(Content for the following report was provided by citizen lobbyists affiliated with the Healthy Washington Coalition.)
Washington’s legislature fell well short of dealing effectively with critical health care needs during the 2011 regular and special sessions.
Because legislators failed to offset a multi-billion dollar revenue shortfall by closing any of a multitude of existing tax loopholes, deep cuts in essential services were inevitable to balance the biennial budget.
Legislators wrestled with agonizing decisions about funding for human services in the third year of a grinding recession marked by long-term double-digit unemployment.
Among the programs that felt the budget ax to one degree or another were the Basic Health Plan, Apple Health for Kids, Maternity Support Services for low-income women, Family Planning services, Public Health departments, and Primary Care and Clinic services.
The legislature also confronted the challenge of maintaining a viable healthcare safety net while preparing for the establishment of a state health care exchange in 2014, as mandated by the federal Affordable Care Act.
The health care exchange bill signed by Governor Christine Gregoire provides for the mandated exchange, but advocates were disappointed by its failure either to provide a public option, or to require the exchange to function as an active purchaser of care.
Passage of the bill was essential to maintain the state’s eligibility for federal funding to implement the new exchange.
Here’s the good news/bad news breakdown of legislative action on specific health care programs:
Basic Health Plan: The governor had proposed its elimination. The legislature tempered that drastic proposal, but froze out new enrollees for two years, shrinking BHP coverage to 34,000 by 2013. Some 150,000 uninsured men, women and children are already stuck on the waiting list.
Apple Health for Kids: The governor’s proposal to end coverage of 27,000 undocumented children was shelved, as was a state senate proposal to end the state’s commitment to cover all eligible children. The budget as adopted raises premiums for undocumented children in families whose income is above 200 percent of the poverty level.
Regulating Insurance Companies: A bill requested by the insurance commissioner and signed into law requires that the reasons for any insurance rate increase request be available for public inspection.
Guaranteed Health Care for Children: The federal law requires that children be covered regardless of any pre-existing condition. The legislature enacted a bill requiring private insurers to make any individual insurance plans available to all children under age 19.
Maternity Support Services: Low-income women with high-risk pregnancies will be served by a program whose budget has been cut by 30 percent.
Family Planning: On the plus side, women will have more access to Medicaid family planning services as a result of legislative action. However, funding for Department of Health family planning for low-income women is cut by $2.25 million, a cut that’s likely to generate $9 million in new costs for unintended pregnancies. Funding was maintained for cancer screenings, for HIV/AIDS services, and for screening for most sexually transmitted infection.
Public Health Departments: After the governor’s across-the-board cuts last December, the legislature imposed an additional $10 million cut in flexible funds for these agencies. This will lessen the ability of health departments to implement programs for food safety, safe drinking water, and the control of communicable disease.
Primary Health Care and Clinics: The legislature moderated the cuts originally proposed for community health centers, and it fully funded Disability Lifeline medical services. However, the funding cuts in other health care programs will add thousands to the state’s uninsured ranks. The safety net will be severely strained.
Showing posts with label Federal Health Care Reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Federal Health Care Reform. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Health care law in peril in the courts
The federal health care law, enacted after a bruising battle in Congress, is now imperiled in the federal courts.
Republican officials in 20 states are challenging the constitutionality of the requirement that all Americans have health insurance by 2014.
Attorneys for the federal government argue that the commerce clause of the Constitution allows Congress to regulate “activities that substantially affect interstate commerce,” including the health care market. They contend that the law’s provisions cannot work unless the requirement to be insured applies to everyone, because otherwise people will simply wait until they get sick to buy coverage.
Judge Henry E. Hudson in Federal District Court in Richmond expressed misgivings about the constitutionality of the requirement. He has promised to issue his ruling by the end of the year.
Enemies of the law in Congress and the insurance industry could be expected to exploit an adverse ruling in federal court to sow confusion and mistrust. Such a ruling might also delay or block the steps that insurers, government agencies and the medical professions are taking to implement the many provisions of the law.
It’s expected that any rulings at the district court level would be appealed, ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court. Given the 5-4 majority of conservative justices, the outcome there is also uncertain.
Republican officials in 20 states are challenging the constitutionality of the requirement that all Americans have health insurance by 2014.
Attorneys for the federal government argue that the commerce clause of the Constitution allows Congress to regulate “activities that substantially affect interstate commerce,” including the health care market. They contend that the law’s provisions cannot work unless the requirement to be insured applies to everyone, because otherwise people will simply wait until they get sick to buy coverage.
Judge Henry E. Hudson in Federal District Court in Richmond expressed misgivings about the constitutionality of the requirement. He has promised to issue his ruling by the end of the year.
Enemies of the law in Congress and the insurance industry could be expected to exploit an adverse ruling in federal court to sow confusion and mistrust. Such a ruling might also delay or block the steps that insurers, government agencies and the medical professions are taking to implement the many provisions of the law.
It’s expected that any rulings at the district court level would be appealed, ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court. Given the 5-4 majority of conservative justices, the outcome there is also uncertain.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Better care, $$$ saved, in new health care law
Retirees and boomers will benefit significantly as specific provisions of the new law come into effect. Check out these changes:
• Seniors trapped in the “doughnut hole” will get a $250 rebate this year. In 2011, their doughnut hole drugs will be discounted 50%. By 2020, the doughnut hole will be eliminated.
• In 2011, Medicare will provide free annual check-ups and eliminate co-payment for mammograms, colonoscopies and other preventive screenings.
• The new legislation enacts the CLASS Act, creating a new, voluntary, self-insured insurance program to help families pay for long-term care supports and services for a loved one.
• The Medicare Part D subsidy is expanded to help struggling low-income seniors afford their prescription drugs.
• Employer health plans that cover early retirees are subsidized, cutting costs by $1,200 per family for some plans.
• The Elder Justice Act, part of the new law, will authorize criminal background checks on long-term care workers in nursing homes; require public disclosure of nursing home ownership and quality of care; and improve residents’ complaint process.
• The law will extend the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund by 9 years by eliminating unwarranted overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans and by creating incentives for coordinated high quality care.
• Seniors trapped in the “doughnut hole” will get a $250 rebate this year. In 2011, their doughnut hole drugs will be discounted 50%. By 2020, the doughnut hole will be eliminated.
• In 2011, Medicare will provide free annual check-ups and eliminate co-payment for mammograms, colonoscopies and other preventive screenings.
• The new legislation enacts the CLASS Act, creating a new, voluntary, self-insured insurance program to help families pay for long-term care supports and services for a loved one.
• The Medicare Part D subsidy is expanded to help struggling low-income seniors afford their prescription drugs.
• Employer health plans that cover early retirees are subsidized, cutting costs by $1,200 per family for some plans.
• The Elder Justice Act, part of the new law, will authorize criminal background checks on long-term care workers in nursing homes; require public disclosure of nursing home ownership and quality of care; and improve residents’ complaint process.
• The law will extend the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund by 9 years by eliminating unwarranted overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans and by creating incentives for coordinated high quality care.
Health reform law
By Will Parry
An imperfect bill? Certainly.
At the same time, an historic breakthrough for the American people?
Absolutely.
After weeks of harsh partisan clashes in both House and Senate, coupled with intense off-stage negotiations and compromises, at long last, on Tuesday, March 23, President Barack Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act of 2010.
The President declared that the legislation “enshrines the core principle that everybody should have some basic security when it comes to their health care.”
That “core principle” has been disgracefully abused and trampled on by the medical-industrial complex -- above all, by the health insurance industry – that dominates the U.S. health care system.
The legislative process was unusually strident, messy and prolonged, but despite the powerful tug and pull of lavishly-financed special interests, the measure finally adopted fully deserves the term “historic.”
Yes, the law seems likely to enrich health insurance companies with the premiums of an estimated 16 million new customers. But it will be an insurance industry operating under totally new rules.
No rejections based on pre-existing conditions. No rescissions – the cutting off of benefits – just because you get sick or injured. No annual limits on how much health care they’ll pay for.
Despite strong public support, the law has no public option, but the need for that critical feature continues, and the demand for it to be amended into the law will continue as well.
The bill will cut the deficit by $130 billion over ten years, and by an estimated $1.2 trillion in the following ten years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
The significance of the reform is underscored by considering the outlook if the bill had failed. The Urban Institute applied its computer model to a scenario in which there would be no reform. Here’s what it found:
“Over the next decade in every state, the percent of the population that is uninsured will increase, employer-sponsored coverage will continue to erode, spending on public programs will balloon, and individual and family out-of-pocket costs could increase by more than 35%.” The number of uninsured Americans could soar to as many as 65 million over the decade, the Urban Institute predicted.
In contrast, enactment of the new law will ultimately insure an estimated 32 million currently uninsured Americans, will assist small employers in providing coverage, and will address many of the out-of-pocket expenses families are now encountering.
Throughout the long legislative battle, Congressional Republicans remained a stubbornly opposed bloc, denouncing the bill as a “socialist takeover” of health care and uttering dire predictions about what it would lead to.
As the President and Congress turn to the crisis of unemployment, Republican intransigence seems likely to continue. “There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year,” Senator John McCain (R-AZ) said flatly.
How well that will fly at the polls in November remains to be seen. Party leaders may loathe the health care reform law, but as Michael Moore mischievously points out, “Republicans will get better health care, too!”
An imperfect bill? Certainly.
At the same time, an historic breakthrough for the American people?
Absolutely.
After weeks of harsh partisan clashes in both House and Senate, coupled with intense off-stage negotiations and compromises, at long last, on Tuesday, March 23, President Barack Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act of 2010.
The President declared that the legislation “enshrines the core principle that everybody should have some basic security when it comes to their health care.”
That “core principle” has been disgracefully abused and trampled on by the medical-industrial complex -- above all, by the health insurance industry – that dominates the U.S. health care system.
The legislative process was unusually strident, messy and prolonged, but despite the powerful tug and pull of lavishly-financed special interests, the measure finally adopted fully deserves the term “historic.”
Yes, the law seems likely to enrich health insurance companies with the premiums of an estimated 16 million new customers. But it will be an insurance industry operating under totally new rules.
No rejections based on pre-existing conditions. No rescissions – the cutting off of benefits – just because you get sick or injured. No annual limits on how much health care they’ll pay for.
Despite strong public support, the law has no public option, but the need for that critical feature continues, and the demand for it to be amended into the law will continue as well.
The bill will cut the deficit by $130 billion over ten years, and by an estimated $1.2 trillion in the following ten years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
The significance of the reform is underscored by considering the outlook if the bill had failed. The Urban Institute applied its computer model to a scenario in which there would be no reform. Here’s what it found:
“Over the next decade in every state, the percent of the population that is uninsured will increase, employer-sponsored coverage will continue to erode, spending on public programs will balloon, and individual and family out-of-pocket costs could increase by more than 35%.” The number of uninsured Americans could soar to as many as 65 million over the decade, the Urban Institute predicted.
In contrast, enactment of the new law will ultimately insure an estimated 32 million currently uninsured Americans, will assist small employers in providing coverage, and will address many of the out-of-pocket expenses families are now encountering.
Throughout the long legislative battle, Congressional Republicans remained a stubbornly opposed bloc, denouncing the bill as a “socialist takeover” of health care and uttering dire predictions about what it would lead to.
As the President and Congress turn to the crisis of unemployment, Republican intransigence seems likely to continue. “There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year,” Senator John McCain (R-AZ) said flatly.
How well that will fly at the polls in November remains to be seen. Party leaders may loathe the health care reform law, but as Michael Moore mischievously points out, “Republicans will get better health care, too!”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)