Today the Connector Board held their third and last public hearing on draft regulations on “minimum creditable coverage” (MCC), affordability, and CommCare premiums at Gardner Auditorium in the State House. Taking testimony were Connector Executive Director Jon Kingsdale, Board Chair Leslie Kirwin, Board members Celia Wcislo, Chip Joffe-Halpern, Louis Malzone, and Rick Lord, and Jamie Katz, General Counsel. More than 160 people listened to presentations from community groups, employers, advocates, hospitals, and consumers.
ACT!! submitted written testimony, which is available here.
Philip Edmundson, Affordable Care Today!! Coalition Chair opened up a series of ACT!! panels with an overview of issues on affordability, prescription drugs, life-time caps, and cost-sharing.
Speakers from the National Alliance on Mental Illness of Massachusetts and the Mayor’s Helpline at the Boston Public Health Commission thanked the Connector for including prescription drugs in minimum creditable coverage, emphasizing the importance of access to drugs for basic health care. Dr. Stephen Soumerai added a research perspective on smart ways of designing drug coverage that promotes effective use.
They were opposed by several employer groups that urged the Board to remove the requirement that MCC plans include prescription coverage. The Massachusetts Association of Health Plans also opposed the drug requirement. The employer groups also supported the Connector’s aceptance of High Deductible Health Plans. John McDonough of HCFA testified that exempting these plans from MCC standards could harm health reform.
The Massachusetts Medical Society and AIDS Action Committee spoke in favor of setting at least a $1 million minimum for lifetime caps on plans. The proposed regulations do not restrict lifetime benefit caps. One parent shared a story of her child who was born with a congenital heart disease and has already reached over $1 million in treatment costs. Without a reasonable lifetime cap, HIV patients undergoing extremely costly drug therapy and procedures will also risk using up their coverage.
The topic of controlling cost and preserving affordable plans brought out compelling consumer stories as well as an informative debate on the issue. Single payer groups such as MassCare, and Physicians for a National Health Program spoke against high deductible plans and bureaucratic inefficiencies of our current system. The American Cancer Society, Greater Boston Interfaith Organization, and Massachusetts Hospital Association, speaking on behalf of ACT!!, stressed that high deductibles inhibit use of medical care and that out of pocket maximums should include all co-pays and medical expenses.
The AARP and Health Law Advocates asserted the need to exempt from the mandate penalties families faced with premiums that exceed 10% of their income, and asked for a 500%-600% affordability income band for individuals.
GBIO, Mass Law Reform Institute, and a representative from the Children’s Health Access Coalition lauded the Connector for the family premium cap, which waive premiums for children’s coverage for parents with Commonwealth Care. While people under 100-150% fpl levels do not pay premiums, the groups would like to see this population shift to plan type 1, where dental coverage is available.
Artist groups highlighted the importance of using adjusted gross income as standards for self-employed people.
The Connector Board in turn expressed their appreciation for all the speakers and the effort put forth in the testimonies. The Board will vote on these regulations on June 5, at 3:00 pm, at the next board meeting at One Ashburton Place, 21st Floor, Boston.
Diana Ong
chris, laugh all you want but you are missing my point (maybe b/c you’re too busy laughing).
I was referring to FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICES which if you pay taxes, you are paying for. Same with Police Dpt services, and public education, and public health such as safe food and water. Duh.
Oh, and working nurse: While we’re on the subject of fire insurance. Show me one insurance company that a person can sign up with which would be willing to pay for damage caused by a fire that occured before the policy took effect! Yet this is precisely the argument I hear every day from people whith pre-existing conditions who complain about not getting coverage.
Your comparison between fire/auto insurance and mandatory health insurance is seriously flawed.
But this doesn’t surprise me.
And I read about employers spending $8000/yr on each employees health insurance (Costco), and I spent less than $800 in 35 years for unscheduled health care and “Working nurse ” calls ME selfish. I really have to laugh.
Last time I checked, one does not HAVE to purchase fire insurance. One does not HAVE to purchase auto insurance if one chooses not to drive.
I am hardly selfish, if I practice healthy habits
and happen to have been born into a healthy family. My health is MY asset, just as a wealthy individual is not obligated to share his/her wealth with me.
What pisses me off is the BS about people w/o insurance going bankrupt and being irresponsible. If this is true, why doesn’t your beloved connector accept insurance plans with large deductables like I have?
The answer is that they want healthy people to pay for those who aren’t.
chris, thankfully, poll after poll (both state and nat’l) show your selfish attitude is in the minority.
the vast majority of people support the creation of a social insurance model to guranantee everyone quality affordable health insurance. this can be done along the lines of how we finance and guarantee Fire Department services, except that HC services wuold be privately delivered, only the funding AND ACCOUTIBILITY FOR HOW THE FUNDS ARE SPENT would be public).
now, chris will tell us that his house has never caught fire, yadah yadah yadah, but most people value having such Fire Protection services (and police, public education, and public health for that matter!) guaranteed for all. It makes sense; it’s the right thing to do and the smart thing to do.
this is the reform approach we need for our healthcare system, not the harmful and fatally flawed Mass. mandate.
to learn more and to get involved in health reform that puts people before profits, visit and sign on at
http://www.MassCare.org/legislation
and
http://www.DefendHealth.org
You could exclude anyone you want. What I’m saying is that, with my health track record , I don’t want to be forced to buy coverage that I may never need. I have always paid for my own medical bills. I have a medical insurance plan with a huge deductable, by choice.
I have paid a grand total of $780 in medical bills over the past 35 years, and don’t feel that I should have to buy into a system of mandatory insurance. I don’t want anyone to be concerned about my health care. Believe me, I don’t give a rat’s rear about yours!
Chris
I have never had a heart attack, diabetes or cancer, and neither have my parents or siblings. Should we exclude all those as well by your logic since they are of no benefit to me?
Doc, UI haven’t taken a prescription drug since the ;late 70′s (Tylenol #3, for 3rd molar extractions) Kindly explain the “benefit” for me, please. Oh, and before you start with “as you get older”, I’m 52, and my parents, still living, are in their 80′s. Neither one takes prescription drugs, same applies to my siblings.
I will be the one who decides what type of plan I buy, as I do not have the misfortune of living in the Solcialist state of MA.
Glad to see there was considerable support for requiring prescription coverage in the Connector plans. While this can increase the cost of coverage it is clearly part of a sensible benefit package that emphasizes prevention of disease progression and complications, (e.g. heart disease and diabetes), and will save the state and people money in the long run through better health and quality of life.