MISSOURI FORUM
By Dr. Stephen Radinsky
I have spent years wondering what happened to that woman. With the health reform legislation just enacted by Congress, scenarios like this will disappear.
Our healthcare system has been broken for many years. One of the major problems in reforming the system was due to the unwillingness of the insurance companies to compromise. The insurance systems had a virtual monopoly in every state and were unwilling to sell insurance across state lines. Thus, the insurance companies made huge amounts of money. Last year, the CEO of United Healthcare made $1.6 billion in stock options alone. Several years ago, a Blue Cross Blue Shield CEO had a salary and bonus of $337.5 million.
Fortunately, the new health reform laws will vastly improve our healthcare system for everyone by making it fairer. Low-income people will qualify for Medicaid and moderate income people will get help to pay for insurance. An estimated 32 million uninsured Americans will gain health coverage. In Missouri, 495,000 uninsured will gain coverage. More than 1 million Missourians will access coverage through the health exchange. This will make it easier for people to comparison shop for policies. In addition, 516,000 residents will qualify for premium tax credits to purchase health coverage. And free preventive services will be provided to 961,000 seniors. Brand-name drug costs for 171,000 seniors in the Medicare D "doughnut hole" will be halved. Within 10 years, the donut hole will be fully closed.
In Missouri, 79,900 small businesses could receive a small business tax credit to offset premiums. Small businesses eligible for these tax credits employ more than 303,000 workers. In addition to all of these reforms, 559,000 young adults through age 26 will have the right to keep their parents’ insurance. Throughout Missouri, 108 Community Health Centers will receive large increases in funding. And more than 90,000 Missourians with pre-existing conditions will immediately gain access to affordable coverage. As a result of premium and cost sharing credits during the first five years of the exchange, the Missouri economy will benefit from $8.4 billion in new spending. Employers and small businesses will have the ability to create more than 6,000 jobs as a result of stabilizing and reducing healthcare costs. To sum it all up, the new health reform legislation will provide Missourians with health coverage; businesses will be able to give their employees health insurance; and the Missouri economy will be able to grow and create jobs.
Reform legislation includes significant private health insurance reforms to prohibit insurance companies from turning down individuals because of pre-existing conditions, or rescinding policies. The reforms also stop insurance companies from charging higher premiums because of pre-existing conditions, gender, or occupation. The reforms prohibit annual or lifetime limits on coverage and protect consumers with annual out-of- pocket spending caps, after which the insurance company must pay. In addition, the reforms will cap insurance company administrative overhead and profits and require insurers to use premiums to pay for medical care. The reform legislation strengthens oversight of insurance premium rates and increases. It will also allow for sales of insurance across state lines, as long as companies comply with minimum requirements created by states participating in compacts authorizing such sales.
But, if Missouri delays health reform, 128,000 more Missourians will lose health insurance by 2019 and a total of 862,000 Missourians will lack health insurance by 2019. With delay, the average Missourian's family insurance premium will increase by $8,646 by 2019. Missouri's small businesses will pay $3.3 billion more for healthcare premiums by 2018, stifling innovation and job growth.
Health reform will offer peace of mind to those of us who have insurance. Companies will no longer be able to drop us just because we are unlucky enough to get sick. Young adults just starting out can stay on their parents’ plans until they are 26. We will all have the peace of minds of knowing that if we lose our job or open our own business, we can still get insurance for ourselves and our families. Missouri cannot afford to delay health care reform.
Radinsky is a retired radiologist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2010 by the Missouri Forum. 6/10
LOUISIANA FORUM
By Mike Stagg
Since President Obama signed it into law, Jindal has ordered Attorney General Buddy Caldwell to file suit against the law. He has reversed Insurance Commissioner Jim Donelon’s plan to participate in the high-risk pools the law creates which provide coverage to adults who have been denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions. And he’s had DHH Secretary Alan Levine act as the administration’s public face in the effort to pass a constitutional amendment here to nullify aspects of the ACA, particularly the individual mandate to buy coverage.
These moves might advance the governor’s national political ambitions, but they are bad for Louisiana and harmful to its citizens.
The ACA addresses much of what ails healthcare in Louisiana. Chronic disease is rampant in our state, particularly heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure and cancer. We have higher death rates from those diseases here than the rest of the country. This is because these diseases go untreated for too long. When people finally go to a doctor, the disease has reached more advanced stages and is harder and more expensive to treat.
That these chronic diseases go untreated for so long is largely attributable to the fact that people don’t have access to care to detect those diseases at the earliest stages. The primary barrier to care is cost.
The ACA will knock down that barrier by providing tax breaks to businesses and subsidies to individuals so that they can afford insurance. That coverage will enable Louisianans to get the care they need when they need it.
The act also mandates that insurance pay the full cost of regular checkups and wellness exams, making it more likely that chronic diseases will be detected earlier.
The prevalence of chronic disease in Louisiana also restricts the ability of residents here to get insurance. The pre-existing condition exclusion severely limits the ability of small businesses to get coverage. It also limits the freedom of Louisiana citizens to change jobs or start businesses because of their inability to get coverage. The pre-existing condition exclusion for adults will be outlawed under ACA by 2014. The ACA will eliminate the pre-existing exclusion for children this summer.
The biggest burden on healthcare providers in Louisiana is the large percentage of people who don’t have health insurance and can’t pay for the care they need. Over the past five years, that percentage has fluctuated between 18 and 24 percent of adults between the ages of 19 and 64.
Providing healthcare to those without insurance is a major financial burden on doctors, clinics and hospitals. It drives up the cost of care for those with insurance as providers shift costs for care for those without insurance onto those with the deepest pockets — health insurance companies. Cost shifting adds an estimated $900 to the annual cost of premiums for each person insured.
The ACA will dramatically lower the number of people without either health insurance or Medicaid coverage. That will benefit providers who will have more paying customers. That will help those with health insurance as the need to shift costs onto those with coverage dissipates.
The act expands Medicaid eligibility to those earning up to 133 percent of the poverty level. The federal government will initially pick up the tab for the Medicaid expansion, and later it will cover 90 percent of the cost. Jindal claims the state will not be able to afford this cost whenever it arrives. He apparently believes state revenues will never increase again. Or, perhaps, he’s just philosophically opposed to people being able to access care without government assistance -- an odd position for someone who has worked in government for most of his adult life.
The Affordable Care Act is good for what ails Louisiana. Expanding access to affordable health insurance will improve the quality of life for our citizens and the financial viability of community hospitals and other providers. It will enable residents to afford the care they need in order to manage the chronic diseases that plague them and help children avoid those diseases or detect them while they are still manageable.
Governor Jindal needs to quit looking at this issue through the lens of his national ambitions. If he does that, he will quit fighting ACA and embrace the positive changes it will bring to our state.
Stagg is a Lafayette-based healthcare information technology consultant and editor of the newsletter Democratic Louisiana.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2010 by Louisiana Forum 6/10
TEXAS LONE STAR FORUMBy F. Scott McCown
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is asking a federal court to declare national health care reform unconstitutional.
I respect Abbott, having served with him as a state judge, so I carefully read his legal papers, only to discover he is terribly wrong.
Under reform, Congress expanded Medicaid to cover more poor people and created federally subsidized state exchanges where everyone else can buy private health insurance. With some exceptions, everyone must obtain health insurance or pay a tax.
Abbott objects to the “individual mandate” that we all obtain health insurance. Under reform, however, insurance companies cannot deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, making the individual mandate essential. Otherwise, people could wait until they got sick to buy coverage, leaving insurance companies operating with only a pool of sick people. With a mandate, everyone is in the pool which keeps premiums affordable.
The Constitution’s Commerce Clause gives Congress authority “to regulate Commerce…among the several states.” The Supreme Court reads this provision broadly. As long as an activity has a substantial effect on interstate commerce, Congress can regulate it. Choosing not to purchase health insurance is an activity with a big, interstate effect on the price and availability of health care in our interdependent federal-state health care system.
The Constitution also gives Congress the power “to lay and collect Taxes…to provide for the…general Welfare of the United States.” The Supreme Court also reads this provision broadly. It includes the authority to tax for a regulatory purpose, such as taxing polluters who chose not to install pollution controls or residents who chose not to purchase health insurance.
Under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, federal law trumps state law. To counter, Abbott plays the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” But the Tenth Amendment does not limit federal power; it merely says who has the power.
Abbott has previously endorsed an individual mandate; he personally got a state law enacted requiring parents who pay child support to buy health insurance for their kids. Parents who can’t afford a policy or aren’t eligible for a public program must buy a policy designed by the Attorney General from an insurance company chosen by the Attorney General or face going to jail on the motion of the Attorney General.
While Abbott’s program isn’t up and running, its individual mandate plays the same role as the federal mandate, creating a larger insurance pool. Nothing in federal law required this new program; Abbott sought it because he thought it was a good idea.
Unfortunately, unlike insurance purchased from the new federally subsidized exchanges, the Abbott plan isn’t subsidized, which means it will be too costly or cover too little. In any event, it only covers kids who get child support. We all need health insurance.
Abbott is simply not acting in our best interest. More than one in four Texans lack health care insurance and the growing costs add to that number daily. Under reform, about a million Texans gain health insurance through Medicaid, and for every dollar the state spends, it gets nine federal dollars. And for every person who gains coverage through Medicaid, about two others gain coverage by purchasing affordable private insurance through the federally subsidized state exchange, bringing even more federal dollars to Texas. State officials have terribly exaggerated the cost to the state, which pays only a modest share that is far outweighed by the benefits.
Abbott ought to drop his federal case and support affordable, quality health insurance for all Texans through national health care reform.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCown is executive director of the Center for Public Policy Priorities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2010 by the Texas Lone Star Forum. 4/10
Labels: health care, health care reform, health insurance, taxes 0 comments

TENNESSEE EDITORIAL FORUM
By Tony Garr
We are facing tough times. We’ve faced them before and pulled our neighbors and ourselves through by making people a priority. This is what the state needs to do now.
More than a quarter million Tennesseans have lost their jobs and their health insurance since the recession began. It is estimated that more than a million Tennesseans are uninsured and have few options for changing that in the near future. Yet, the state seems determined to continue to whittle away at public health programs that combine to serve as the medical safety net. It’s time to get our priorities straight.
Times are tough in each state, yet Tennessee is the only state to cease enrollment in the Children Health Insurance Program, which we call CoverKids and is viewed as a good program by policymakers from both the Right and Left. Forty-nine other governors understand that this is not time to be blocking health care coverage for children of low- to moderate-income working families. Tens of thousands of Tennessee children are eligible for CoverKids and Tennessee gets three federal dollars for each state dollar it invests in the program, so closing it to enrollment is simply penny-wise, pound foolish.
The state has promised since 2005 to reopen the Medically Needy (aka Spend Down) TennCare program. This program is designed as a bridge, like COBRA, for eligible children, elderly, caregivers and those with disabilities to get a year of TennCare after they spend a significant portion of income toward medical bills; thus, they “spend down” to eligibility. It’s estimated that this program would help about 100,000 Tennesseans facing medical debt and lacking coverage.
Also, the state must not continue viewing county jails as part of the mental health safety net. Cuts to state mental health programs passes a huge burden onto local governments, which have neither the financial nor medical means to deal with the complexities of mental health services. State cuts to mental health result in a system that is throw-back from a century ago, with people with mental health challenges being locked up rather than receiving the compassionate and effective care we have come to know as a basic human right.
Tennessee has a $400 million TennCare Reserve and $700 million Rainy Day Fund. For too many years the state has siphoned the TennCare Reserve to shore up other areas of the state budget while losing out on the 2-to-1 federal match. This year the state must get its priorities straight and use monies designated for TennCare to reopen the Medically Needy category which the administration has been promising to do this since 2005.
It has been raining on Tennessee’s working poor for a long time, now is the time to provide families and individuals with some shelter from rain. Let’s invest some of the Rainy Day fund into the medical safety net to help communities with physical and mental health services.
A state budget, like any budget, is about priorities. This year, let’s make vulnerable Tennesseans a priority. The good news is that, despite tough times, we have a TennCare Reserve and a Rainy Day Fund, both designed to be there to meet human need in tough times. So, let’s do the wise and decent thing and use them for their intended purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Garr is executive director of the Tennessee Health Care Campaign.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2010 by the Tennessee Editorial Forum. 1/10
MISSOURI FORUM
By Timothy D. McBride
Much of this is due to overheated rhetoric, a misunderstanding of the proposals by the press, purposeful distortions by both sides of the debate, and the complexity of health reform. For example, much attention has been paid to the so-called “public option” which the right wing has described as a “government takeover of health care,” and the left wing has described as the only provision worth fighting for because it will keep the insurance plans “honest.” Both claims overstate the significance of the public option since by all estimates, even if it survives, not many will sign up for it, and the plan will resemble private plans, not a Medicare plan.
When the reforms are phased in, 96 percent of American citizens will be covered by health insurance -- up from an insurance rate of 83 percent today -- according to Congressional Budget Office estimates. Contrary to fears that the legislation will lead to a government-run health system, 58 percent of the persons obtaining coverage will obtain coverage from private insurers, in a new Health Insurance Exchange. This Exchange will be much like the array of private insurance plans offered to Congress and the President today. The remaining persons insured under the plan would be low-income children and adults insured through Medicaid and the children’s health insurance plan.
In Missouri, over 800,000 persons are estimated to be uninsured today. However, the Congressional reforms would reduce the number of uninsured by over 604,000 reducing the uninsured rate to less than 4 percent (from a current rate of 16 percent). Over 270,000 persons would obtain insurance through the Health Insurance Exchange, another 200,000 adults through Medicaid, and 130,000 children through Medicaid.
Although much of the focus has been on the provisions that would expand coverage for the uninsured, little attention has been paid to other provisions which could have wide-ranging impacts on the health sector. For years there has been little attention paid to public health issues. Most chronic diseases (such as obesity) can be prevented through lifestyle and environmental changes. So the proposal would implement policy changes to encourage preventive health and wellness, encourage physical activity and good nutrition, enhance the public health system, encourage health promotion activities, and enhance access to behavioral health services.
Also receiving very little attention are significant provisions to enhance the infrastructure of the health system. Since the health reforms are estimated to lead to 36 million more persons obtaining health insurance, this could significantly strain the medical care system. However, significant new funds to enhance the health workforce for primary care physicians, nurses, physician assistants, social workers, and public health workers are found in the proposal. Funds are also included to resolve payment problems afflicting physician payment, at least temporarily.
The recession led Congress to pass significant stimulus spending which has made the public concerned about the rising federal budget deficit. It should be comforting then that the President has promised he will not sign a bill unless it is deficit neutral.
While it is worth noting that much of the costs of increased coverage is paid for by the previously uninsured themselves (if they can afford it), the remaining costs are covered by taxpayers. About half of these costs will be covered by reductions in Medicare spending, and a significant share of these reductions will come from reductions in a program widely recognized to be in need of spending reductions, the Medicare Advantage program. The remaining costs will likely be covered by tax increases, most likely on a combination of high-income taxpayers (as President Obama promised in his campaign) or on high-priced health insurance plans.
As health care reform continues to move forward we can take significant steps towards removing the scar of the uninsured that has long stained our country. The proposals are not perfect, nor will they solve the problem overnight. But we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We just have to get started on solving this problem.
McBride is Associate Dean for Public Health in the Brown School at Washington University in St. Louis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the Missouri Forum. 12/09

NORTH CAROLINA EDITORIAL FORUM
by Melissa Reed
The House vote to establish near-universal health-care coverage came at a steep cost to women. That cost, issued as an amendment by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), eliminates abortion coverage by private insurance companies even when women are paying for all or most of the premium.
Stupak’s amendment is a cynical attempt to push an anti-choice agenda that imperils badly needed reform. His amendment restricts women’s access to abortion coverage in the private health insurance market as well as in a “public option,” undermining the ability of women to purchase private health plans that cover abortion. It reaches much further than the Hyde Amendment, which has prohibited public funding of abortion in most instances since 1977.
Before its introduction, health-care reform measures in both House and Senate contained agreed-upon compromise language regarding abortion. Public funding for abortion would remain prohibited and women with private health insurance would continue to receive benefits they already have. Though this language satisfied neither side completely, it enabled health-care reform legislation to move forward without being derailed by abortion politics.
In addition to undermining the reform effort, the amendment would affect more than one in four American women who have at least one abortion during their reproductive years. Tens of millions of women will be required to pay for health-care coverage that expressly excludes one of their most commonly requested medical procedures.
The Stupak Amendment, like the Hyde Amendment, only allows abortion in cases of rape, incest and for medical complications that “place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.” However, if the woman’s health is in jeopardy – if her pregnancy risks organ failure or infertility, but not death – then there is no coverage for care. The woman’s health is placed at risk.
Women’s health care should not be sacrificed on the altar of reform. President Obama has repeatedly said that under health care reform, “no one will lose the benefits they currently have.”
The House bill now embraces a lesser ideal: No man will lose the benefits he currently has.
Is this sexual discrimination or abortion politics? Frankly, the two are inseparable. The 11th-hour amendment is just the latest example of statutes, regulations, medical standards and corporate policies that have historically caused women to pay more, suffer more and receive less.
Examples abound even today. Pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions for birth-control pills. The FDA imposed unwarranted and unscientific age limits on over-the-counter access to emergency contraception. Health insurance companies demand higher premiums from women employees than for men.
It’s no wonder women pay nearly 68 percent more than men – much of it resulting from the uninsured expenses of reproductive health care.
The promise of reform was supposed to remedy all that. Health-care reform sought not only to expand coverage but also to reduce gender discrimination. No longer would women have to pay more than men for the same insurance policy. No longer could pregnancy or womanhood be treated as pre-existing conditions. No longer would women be denied affordable contraceptives.
And all women’s health centers would finally be recognized as essential community providers no less than centers that cater to other segments of the population.
Because of Rep. Stupak, the House further entrenched a two-tiered health-care system that limits access to care for women.
If Congress is capable of enacting health-care reform, it is capable of treating women as equals who don’t have to settle for less. Already, members of the House and Senate pro-choice caucus are pledging to withhold their final votes unless the Stupak Amendment is removed.
Abortion politics should not scuttle health-care reform. The Stupak Amendment must be eliminated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reed is the vice president for public policy at Planned Parenthood Health Systems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the American Forum. 12/09

GEORGIA FORUM
By Kathie McClure
It can be challenging to find an organ donor for someone who needs a transplant.
But when a donor and desperately sick person are matched up, living donors should not be “punished” for their gift, especially by the health insurance industry.
This is a little-known aspect of the health care debate that should be brought to light -- the fact that there is nothing that prevents health insurance companies from either denying coverage or charging higher premiums to those who donate an organ by categorizing them as people with “pre-existing conditions.”
This lack of regulation makes it potentially difficult for donors to get health insurance after giving the gift of life.
Here is my story. I met Dan Krinsky and his wife in 2000 when they opened their restaurant in our neighborhood. My husband and I loved their wonderful cooking and over the years we bonded and became good friends.
Shortly after hearing in 2008 that he had developed polycystic kidney disease I ran into Dan at our local taco stand. I could see instantly he was deathly ill and needed a kidney transplant, I told him then and there I would give him one of mine.
Of course even though I was serious, I wasn’t sure I was a match.
But on July 14, after two days of extensive medical tests, I was pronounced 100 percent healthy and able to donate a kidney to my friend.
There was a long silence at the other end of the phone when I told Dan that I had been approved to give him a kidney. He could hardly find words to express his gratitude, amid his relief that after two years on the transplant list and a year on dialysis, the wait for a healthy organ was over.
Yet the very next day I was given good reason to rethink my decision when I read a report in the Los Angeles Times that despite my perfect health, donating a kidney could put me at risk for being denied health insurance or charged more because insurers may consider organ donation a “pre-existing condition.”
Deterring potential donors from giving the gift of life is deadly business. According to the National Kidney Foundation, demand for kidneys far outstrips supply.
More than 80,000 people are waiting for a kidney, of which about 4,500 die each year. Living donation rates have declined recently, with only about 6,000 donations last year.
By threatening potential donors with a lifetime of increased premiums health insurance companies have stooped to a new low of corporate self-interest. For them, the profit motive clearly reigns supreme.
Whatever health-care reform is enacted, we need to ensure that all Americans, including living donors, are not charged higher premiums or denied coverage by insurance companies for having pre-existing conditions.
The National Kidney Foundation’s “End the Wait” Campaign includes additional proposals to protect living donors as part of a broad array of recommendations to increase donations, improve transplant outcomes, and improve the transplant system throughout the country.
Steadfast in my promise to Dan to give him a kidney, I have redoubled my fight to protect organ donors and ordinary Americans from discrimination by health insurance companies. It’s past time we put a stop to these abuses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
McClure, an Atlanta attorney and the founder of VoteHealthcare.org, successfully donated a kidney to Dan Krinsky in August.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the Georgia Forum. 11/09
