Defending Medicare in this hostage situation...

Friday, July 29, 2011

Earlier today, the House of Representatives pass Speaker John Boehner's plan to temporarily raise the debt ceiling, impose harsh cuts on key services, require passage of a balanced budget constitutional amendment, and that includes other items on the Republican wish list. He was supposed to pass that bill yesterday, but had to make it more extreme in order to get the votes needed for passage from some members of his party.

And just now, the U.S. Senate tabled that plan 59-41, which hopefully will allow negotiation on a real plan that can get through Congress that can raise the debt ceiling, preserve the full faith and credit of the United States, allow our government to makes its commitments, and ensure that seniors and families and businesses get paid what that are entitled. But the cost of this basic vote--which has been done dozens of times before without incident--should not be cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, or other vital services--much less the full-scale dismantling of these core programs.

Yesterday, Health Access helped co-sponsor a town hall on Medicare in Rancho Cordova. Around 200 seniors showed up, and many already knew about the Ryan and Boehner plans on Medicare and the budget in general. Rebecca Band has this report at the California Majority Report. We were happy to speak and answer questions. People are watching these attacks, and they are not happy about it.

Labels: Medicare

posted by Anthony Wright | Permalink | 4:54 PM


 

Healthy San Francisco Update...

On Tuesday, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors delayed voting on Supervisor Campos’ amendment to close the healthcare loophole to Tuesday, August 2nd.

During the meeting, the board met in closed session with the city attorney to discuss the details of the proposal. Supervisor David Chiu introduced three amendments that do not appear to improve Campos' proposal, and are likely to create greater problems if adopted.

The first amendment would require San Francisco employers to provide full health coverage (medical, dental and vision) even though this is explicitly prohibited by federal law. ERISA, the Employee Income Retirement Security Act, prohibits city or state governments to define what medical coverage should or should not covered by an employer. While the sentiment may be noble, it ignores the work that has been done to craft Healthy San Francisco into a program that helps San Franciscans while abiding by federal law. If this amendment were to pass it could potentially jeopardize San Francisco Healthcare ordinance.

Secondly, Chiu proposed an amendment which provides that end of year balances in HRA accounts can roll over for one year. However this does nothing but set a different timeline by which employers can regain access to money that is supposed to be spent on employees' health care, giving them incentive to place restrictions on the accounts. It also takes away workers' ability to save their limited health care dollars (there is a $2000 cap on these accounts) in case of medical emergencies or expensive health care needs, which we know can greatly exceed a few thousand dollars.

Thirdly, Chiu proposed an amendment that would entitle employers to 50% of the balance of HRAs when a worker's employment is terminated. Again, this provides incentives for employers to limit access to funds so that they can take back and pocket a share of dollars that the law currently requires be set aside for health care.

Though Chiu has been quoted calling the Campos proposal "flawed", his own proposals threaten to both worsen the situation for workers trying to access health care to which they are legally entitled, and could potentially put the entire program in jeopardy.

We encourage advocates to support the Campos Amendment, and to contact your Supervisors and ask for their support. Public Support for Campos' efforts can also be expressed at the Board of Supervisors Meeting August 2nd, beginning at 2:00pm.

Labels: Employers, HealthReform, SanFrancisco

posted by Linda Leu | Permalink | 4:13 PM


 

Sacramento Town Hall on Medicare...

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Our Sacramento-area reader may be interested in this town hall tomorrow:

SACRAMENTO COUNTY COALITION TO PRESERVE MEDICARE
Medicare Town Hall

Thursday, July 28th @ 11:30 AM
(Lunch provided at 12:30 PM)
St. John Vianney Hall
10497 Coloma Road
Rancho Cordova, CA

Community members, health care advocates and seniors concerned with the attacks on Medicare are coming together to learn more! For more information or to RSVP, please contact Patrick Romano at 510-873-8787 x110 or at promano@health-access.org

Labels: Medicare, Sacramento

posted by Anthony Wright | Permalink | 5:45 PM


 

Emphasizing the Change in the Exchange

At the Exchange board meeting last Friday, much of the discussion was on developing a strategic vision of the Exchange. After presentations of different concepts and models (should it focus on being a price leader? providing excellent service? driving quality and delivery system changes?), the Board was asked what words should be used to describe the Exchange, what are guiding principles and values, and what are measures of success.

Here's our initial thoughts to the discussion, that we sent to the Exchange board at info@hbex.ca.gov --it may not be the "poetry" that was requested in the Friday discussion, but it provides a sense of what we would like to see the Exchange become:


In describing the Exchange, it's useful to be explicit about the problem that health reform in general, and the Exchange in specific, is attempting to solve: the broken individual insurance market. While over half of Californians get their coverage through an employer, and a third through one form of public program or another, the rest are left to the individual market. And of those nearly 10 million Californians, only a minority actually end up getting coverage: the number of uninsured (6-7 million) dwarfed the number of people who bought coverage as individuals (2-3 million).

The individual market is the least efficient, most expensive way to get coverage. It leaves individuals all alone at the mercy of the big insurers, in a costly, complex and confusing marketplace. The numbers all indicate the individual market is fundamentally broken.

While the Affordable Care Act makes changes throughout the health system, it is the individual market--and to a similar extent, the small group market--where the most radical reforms are made, and thus the Exchange is the heart of health reform. While it is correct that the Exchange is not responsible for the whole of health reform, it also important to recognize that health reform cannot fulfill its promise if the Exchange is not successful.

The Exchange is not just a place to buy and sell health insurance. Arguably the most important job of the Exchange is to seamlessly ensure that people get the subsidies they need and entitled to, in order to better afford health coverage. It should be a trusted source of information. It should remove the barriers that currently exist to coverage, including:
* access: creating a working market for all Californians, including those with pre-existing conditions, or those with limited English skills, or other barriers.
* affordability: ensuring that subsidies are available and easily sought and gained; and that the Exchange negotiates the best value for your dollar.
* adequate: vetting products to provide security that what they are buying is of value, and will provide the economic security they seek.
* administratively simple: making it is easy to make apples to apples comparisons, make a quick and informed decision about coverage, get the subsidies needed to make it affordable, and sign up.

The Exchange should empower people to make decisions that are right for them, but it should be their partner and ally in world that can be costly and complex. The Exchange should be the "HR Department for the rest of us" who don't work for a large employer which negotiates on their behalf, which troubleshoots and makes inquiries to the insurer when there's a problem and gets a response quickly because of their status, which vets products, weeds out high-price, low-value plans, and provides at least a handful of good, no-lose choices. The Exchange should make the process seamless, easy, and hassle-free.

If the critique of the individual market is that it leaves individuals (and small businesses) all alone with no market power, the Exchange is the ally and the equalizer. It should be explicitly seen as on the side of consumers, to help them through this process.

The Exchange should be a one-stop shop, but that does not mean it should be a one-time experience. Whether for someone getting subsidies--who will get those subsidies on a regular basis, even when their income fluctuates--to the person who may jump in and out of the Exchange on a regular basis, the Exchange should have an ongoing two-way relationship with its members.
* At one level, the Exchange should be as a trusted, reliable source of objective information, uncompromised by the industry, with a distinct identity from the insurers.
* And if the Exchange is truly going to negotiate on behalf of its consumers, it needs to have a variety of mechanisms to take input from them; from broad surveys of membership to a specific partnership with consumer and community organizations.

The Exchange should be multicultural, to deal with the diversity of California and the specific needs of the various communities and populations that are served by it. The Exchange is likely to be a majority Latino, and its communications should reflect that. Even beyond language access and cultural competency, the Exchange is going to need to deal with clientele in different circumstances: Few private firms or government agencies have a clientele that includes all of the following: young people starting out their careers, early retirees; low-income working families; small business owners; new divorcees; seasonal and temporary workers; highly-educated independent consultants; middle-income workers between jobs; etc. The Exchange will need to be open to all comers, but mindful and responsive to the specific circumstances that bring them in.

A major barometer for the Exchange--both for us and for the media and political watchers, is enrollment. The Exchange should have a goal of mass enrollment on day one, January 1, 2014, using pre-enrollment and other strategies to ensure we get Californians covered on day one, and maximize federal funding coming into our state, our health system, and our economy. If the Exchange acts early and strategically, it can have two million Californians getting coverage on opening day.

A broader goal is for the Exchange is to be the transformed marketplace of what the current individual insurance market is not: open, organized, transparent, seamless, affordable, accessible, consumer-friendly purchasing pool, where insurers are actually competing on cost and quality, rather than on avoiding risk. Fixing the broken market will help change the underlying incentives that will drive the needed change in the rest of the health system.

Labels: Exchange, HealthReform

posted by Anthony Wright | Permalink | 10:49 AM


 

Update on closing the Healthy San Francisco loophole

Monday, July 25, 2011

We reported two weeks ago that a committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors was taking up a proposal by Supervisor David Campos that would close the loophole in Healthy San Francisco which has allowed many business owners to shirk their responsibility to provide health care to their employees. The proposal was not able to garner enough support to move out of committee, with Supervisor David Chiu, who initially signed on as a co-sponsor, joined Supervisor Mark Ferrell in blocking the measure from moving forward.

However, the law allows measures to be "called from committee" and brought to the full board without the support of the committee through a petition signed by four Supervisors. Supervisors Campos, Mar, Avalos, and Mirkarimi will be introducing the measure to the full board tomorrow. We will anxiously await the results of the vote.

For those who are interested in this issue, the Board of Supervisors Meeting begins at 2pm, but given the item's place on the agenda (#45), it will not likely be taken up until 3 or 3:30. More information about the San Francisco Board of Supervisors Meeting here.

Labels: Employers, SanFrancisco

posted by Linda Leu | Permalink | 4:43 PM


 

Apparently, 2014 Isn't Tomorrow After All...

Friday, July 22, 2011

The California Health Benefit Exchange Board held it’s July meeting today in Sacramento. Dr. Bob Ross was absent from the meeting, but the other 4 members were present. As always, we tweeted the proceedings at www.twitter.com/healthaccess, using the hashtag #CaHBEx.

The Subcommittee on hiring gave an update on the progress of their work since the last meeting. They have narrowed a large pool of candidates to half a dozen that the subcommittee will interview, and the subcommittee will then recommend one or two candidates for the full board to interview in August. The board plans to announce the new Executive Director in August or early September.

The Board then engaged in a thorough discussion on strategic visioning, the first of 3 that are intended to shape the Exchange’s vision (long term impact) and mission (purpose of the business) statement. Today’s discussion pitted 4 potential models against one another, with presenters "advocating" extreme visions of the Exchange that emphasize being a Price Leader, a High-Quality Customer Service Center, a Systems Change Agent, and a Partner with Public Programs. There was also a discussion on the overall vision for the Exchange, and guiding principles and values. They are inviting further public feedback on these broad questions, through Tuesday, at info@hbex.ca.gov.

The Board then discussed bills moving forward in the state that will impact the Exchange. Diana Dooley stated that she would not vote to take any position on legislation because in her role as Secretary of Health and Human Services, it was best that she not take positions on any legislation that the Administration had not yet taken positions on.

Dooley abstained from acting on any bills, but that didn't stop the other board members. The 3 voting members of the board voted to direct staff to take positions on the bills--in some cases to work on amendments, in other cases to work to delay the bills, and make them 2 year bills so the Exchange would have more time to consider them. Exchange staff had indicated they wanted more time to consider these bills, but advocates argued that waiting a year (until passage in 2012) would mean the bills don't go into effect until 2013, when there will be scant time to implement them--especially with a bill like AB714(Atkins), which seeks to identify and pre-enroll millions of Californians so they are ready to get coverage on day one, Janaury 1, 2014.

In the case of SB703 (Hernandez) to create a Basic Health Plan, the Board opposed the bill unless amended to a 2-year bill. John Ramey, the sponsor of SB703 representing local health plans characterized the interaction between the board and advocates when he said “I don’t need a hat, I need a helmet!” as he stepped up to testify.

It is unclear the impact that the Exchange Board's action will have in the legislative process. These bills have already been approved by at least 3 policy committees and been passed by one house. And some of the legislators who have authored these proposals feel the urgency to move forward with California's implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

Labels: Exchange, ExpandingCoverage, HealthReform

posted by Linda Leu | Permalink | 4:27 PM


 

Friday Fun Alert: Exchange Board Discusses Vision, Legislation

Thursday, July 21, 2011

The Exchange Board will meet tomorrow in Sacramento, and have a heavy agenda for a summer Friday.

Labels: Exchange, HealthReform

posted by Linda Leu | Permalink | 3:48 PM


 

The Gang of Six has no CLASS...

One of the debt reduction proposals being discussed in Washington is from "The Gang of Six" Senators that have been trying to come up with a "bipartisan" solution for the last several months. It's unclear whether this proposal can get the support of the House of Representatives, but its important to discuss it on its own terms.

It includes many immediate cuts, including $500 Billion in cuts to Social Security, caps on discretionary spending (education, infrastructure, etc.), and other cuts.

Longer-term cuts would include cutting Medicare and Medicaid by as much as $500 billion and arbitrarily capping federal health spending at 1% of GDP plus 1% per beneficiary. The proposal would direct government agencies to find more savings in unspecified cuts.

All of these will have big, and in many cases negative impacts on the nation's health. It's more maddening that these cuts are not all going to deficit reduction, but also serve to pay for new tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires by repealing the entire AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax).

One of the more immediate cuts would be the repeal of the CLASS Act, and important long-term care insurance program created under the Affordable Care Act. While in some ways the CLASS Act was a self-contained program, it would be the first significant rollback of policy from the health reform passed just last year, and it would set a dangerous precedent. And on the policy merits, it's a good program that needs to be implemented--Judy Feder has written at ThinkProgress defending the program and why its crucial for the future:

On the help side, CLASS addresses a huge hole in our social safety net: neither private insurance nor Medicare protects people against the risk of needing extensive and long-term help with fundamental tasks of daily living like eating, bathing or getting dressed. Needing that help is just the kind of catastrophic and unpredictable event for which we need insurance protection. Today, about four in 10 people who need long-term care are under the age of 65. Even among people now turning age 65, the risk is unpredictable; three in 10 will likely die without needing any long-term care, but one in five will require services for five years or more. At all ages, impairment is hard to predict or save for. And, if that impairment arises, the costs of care can be catastrophic: over $75,000 per year, on average, for a nursing home, and close to $20 per hour for care at home. With costs so high and no insurance protection, it’s no surprise that, today, so many people who need long-term care get inadequate help or exhaust all their resources and turn to Medicaid for support.

Although the CLASS program doesn’t address this problem today, it makes it possible for working aged adults to start paying now in case they need help in the future. Under the ACA, people can pay premiums while they’re working and — if they contribute for five or more years (and continue to contribute when they retire) — can collect a benefit if an illness or injury impairs their ability to perform basic tasks. The benefit will be meaningful but limited — an average of at least $50 per day that recipients can use to pay for home-based or institutional services, as they see fit. The benefit is quite basic, providing a core of protection that — along with family care, personal savings or private insurance — can help families cope without becoming impoverished.

Eliminating the CLASS Act before it has a chance, or making significant reductions in Medicare and Medicaid, is simply the wrong direction for our country.

Labels: Budget, Federal, HealthReform

posted by Anthony Wright | Permalink | 10:54 AM


 

From Invisible to a Player: The Poor in the New Health Care System

This is a blog post from Dr Ricky Choi, a Physician at Asian Health Services and an activist with National Physicians Alliance. It was originally posted in City Brights, the San Francisco Chronicle's community blog series.

37 years ago, at the very tail of the civil rights movement, my community health center (CHC) was established in Oakland to fill an unmet and urgent need. A growing population of immigrants were settling in downtown Oakland and had few choices for health care. Community surveys conducted by local leaders confirmed that residents received significantly less health care than the rest of the population largely due to a shortage of providers and limited English proficiency. And so a group of volunteers and students opened a make shift clinic with a volunteer doctor and an optometrist available for two days a week. As demand grew this little clinic expanded hours and added staff one at a time. Almost four decades later, the clinic has grown to 40+ doctors seeing 20,000 patients who speak any of 10 different languages.
posted by Linda Leu | Permalink | 9:20 AM


 

Recommendations for Women's Preventive Health, Includes Contraception

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

The Affordable Care Act passed in March 2010 required that health insurance plans cover preventive care, but exactly which services would be required to be covered (with no cost sharing), was not fleshed out at the writing of the law. The Department of Health and Human Services then looked to the Institutes of Medicine to determine which benefits should be included.

The IOM announced their recommendations today that HHS include a number of essential services should be covered without share of cost, to improve the health and well-being of women. The list of recommendations includes:

• improved screening for cervical cancer, counseling for sexually transmitted infections, and counseling and screening for HIV;


• a fuller range of contraceptive education, counseling, methods, and services so that women can better avoid unwanted pregnancies and space their pregnancies to promote optimal birth outcomes;


• services for pregnant women including screening for gestational diabetes and lactation counseling and equipment to help women who choose to breastfeed do so successfully;


• at least one well-woman preventive care visit annually for women to receive comprehensive services; and


• screening and counseling for all women and adolescent girls for interpersonal and domestic violence in a culturally sensitive and supportive manner

The most controversial of this list of course is the recommendation that insurers cover contraception. And despite the fact that this is included as part of a comprehensive range of women's reproductive health services, including contraceptive education and counseling, it is likely to be attacked as a gateway to or form of abortion rather than a proven means of improving the lives of women and optimize birth outcomes.

HHS will now decide whether to take the IOM's recommendations. If you believe that would like to take action to ensure that women have access to contraception and other reproductive health services, please sign NARAL's petition by clicking here.

You can read the IOM's report by clicking here.

Labels: HealthReform

posted by Linda Leu | Permalink | 8:52 AM


 

Today's vote to "Cut, Cap and End Medicare"

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Today, the House will consider H.R. 2560, the so-called “Cut, Cap and Balance Act” – which California Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi has said should be called the “Cut, Cap, and End Medicare Act.” The bill incorporates the House GOP budget that ends Medicare as we know it, and then would requires deeper cuts and elimination of core services through spending caps and the call for a GOP constitutional "balanced budget" amendment.

The House bill is H.R.2560. The Senate bill is S.1340

The venerable Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has analyzed the bill, and their director says it “stands out as one of the most ideologically extreme pieces of major budget legislation to come before Congress in years, if not decades.”

Here's the House Budget summary from Democratic staff: http://democrats.budget.house.gov/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=2049
And the veto threat from the White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saphr2560r_20110718.pdf

Today's vote is theater, facing Senate and Presidential opposition, but it needs to be clear how damaging these proposals are, to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and core services that Americans depend on. They would also be disastrous for states like California, who would find significant costs and responsibilities shifted to them, when they are doing their own round of cutting.

Beyond the substance of the bill, the act of this vote is not helpful, as the nation comes closer to the debt ceiling deadline, and a real resolution needs to be worked out.

Labels: Budget, Federal, MediCal, Medicare, Obama

posted by Anthony Wright | Permalink | 11:22 AM


 

If you read one thing on Medicaid...

Thursday, July 14, 2011

Here's an excellent Kaiser Health News column by John McDonough, on the results of that hugely important Oregon study on Medicaid.

Here's some quotes:

The lucky Oregonians newly enrolled in Medicaid experienced:
 A 30 percent increase in the probability of a hospital admission.
 A 15 percent increase in the probability of taking a prescription drug.
 A 35 percent increase in the probability of having an outpatient visit.
 A 25 percent decline in the probability of having an unpaid medical bill sent to a collection agency.
 A 35 percent decline in having any out-of-pocket medical expenditures.
 Across-the-board improvements in self-reported physical and mental health, including "a general sense of improved well-being."

...All four measures of financial strain -- out-of-pocket medical costs, medical debts, refusal of treatment because of the cost of care or skipping payment of other bills to pay medical expenses -- showed significant declines for these new enrollees. No wonder, then, that researchers found "an overwhelming sense from the survey outcomes that individuals feel better about their health and … their interactions with the health care system. … The evidence suggests that people feel better off due to insurance."


Coverage matters. Medicaid matters. That's why the debt ceiling talks which threaten to cut Medicaid matter, and why the ACA's expansion of Medicaid in 2014 matters.

Labels: MediCal

posted by Anthony Wright | Permalink | 3:05 PM


 

Employers in SF Using Loophole to Avoid Covering Workers!

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Healthy San Francisco, San Francisco's health care coverage program has been covering over 54,000 uninsured workers have been enrolled in Healthy SF since 2006. Uninsured residents who qualify receive access to primary, preventive and emergency care at a price they can afford. The program is paid for through a requirement that employers contribute toward their workers' health care.

But, some SF employers are cheating their workers and their customers. Instead of paying for health care, these employers put their health contribution into Health Reimbursement Accounts (HRAs), restrict how their workers can access these funds (e.g. no reimbursements for dental care, vision care, insurance premiums, etc.), and then take back the account balances at the end of the year. City records show that employers held onto $50 million this way in 2010.

An amendment to close the health care loophole will go to the SF Board of Supervisors on July 26, and we need YOUR HELP to make sure it passes! Please join us at the SF Board of Supervisors hearing this Thursday, 7/14 to show your support for amendment. If you can come, please contact Rose Auguste at raugurauguste@health-access.org
If you live in San Francisco, please call or email your Supervisor to say you support the Campos amendment to close the health care loophole! Supervisors’ phone numbers & emails are below.
posted by Linda Leu | Permalink | 4:52 PM


 

Research Catches Up to Common Sense: Health Insurance

Monday, July 11, 2011

With the backdrop of frustrating federal budget negotiations as well as the cuts to Medi-Cal enacted in the past year, consider some scientific evidence of the broad benefits of providing health coverage to the poor.

Labels: MediCal

posted by Linda Leu | Permalink | 5:38 PM


 

Action Alert: July 12 Call In Day to Save Medicaid!

Right now, lawmakers in Washington, DC are negotiating a deal to pay our country’s debts and protect our economy from disaster. Medicaid, a critical lifeline for every generation of families and for struggling communities, is on the chopping block even while billionaires and corporate CEOs continue to benefit from tax breaks and loopholes that drain money from the economy.

It time for our Members of Congress to show which side they are on. Call your Senators NOW and tell them do not cut Medicaid to give tax breaks to millionaires, billionaires and big corporations.

Faith leaders, direct care providers, and advocates are rallying with Senator Kerry, Senator Menendez and others today in Washington DC to tell negotiators that seniors, children, middle-class and struggling families should not bear the brunt of reducing the deficit alone. You can do your part from home.

Your Senators need to hear from you today. Call now and demand no cuts to Medicaid without shared sacrifices from the wealthiest Americans.

We need a reasonable plan for deficit reduction that reflects our values, that protects our most vulnerable neighbors, and that doesn’t shift more burdens onto middle class families and states.

Demand a budget plan that reduces the deficit responsibly and works for all Americans – not just millionaires and big business. Urge your senators to oppose harmful cuts or caps to programs serving our nation’s most vulnerable communities.

via Health Care for America Now

Labels: MediCal

posted by Linda Leu | Permalink | 5:03 PM


 

AB52 Passes Senate Health! Other key bills also move forward.

Wednesday, July 06, 2011

Today was the last opportunity for health bills to move forward this year. The remaining Assembly bills on our agenda had to clear the Senate Health Committee before moving on to Appropriations or other committees, and then to the Senate floor.

RATE REGULATION

The highly anticipated vote on Assemblymember Feuer's AB52 on Rate Regulation did not come without drama. Because the committee held an extensive hearing on the bill last week, the bill was intended for vote only. Though no stakeholders were allowed to testify, a number of committee members did take the opportunity to speak.

Senator Strickland read an extensive statement opposing the bill, reiterating a wide range of the arguments made by industry opponents last week. Specifically, he stated that among the bills “flaws” is that it does not address and fix all of the problems in the health care system, Senator Blakeslee echoed this statement. (We look forward to Senators Strickland and Blakeslee co-authoring a comprehensive bill that will reverse all underlying cost drivers and fix the health care system for good.) Strickland also misreported a number of the points made in last week’s hearing, including contending that an unsubstantiated projected cost of $30 million in intervener fees could balloon to $300 million.

Senator Hernandez reported that he has been working diligently with Assemblyman Feuer on a number of amendments, and anticipates voting for the bill on the Senate floor if the amendments are accepted. His concerns are in five major areas:

1. Depoliticizing the implementation, or creating an appeals process



2. Clearly define the implementation processes, including the objective measures for reasonable rate increases



3. Address issues related to the large group market



4. Establish clear criteria for intervener funds



5. Insert additional transparency measures to address underlying cost drivers

Senator Rubio abstained from voting, stating that he would await the final amendments before deciding how he would vote. AB52 was the last bill that the Committee voted on. The final committee vote count was:

AYES: Hernandez, Alquist, DeLeon, DeSaulnier, Wolk

NOES: Strickland, Anderson, Blakeslee

ABSTENTIONS: Rubio

The bill's passage is lauded as an important measure to protect California by Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones who issued this press release this afternoon, as well as Senator Diane Feinstein, who issued a press release stating “The passage of this bill by the Senate Health Committee is a major step forward to protect consumers from egregious health insurance rate hikes. I hope the entire Senate follows suit by passing this bill and urge Governor Brown to sign it.”

Undoubtedly, it will require an additional effort from our consumer advocacy community to ensure that AB52 now passes Senate Appropriations Committee and then the Senate floor.

OTHER BILLS MOVING FORWARD

STREAMLINING ELIGIBILITY AND ENROLLMENT: Assemblymember Bonilla’s AB1296, which would create a consumer friendly “no wrong door” approach to eligibility, enrollment, and retention in public programs was also heard in committee. The bill would use federal dollars to meet the requirement (per the Affordable Care Act) that the state create one application for all programs and streamline front end customer service so that individuals do not have to be responsible for figuring out the complexities of which program they are eligible at any given time and how to transition to other programs when their circumstances change. This bill moves forward on a party line vote.

HEALTHY FOOD: Another bill that survived contentious debate and passed out of Senate Health was Assemblymember Mitchell’s AB727 which would require that vending machines in state buildings offer at least 50% healthier options.

Clearly the road ahead for implementing Health Care reform in California will be a challenging one, but for now, a moment to take a deep breath.

Labels: HealthReform, Legislation

posted by Linda Leu | Permalink | 4:59 PM


 

Last Chance in Assembly Health...

Tuesday, July 05, 2011

Assembly Health met today in what was the last chance for health related bills to move forward this year.

Senator Ed Hernandez (Chair)
Senator Elaine Alquist
Senator Kevin de León
Senator Mark DeSaulnier
Senator Michael Rubio
Senator Lois Wolk

Labels: HealthReform, Legislation

posted by Linda Leu | Permalink | 6:35 PM


 

Exchange grant submitted, now the work begins...

With all the news about the state budget being passed right before the start of the 2011-12 state fiscal year, and the legislative debate over AB52 and other measure, you might have overlooked another key milestone last week: the submission of a grant application by the California Health Benefits Exchange to the federal government, to fund the Exchange's operation for the next year.

The application was approved on last Tuesday's Board meeting. We happened to be meeting with HHS Secretary Diana Dooley, who also chairs the Exchange Board, when she was signing the final document for transmittal to the feds. With permission, we got the document the moment with a camera phone photo, another version of which we posted on our Twitter feed @healthaccess.

With these funds, the Exchange board will be able to start hiring a core staff and contracting with key experts as it ramps up to 2014. The full application is on the Exchange's website.

But the work is just beginning. In particular, we feel urgency regarding the pending legislation around implementing health reform. This includes the bills to better align California laws to key consumer protections and market rules, which are needed so that the industry can appropriately prepare and phase in to the new rules. This also include the work on streamlining eligibility and enrollment, so that we have key goals and a framework in place to 2012 so that we can be operational in 2013. Our goal is nothing less than mass enrollment on Day One, Janaury 1, 2014--both to get people the care and financial security they need, but also to draw those federal funds into our health system and economy as soon as possible.

We have key bills on these topics in the legislature this week, and we'll have an interesting summer to take some next steps legislatively toward a better, more consumer-friendly health care system.

Labels: Exchange, HealthReform

posted by Anthony Wright | Permalink | 4:09 PM


 

Obamneycare...

 

The Exchange Discusses Essential Health Benefits

 

Assembly Moves Health Bills Forward, Single Payer ...

 

Comedy about Coverage: Stewart vs. Sebelius

 

Health care in the State of the Union...

 

The State of the Health System...

 

Secretary Sebelius lays out the stakes...

 

First Exchange Board Meeting of 2012!

 

Tonight! Tune in to KCET as "Your Money Your Life...

 

What federal "budget cuts" actually mean...