|
Health Access Weblog
|
Busy Day...
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Lots of happenings on health today in Sacramento: * The Appropriations Committee ( Frank Russo gives some flavor here) passed the health care reform plans, as expected. * More information came out about the release of Sicko, the Michael Moore film, including a premiere that night hosted by Speaker Fabian Nunez in Sacramento on June 12th, as well as a 2p.m. rally that day with Sen. Kuehl and the California Nurses Assocation. ( Jon Myers at KQED and Jordan Rau at LA Times have reports). * On the other side of the spectrum, the Pacific Research Institute hosted a luncheon panel at noon attacking any health care reform, from the Governor Schwarzenegger's proposal to Senator Kuehl's. * Together for Health Care, a pro-reform coalition that includes California Medical Association, Catholic Healthcare West, California Labor Federation, SEIU, Blue Shield of California, Kaiser Permanente, HealthNet, AARP, Silicon Valley Leadership Group and the California Teachers Association have launched their first ad. The tagline: "If we don't make health care better, it will keep getting worse." Hard to disagree. The coalition is one of the rash of new health policy coalitions at the state and federal level. (Here's a scorecard.) It's a sign of the times that momentum is gaining on reform, and that is in itself is positive. Yet the diversity of the group (which includes some members and allies as well as sometime and frequent adversaries of Health Access California) means that their agreement is general, not too much beyond broad principles. (Here's one press report.) Labels: InTheNews, Legislation, Nunez, OtherBlogs, OtherCoalitions, Perata, Sacramento, SB840, YearOfReform
posted by Anthony Wright |
Permalink |
6:25 PM
a
"Unintended consequences" of BlueCross' ad campaign
Thursday, May 24, 2007
In opposing reforms to prevent them from denying Californians coverage, Blue Cross is bringing up the energy crisis, but the analogy might backfire. Newspapers and even this blog have already chronicled BlueCross' bad behavior in the marketplace, and their overall opposition to any health care reform. Now they have launched a $2 million-plus ad campaign, under the name "Coalition for Responsible Healthcare Reform." (The LA Times' Political Muscle covers it here.) Blue Cross should be ashamed, spending millions to retain their ability to deny coverage to Californians. The ads say "Remember how the rash enery deregulation of the energy market in California spawned power outages and soaring rates? Let's not go there again."  But if the energy crisis is the analogy, then Blue Cross is Enron, taking advantage of an unregulated California market and leading to a blackout of coverage for millions. But even the now-disgraced Enron never had the gall to run ads arguing that they should be allowed to continue to manipulate the market. Because there are so few rules on insurers now, Californians are concerned now they are one job change or life event away from facing a blackout of coverage. We have over 6 million Californians in a coverage blackout. Frankly, we have tolerated deregulation for too long: new and fair rules would increase the security that Californians have now with their coverage, so they are not denied because of their health status. BlueCross' ad campaign may backfire with the public. They won't believe BlueCross, and they will make it clear to Californians what we can win with health reform. DOING A FACT CHECK: I think Californians know better than to believe Blue Cross and their misleading statements, especially the absurd notion that buying health coverage as an individual is affordable now. Their ad won't persuade most Californians that individual insurance is affordable now, from a 50-year old woman in the Bay Area, to anybody that takes a handful of prescriptions a year. Blue Cross' price comparisons matches apples and oranges. It's different products, different people, and different states: * The list price in many states does not include the significant mark up for age or those who have even minor health issues. * The states with "guaranteed issue" are Northeast states which started with higher costs of living and higher insurance costs generally. * Finally, you can't compare a product that actually covers you when you are sick, to one that will not. We'll have more later in the day. Labels: Affordability, BlueCross, InTheNews, OtherBlogs, OtherCoalitions, OtherStates, YearOfReform
posted by Anthony Wright |
Permalink |
11:01 AM
a
The Rorscarch test...
Sunday, May 13, 2007
a
This sounds good and all, but....
Thursday, May 10, 2007
The governor, a bunch of California CEOs and some lawmakers aligned themselves outside the Capitol this morning – squinting, sweating and soaking up cancerous sun rays – and showing how excited they are to fight for health care reform. It’s Safeway CEO Steve Burd’s Jet-Setting CEO Show. Earlier this week, he was in Washington D.C. promoting the Coalition to Advance Healthcare Reform. (Here's a San Diego Union-Tribune story about Burd and his coalition). Joining him today was Del Monte Foods, BumbleBee Foods, Long’s Drug Stores and a smattering of other big businesses. Altogether, nearly 40 corporations – including a number of insurers (except Blue Cross) have signed on with Burd to campaign for health reform. First thing’s first. We’re glad that after years and years of fighting and disagreeing with us, California’s deep-pocketed CEOs, agree that we need to fix health care and make sure people can lead healthier lives, and get the health care they need, when they need it. We appreciate that one of the coalitions core tenets is “Financial Assistance for Low-Income Individuals” and encouraging healthier lifestyles. We’re all for that. But (you knew there had to be a “but”) I want to quibble with a few of their assertions and kvetch a bit. First, Burd said “25% of the uninsured have the financial wherewithal to pay for insurance.’’ I’m not sure where he gets his numbers. Judging from the latest California Health Interview Survey, if everyone who is currently uninsured and made more than $50,000 a year purchased health care, we could cross off 18%. That’s significantly below the “quarter of the uninsured’’ that Burd talks about. And we can’t really assume that all 18% can afford coverage. A number of those are families who have children. A family, with an income of $50,000 in Oakland, is unlikely to be able to afford health coverage. Backing out the families with kids, we’re down to 14%. Secondly, many of speakers referenced the role that individual responsibility plays in leading healthy lifestyles. In particular, the CEO of Del Monte Foods talked about nutritious eating to ensure that people live longer. I think that’s a fabulous idea -- but since when is canned fruit (steeped in sugar) a health food? Del Monte’s pear halves contain more than twice as many carbohydrates and nearly twice the calories as the same fresh piece of fruit (I'm an obsessive calorie counter). Of course – canned fruits are also less expensive – which will be part of my point. Really, though, the point these CEOs are trying to make is that diabetes, heart disease, asthma and obesity (the biggest cost drivers in health care) are easily preventable if people take responsibility and take care of themselves. That means exercising, taking your meds, seeing the doctor when you're supposed to, etc. First off, a lot of what determines whether or not you get one of these chronic diseases is genetics. So, if I could have chosen a father who doesn’t have heart disease and diabetes (my father is 130 pounds, a tennis player and hiker, NOT overweight), that would have been the best way for me to exercise prevention. But many people are able to manage their diseases with healthier living... ....That assumes, though, that struggling families, who are considered middle-income, have time after working two jobs to exercise. ...That assumes that you can afford to buy or rent a house far from the carbon-spewing industrial areas, further from the freeway, away from fields where they are spraying pesticides (or even away from Fresno, where Bay Area smog rolls in) ...That assumes that you can afford fresh fruits and vegetables, not ones preserved in cans. ...That assumes that your neighborhood is safe enough for your children to actively play in the streets, and walk to school. ...That assumes that you can afford the regimen of drugs, inhalers and follow up visits that are required to manage your disease. (** Note: while plans say they cover 100% of "preventive" care,
they don't mean managing chronic diseases, although covering chronic disease is a new "phenomenon" that is written about in this WSJ article that I blogged about yesterday)
If CEOs are going to insist on individual responsibility, the other pieces (government and employer and corporate responsibility) need to be a piece of the solution too. I was disappointed that Burd didn't come out and definitively say -- as he has in the past -- that an employer mandate is necessary and 4% contribution from employers is too low. This is an important point because without being in an employer-pool, workers making $15 an hour ($30,000 a year) would have to go out and buy insurance on their own at exhorbitant rates. Again, I do appreciate that big business is pushing health reform and annoying some of their smaller compatriots. But loosely saying that "the market'' should be allowed to work, when it hasn't been controlled thus far, is no longer enough. Emergency rooms are packed to the gills and sick people are dying because they can't get in. We've been talking about health reform for decades, it's time to get specific and move forward. Labels: HealthyLiving, InTheNews, OtherCoalitions, YearOfReform
posted by Hanh Kim Quach |
Permalink |
4:23 PM
a
You need a scorecard to keep track? Here it is...
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
By popular demand, here's a scorecard of the new state and national coalitions around healthcare reform. I might miss some, and won't include ongoing, existing coalitions (like Health Access California) as well as those that focus on one specific piece of legislation, like Sen. Wyden's bill or the Kennedy/Dingell bill at the national level, or SB840 or universal children's coverage here in California.These descriptions are short summaries, and not meant as endorsements or critiques. I'll try to refrain from much editorializing:Better Health Care Together* Got the most press for having SEIU and Wal-Mart together at the annoucement, it also includes the Center for American Progress, CWA on the labor side, and high-profile businesses such as communications companies AT&T, Qwest, and Intel, and temp agencies Kelly Services and Manpower, among others. * Vague but broad principles, that by 2012 every American should have "quality, affordable health insurance coverage." Health Care Coalition for the Uninsured* Includes many of the different health industry stakeholders, from insurers to providers to some business and consumer groups, including the American Hospital Association, American Medical Association, American Public Health Association, America's Health Insurance Plans, Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, Catholic Health Association, Chamber of Commerce, AARP, and Families USA. * With a federal focus, this coalition has probably the most specific (if less ambitious) health plan, mostly around expanding public programs for children as a priority, and expanding tax credits for individual private insurance. Divided We Fail* Smaller coalition but seemingly a bigger commitment from its three main members: AARP, SEIU, and the Business Roundtable. * National reach but with statewide activity, focused on "access to health care and long-term financial security." Coalition to Advance Healthcare Reform* Mostly Fortune 500 businesses, led by Safeway head Steve Burd, including other supermarkets and drugstore chains (Raley's, Price Chopper, CVS, Longs), retail goods manufacturers (H.J. Heinz, Clorox, Wrigley, General Mills, Kraft, PepsiCo), insurers (Aetna, Kaiser, Blue Shield of California, Pacificare, Cigna), and drug companies and others (GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly, PG&E.) * Mostly national in scope, but Safeway and other members have been very active in the California debate. Principles include: "Market-Based Healthcare System; Universal Coverage with Individual Responsibility; Financial Assistance for Low-Income Individuals; Healthier Behavior and Incentives; Equal Tax Treatment" Together for Health Care* California-focused health care stakeholders, including California Medical Association, Catholic Healthcare West, SEIU, Blue Shield, Kaiser, HealthNet, California Labor Federation, California Teachers Association, Silicon Valley Leadership Group, etc. * Broad principles, committed to "universal coverage," "shared responsibility" and "sustainable and equitable financing." Members say they are focused on creating a positive environment for reform in California this year, even as different members have different viewpoints on the proposals on the table. While these aren't "strange bedfellow" coalitions, I would be remiss not to include:Its Our Healthcare* Growing coalition of 50+ consumer and constituency organizations, including AARP, ACORN, AFSCME, Consumers Union, Health Access California, CALPIRG, SEIU, California Alliance for Retired Americans, California Labor Federation, California Council of Churches, IMPACT, California Pan-Ethnic Health Network, California Primary Care Association, Congress of California Seniors, Latino Coalition for a Healthy California, and many others. * This public campaign is to ensure that consumer voices and principles are reflected in the policy debate this year, to win reforms this year that benefit health care consumers. Having Our Say* California-focused coalition of groups that specifically represent communities of color, led by the California Pan-Ethnic Health Network, the California Immigrant Policy Center, and the Latino Issues Forum, and many others. * Working with Its Our Healthcare, but with a focus on addressing issues of equity in the health system, to meet the needs of the diversity of California. Finally, while all of the above coalitions emphasize their support of healthcare reform (even as they are vague or have different notions of what that is), one new coalition has a much more negative tone, with their emphasis explicitly against any employer requirement. The California Small Business Health Coalition is led by the California Restaurant Association, California Small Business Association, National Federation of Independent Businesses, and others, including large employers like Yum! Brands (KFC and Taco Bell). On the positive side, they do state their support for lower health costs and expanded children's coverage. We'll try to keep you updated with all this activity... Labels: ExpandingCoverage, OtherCoalitions, YearOfReform
posted by Anthony Wright |
Permalink |
4:16 PM
a
The coalitions of the willing...
The announcement earlier this week in the LA Times about the Safeway-led health care coalition would have been more momentous, if it wasn't that it sounded like a lot of similar announcements in the past few months, at both the state and federal level. These new coalitions often are made up of so-called "strange bedfellows," and have vague names, like "Together for Health Care," "Divided We Fail," "Coalition to Advance Healthcare Reform," and "Better Health Care Together." They usually also have vague principles, which show that while the organizations involved are interested in being supportive of some reforms, they haven't agreed together on too many specifics yet. My take? It's yet another sign there's new interest and momentum for health care reform. It's welcome that some new players, especially in the business community, are not simply just opposing various reform ideas as a reflex. We have worked with some of leading organizations in these groups, and know that there are areas of agreement, as well as areas where we agree to disagree. But it is appropriate to be skeptical of the goals and policies of Safeway, or insurers, or drug companies. So consumer advocates also need to be watchful and vigilant that some of these groups may well advance some proposals that are not in the best interest of the consumer. There new entities are distinct from specific coalition efforts around specific proposals, like SB840 or universal children's coverage, or long-standing coalition organizations with specific missions, like Health Access California. It also distinct from the public campaign that we are actively involved with, Its Our Healthcare!You'll notice that Its Our Healthcare, as a consumer campaign, it is getting its own press as well. But with all these new coalitions, we thought it was important to have a vibrant coalition effort focused on the public interest, on representing and activating the patient voice. Coming soon: a scorecard of these coalition efforts... Labels: ExpandingCoverage, InTheNews, OtherCoalitions, YearOfReform
posted by Anthony Wright |
Permalink |
12:26 AM
a
Webmaster: webmaster@health-access.org
|
|
|
Anthony Wright is the executive director, |
| with a background as a consumer advocate and community organizer on many issues, including health issues for the last ten years in California and New Jersey. |
|
|
|
Hanh Kim Quach is the policy coordinator; previously serving as |
| a newspaper reporter covering the Capitol for the Orange County Register and other papers for eight years |
|
-
-
feed
feed
Topic Search Other Blogs Our Bloggers Contact Us weblog@health-access.org
