of opinion’’ about the studies and felt that studies did not suggest that gifts altered their prescribing habits and were offended by the characterizations that maligned doctors and questioned their integrity.

It should be noted that the Journal of the American Medical Association recognizes the potential for the appearance of a conflict of interest and has put forth its own guidelines for self-regulation, which includes a ban on *all* gifts ("eliminating potential gray areas and greatly eases the burden of compliance"), replacing drug samples with a "system of vouchers for low-income patients ...that distance the company and its products from the physician.''

Labels: Drugs, Legislation

posted by Hanh Kim Quach | Permalink | 5:56 PM


 

Drug pushing...

CALPIRG Health Care Advocate Mike Russo (also a Health Access California board member) makes the case for AB2821 (Feuer) in the California Progress Report, and will later today as well at the Assembly Health Committee.

The bill would place a hard cap of $250 of "gifts" to doctors from drug companies, and require better public disclosure of the pharmaceutical companies' marketing practices. These are real cost drivers in our health care system--not only the cost of marketing, but the encouragement to move patients to the most profitable and most expensive drugs, even when more tried-and-true remedies are as effective, if not more so. For everyone who raises the issue of cost containment, this is a simple but important step.

This is part of an ongoing effort by many groups, an "OuRx Coalition," to get a handle on prescription drug costs--such as getting California to use its purchasing power to bargain down the costs of medicines for the uninsured and underinsured, with AB2911(Nunez/Perata) a couple of years ago.

Another consumer-backed bill of a few years ago, SB1765(Sher), had the drug companies create and publish their own guidelines for their marketing practices. A new CALPIRG analysis, "Playing By Their Own Rules," suggests that:
* Drug companies fail to count some meals and other payments as “gifts,” and therefore not subject to the limit;
* Some companies reserve the right to exceed their limits if they so choose;
* Others assert that they are following a limit, but do not disclose what that limit actually is, while a few fail even to post their policies at all.

Clearly, there's a prescription for some stronger oversight.

Labels: Drugs, Legislation, Research

posted by Anthony Wright | Permalink | 10:08 AM


 

Upcoming hearings...

Monday, March 31, 2008

While the Capitol is closed today in recognition of Cesar Chavez, the action starts up again tomorrow, in full forse. Some upcoming hearings of note here in Sacramento:

* Assembly Health Committee will meet tomorrow, Tuesday, April 1st--yes, April Fool's Day. What's not a joke is the drug companies' opposition to AB2821 (Feuer), to limit the "gifts" given by drug companies to doctors. And a spirited discussion on AB1945 (De La Torre), on rescissions. Should be an interesting hearing.

* Next Monday, April 7th, the Senate Budget Subcommittee on Health and Human Services will hold a hearing at 10:30 am on some of the proposed cuts to Medi-Cal, like Quarterly Status Reports.

* An important reform of the individual insurance market, AB1522(Steinberg), sponsored by Health Access California, is up in Senate Health Committee on Wednesday, April 9th. The committee starts at 1:30pm. There are other bills of note as well on the docket.

Labels: Drugs, Legislation, MediCal, Sacramento

posted by Anthony Wright | Permalink | 12:13 PM


 

Singing the "Blue Pencil" Budget Blues...

Friday, August 24, 2007

HEALTH ACCESS UPDATE
Friday, August 24, 2007


GOVERNOR SIGNS BUDGET, BUT WITH HEALTH CUTS
* $700 million in cuts is part of agreement with Senate Republican holdouts
* Implementation of children’s coverage outreach and drug discount program delayed
* Primary care clinics and Medi-Cal managed care also face cuts

New on the Health Access WeBlog: More Budget Update; Small Biz for Health Reform; The Veto Threat; Fact Checking the Gov; MA Redux; What is Universal? What is Covered?; Wonked!; Special Session?; Field Poll Analysis; President Bush Attacks SCHIP; New TV Ads; The Social Security Metaphor; New Report on Individual Market Consumer Protections; The Real Difference Between Nunez and the Gov; California Speaks; Kuehl Speaks; Having Our Say; The 2/3 Vote; Healthy San Francisco; Complaints About Insurers.


Earlier today, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the 2007-08 Budget, totalling over $145 billion. Due to a standoff by Senate Republicans, the budget was passed on Tuesday, August 21st, over 50 days after the beginning of the budget year. Of particular note was the $703 million in cuts the Governor made using his line-item veto authority.

As the governor and Legislature begin discussions on health care reform, more than half of cuts made in the 54-days-late budget that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Friday came from the department of Health and Human Services.

While $332 million of the cuts were simply a re-adjustment in Medi-Cal expectations and will not result in a reduction in services, other cuts would have significant impacts on nascent programs.

Among the cuts:

* PRESCRIPTION DRUG DISCOUNTS: $6.3 million from the California Discount Prescription Drug Program Fund: The Governor zeroed out the money to implement this program that would negotiate with drug companies to provide discounts to uninsured and underinsured Californians. In his veto statement, he directed the Department to identify ways to start the work, but the program is likely to be delayed.

Along with legislation on global warming and minimum wage, the Governor has repeatedly mentioned this program – a result of AB2911 (Nunez/Perata) -- as one of the major successes from 2006, including on multiple appearances on "Meet the Press."

* CHILDREN’S COVERAGE: $66 million to make it easier for children to enroll – and stay enrolled – in the state’s Medi-Cal and Healthy Families Program: There's a range of cuts to children's coverage. This includes cutting the $15.4 million to implement SB437 (Escutia) to streamline enrollment, and also cutting $15 million in funds for county outreach and enrollment efforts. These cuts effectively prevents the state from reaching out to more than 100,000 children who could be enrolled in public programs.

The Governor had a major bill signing ceremony on SB437, and has participated in several events on children's coverage, which remains an element of the Governor's health reform.

* CLINICS: $10 million from the Expanded Access to Primary Care. This cut will decrease access to care for uninsured patients through community clinics.

Providing care through community clinics was something that even legislative Republicans have advocated for in their health reform proposals this year.

* MEDI-CAL MANAGED CARE: $106.3 million in cuts to Medi-Cal Managed Care: While the budget retains $54 million in state dollars for an increase to Medi-Cal HMOs.

Yet the Governor would not draw down $53.1 million in federal matching funds, as part of this reduction to Medi-Cal--at the very time that health reform proposals seek to expand the program.


The Governor's budget document is available at:
http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/

A California Budget Project analysis is available at:
http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2007/082407govsigns.pdf

More information on the budget and health reform is available at the Health Access WeBlog, at
http://www.health-access.org/blogger.html

Labels: Budget, Drugs, SCHIPHealthyFamilies, Schwarzenegger, Updates

posted by Anthony Wright | Permalink | 10:07 PM


 

How to control costs, and more...

Thursday, April 26, 2007

Some laughter at an unexpected part of the conversation at the hearing yesterday... Senator Perata was detailing the various measures in his bill intended to control costs. For example, he stated that "we are in the freaking stone age in terms of medical records," and said that we "are killing people" by not using modern electronic technology to deal with medical records.

Beyond his own bill, he went on a short rant about prescription drug advertising, and the large amount of money spent on the television commercials for "the little blue pill," and the impact it has on health costs in general. He was very skeptical that as a patient he should be asking his doctor about any medication beyond aspirin. "What the heck do I know?" he inquired, wondering why he should be pestering his doctor about drugs, rather than the other way around.

He said if one looks at the sports show, all the advertisements are for "beer, cars, and pills--and not in that order." With a bemused smile, we commented on all TV commercials "and all those smiling men."

Not finished, he even interjected "you don't see the women smiling, only the men."

And then the conversation went back to health reform.

On a more serious note, one way to deal with the issue of prescription drug advertising is at the federal level, in a bill by California Congressman Henry Waxman, as described in this blog post by Steve Blackledge of CALPIRG. Not so seriously, he managed to invoke a comparison to Steve Martin in The Jerk.

Labels: CostContainment, Drugs, Federal, Funny, Legislation, OtherBlogs, Perata, YearOfReform

posted by Anthony Wright | Permalink | 1:20 AM


 

This is our political system on drugs...

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Here in Sacramento, SB840(Kuehl) passed out of Senate Health Committee this evening, along a party line vote with six "aye" votes. (State Senator Negrete-McLeod was not present during the vote.)

But the issue of "single-payer" health coverage was invoked in Washington, DC, as well.

In a blow to seniors, the federal budget, and common sense, several U.S. Senators blocked a attempt to pass a bill to allow the federal government to use its purchasing power under Medicare to negotiate for prescription drugs. While most Democrats (including California's Boxer and Feinstein) and even six Republicans voted for the measure, totalling 55 votes, it was not enough to get the supermajority 60 votes needed to actually get it passed.

I was curious about the argument quoted in the New York Times write-up:


Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, denounced the bill as “a step down the road to a single-payer government-run health care system.”

Democrats said they were merely trying to untie the hands of the secretary of health and human services so he could negotiate on behalf of 43 million Medicare beneficiaries.

“The Department of Veterans Affairs is able to negotiate for lower-priced drugs,” said the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada. “H.M.O.’s can negotiate. Wal-Mart can negotiate. Why in the world shouldn’t Medicare be able to do that?”

A 2003 law prohibits Medicare from negotiating or setting drug prices or establishing a uniform list of covered drugs, or formulary.


More than a handful of Republican Senators don't think they are endorsing single-payer health care when simply supporting the common-sense notion of the Medicare program using its purchasing power. The notion of a "bulk discount" is market-oriented, after all.

But it seem Senator Cornyn's argument only makes sense if he thinks the bill will actually be effective--that it will actually provide medicines at lower prices for seniors and Medicare. If it worked, it would spur other reforms... but that wouldn't be a bad thing.

Labels: Drugs, Federal, InTheNews, Medicare, SB840

posted by Anthony Wright | Permalink | 9:32 PM


 

What can you do for health care?

Monday, April 16, 2007

HEALTH ACCESS ALERT
Monday, April 16, 2007

ACTIONS ON HEALTH CARE THIS WEEK: RALLIES, HEARINGS, CALLS
* "It’s Our Healthcare!" Rally: Tuesday, April 17th
* Senate Health Committee considers SB840 (Kuehl): Wednesday, April 18th
* Call Congress on drug negotiation; SCHIP and covering legal immigrant children
* Health reform and children’s coverage measures up next week

The last two weeks of April promise to be eventful for health care activists in Sacramento, with many activities and committee hearings.

HEALTH REFORM RALLY TUESDAY APRIL 17

Tomorrow, a broad range of consumer, community, consumer, and labor groups will convene on the east side of the Capitol to kick off a major effort to engage Californians to tell their health care stories. These stores will help to remind decision makers at the Capitol that the reason that the health system needs to be reformed is to protect consumers.

The rally on Tuesday, sponsored by the It’s Our Healthcare! Campaign and the California Labor Federation, will feature Californians who have had a hard time getting health care they need when they need it, or ended up with mountains of medical debt when they sought medical help for their ailments. Photos and the stories of victims of the health care system will be featured in Capitol Park .

Who: More than 200 members of community organizations, unions, and senior groups statewide
What: Rally for Health Care. Launch of statewide story collection efforts.
When: 12noon, Tuesday, April 17th
Where: East lawn (between 12th and N streets) facing the east side of the Capitol.


SB840 (KUEHL) IN COMMITTEE ON WEDNESDAY

Sen. Sheila Kuehl will present her universal, single-payer legislation before her own Senate Health Committee on Wednesday, April 18th.

This is the fifth year in a row that Kuehl has authored a version of this bill. Last year, it made it to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s desk – for the first time in history – but was vetoed. Kuehl hopes to continue to refine the bill and advance it through the legislative process, as an important part of the health reform bill this year.

When: 1:30 p.m.
Where: State Capitol, Room 4203
Listen on the Web: http://www.senate.ca.gov/htbin/testbin/noframe_raudio/


CONGRESS TO VOTE ON MEDICARE DRUG NEGOTIATION

Back in Washington, DC, the U.S. Senate is expected to consider the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act soon. Currently, the government is prohibited from using the bargaining power of 43 million Americans in Medicare to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices. Earlier this year, the House of Representatives passed a bill to give the government the option to do just that.

National consumer groups have set up a TOLL-FREE HOTLINE FOR TODAY to urge our Senators to vote YES on this important legislative. The number is 1-800-828-0498.


HEALTH CARE FOR (LEGAL) IMMIGRANT CHILDREN, TOO!

The U.S. Congress is also deliberating the extension and reauthorization of the State Child Health Insurance Program, also known as Healthy Families in California.

One potential change as part of this debate would significantly help California draw down federal dollars for children's coverage. California currently provides coverage for some qualified children who are here legally but have not been here for five years--but the state does not get federal matching funds for this, as we get for other programs.

The Legal Immigrant Children’s Health Improvement Act (ICHIA) (S. 764, H.R. 1308) would allow and reimburse states to enroll these children in those programs. If this law passed, it would go a long way toward helping to cover all children nationally, and help California get its fair share of federal financing. It would also create a more solid foundation for the state’s efforts this year to provide universal health care to all Californians.A letter to Congress from governors is currently being circulated, but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has not yet signed on. If our governor signs on, other Republican governor may also join in support.

In late February of this year, Governor Schwarzenegger sent a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt where he reiterated his top healthcare priority -- universal coverage in California. He needs further deliver this message by signing onto the governor's letter being circulated. The deadline is Friday. We need you to contact the Governor's office TODAY and voice your group's support for this letter.

Call Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

Phone: 916-445-2841Fax: 916-445-4633

The California Partnership has a script for calling.

HEALTH BILLS UP NEXT WEEK

Back in Sacramento, here's some key bills up next week:

*AB8 (Nunez): It was previously reported that the Assembly Speaker’s health reform legislation would be heard April 17th. That hearing has been postponed to April 24th in the Assembly Health Committee.
* AB1 (Laird/Dymally) which would ensure all children up to 300 percent poverty are covered by either Medi-Cal or Healthy Families will be in Assembly Health Committee April 24th.
* SB48 (Perata): Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata’s health reform measure will be up April 25th in Senate Health Committee.
* SB32 (Steinberg) which would ensure all children up to 300 percent poverty are covered by either Medi-Cal or Healthy Families will be in Senate Health Committee April 25th.

Labels: Drugs, Legislation, Sacramento, SB840, SCHIPHealthyFamilies, Updates, YearOfReform

posted by Anthony Wright | Permalink | 5:41 PM


 

After today, the deluge

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

After a burst of health-related activity in January and February, the 2007 session has been relatively quiet -- until now.

This week, advocates saw debate on several bills, including two of note:

• AB1635 (Strickland) would have allowed Medi-Cal recipients to voluntarily enroll in high-deductible plans, and use HSA-like "Health Opportunity Accounts.'' Health Access California opposed the measure as did Western Center on Law and Poverty. The bill died on Tuesday.
• SB623 (Wiggins) would relieve seniors who are eligible for both Medi-Cal and Medicare to have co-pays for their prescription drugs paid for by Medi-Cal. Last year, when Medicare Part D went into effect, one million of the state's lowest income seniors (earning about $800 a month) were made worse off when they were shifted into the federal program, and required to pay copays on their multiple prescriptions. Under Medi-Cal, they did not have to pay. An effort to ensure these seniors could continue to get their medications without paying last year failed. Wiggins bill passed Senate Health on Wednesday.

The next two weeks, health committees in the Assembly and Senate will be bursting with activity. Health reform proposals by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez are expected to be heard on Tuesday, April 17. Sen. Sheila Kuehl's single payer measure, SB840, will be up the next day.

Senate President Don Perata's health reform bill will be up the following Wednesday April 25. And universal children's coverage bills will be up the 24th and 25th also.

Labels: Drugs, Kuehl, Legislation, MediCal, Medicare, Nunez, Perata, Sacramento, YearOfReform

posted by Hanh Kim Quach | Permalink | 11:56 PM


 

Provider rate reductions sort of reversed

 

A Constituency Against Health Care?

 

Progress report

 

Killing us softly...

 

Provider rate cuts put in place today...

 

Deadbeat Insurers

 

"The choice is clear..."

 

Another year, another missed deadline

 

So "never events" never happen...

 

Follow along...