Two more points about the
Sacramento Bee story this weekend about the Administration considering removing requirements on insurers to provide certain services.
* With all the talk of Massachusetts, let's be clear: that state has more mandates for what constitutes minimum coverage, yet also has nearly half the percentage of uninsured as California. As other states show, we can clearly expand coverage without sacraficing these consumer protections. (In fact, it is likely that more people are insured in Massachusetts because they have *more* oversight over insurers and their practices, not less.)
* The new study about what a "basic benefits" pacakge looks like, by
Sacramento HealthCare Decisions, funded by the
California HealthCare Foundation, adds an interesting counterpoint to the Bee article. As my colleague Hanh pointed out, the business representative made the case against mandating maternity coverage, even though it is actually not a benefit required in California. (Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill to do that a couple of years ago.) Yet what benefit do the most people of those surveyed consider essential? Maternity coverage, with 99%.
posted by Anthony Wright |
Permalink |
1:22 AM
