Comments on: Setting the Record Straight re: Rick Lord on ‘BUR’s Blog

By: Channel Health Direct » TNFa linked to age-related vascular diseases

Channel Health Direct » TNFa linked to age-related vascular diseases — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:40:28 +0000

[...] Setting the Record Straight re: Rick Lord on ?BUR?s Blog OK, first, Rick Lord, President of Associated Industries of MA, is undeniably one of the nicest guys in Massachusetts public policy. A business leader with a brain and heart. A good guy. So it makes sense for WBUR’s new blog to post him first. Unhappily, as of about 9pm tonight, [.] (more) [...]

By: Rhode Island Red

Rhode Island Red — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 03:54:59 +0000

If the legislature’s “intent” was/is to include prescription drug coverage as part of MCC, why doesn’t the Legislature pass a law to mandate Rx coverage? They’ve passed plenty of other insurance mandates. Am I missing something?

By: admin

admin — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 21:37:25 +0000

To friend Ed: I would take issue with your conclusion. The fact that Chapter 58 did not specifically include drugs in MCC may mean several things: 1. legislators assumed it was not an issue because Gov. Romney indicated these policies “must” include drugs, and including one benefit would have triggered a messy political process requiring them to spell out the full contours of the benefit package. or 2. they didn’t want drugs in, and are just posturing now.

The issue of “intent” was raised by Rick Lord, suggesting affirmatively that there was no intent to include drugs in MCC. The legislators are going on the record to challenge that assertion, and to state that it was their intent. We take them at their word. Their failure to include drugs in the statutory language precludes us from declaring it a closed issue — still, their statements on Monday make clear what they had expected. No more, no less.

To Mr. Appleseed: Actually, according to MAHP statements, not all 200,000 lack drug coverage. Some lack other elements of MCC and have drug coverage. And because we have zero data on what the 200,000 are paying premiums now, and we do not know the elements of their benefit packages, we cannot make conclusions about how many will have to pay a “premium increase” or not, or how much of an increase.

Only full disclosure by the health plans can help us to answer these questions.
John McDonough

By: Johnny Appleseed.

Johnny Appleseed. — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:46:12 +0000

Oh yes. I forgot to mention that all those enlightened people who have chosen consumer driven Health Savings Accounts(HSA)will not qualify for MCC since Rx can not be a covered benefit in the high deductible insurance plan (by definition). I do not know the exact number but I have heard 50,000 in Massachusetts bandied about. Undoubtedly most of these people will be able to afford an upgrade in premium but who is to say that “Big Brother” has the right to disqualify peoples choice of plans intended to be affordable by involving the subscribers in the medical process. My oh My, what has God wrought?

By: Johnny Appleseed.

Johnny Appleseed. — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:19:34 +0000

I have heard enough about the 200,000 current subscribers who will have to upgrade to meet MCC. This is a fact based on current definition of MCC needing to include Rx coverage. These 200,000 are subscribers with the “Big Five” HMOs whose coverage does not include Rx. This is easily confirmed by the HMOs. Just give them a call. Futhermore there are at least 40,000 more subscribers that will have to upgrade because their coverages only provide a Rx discount card. These are the folks on Mega Life, MidWest Life NASE etc. Who is to say if these 240,000 subscribers can afford a premium increase or perhaps they will be pushed out the back door seeking an affordability waiver? Maybe John M knows but the rest of the world does not, including the Connector.

By: Ed Burke

Ed Burke — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 15:01:43 +0000

John–You know full well that it’s disingenuous for legislators to now say that it is/was the “intent” of Chap. 58 to include drugs in the definition of MCC. There is no evidence of this intent in the words of the statute. Isn’t it better for the Connector to work out this issue, especially the initial implementation, without a lot of posturing from the sidelines?