A Stitch in Time

An editorial in today's The Republican highlighted the importance of preventative medicine as a critical component of comprehensive, cost-effective health care. Some private insurers are providing financial incentives to physicians to encourage them to make sure that all eligible patients get the preventative care and screening tests that are appropriate. It’s a good start, and we’re glad some private insurers are doing both the morally and economically sensible thing. The problem is not everyone in the state gets the preventative care they need. A stitch—or medical test—in time saves nine. The lack of preventative care results in a lot of unnecessary suffering and cost. It is wrong from both an economic and moral perspective that people in this state cannot get the preventative care they need. The amendment would ensure that everyone in the state has access to preventative care.

Budgets Buckle Under

We’ve been talking a lot recently about the squeeze Massachusetts cities and towns are under because of the rising cost of providing health care to their employees. Today we have more evidence of the problem. In a relatively long and detailed article in the Melrose Free Press, Galen Moore examines the various factors impacting these budgets. He explicitly discusses the rising cost of health care, especially given the constraints of limited property tax increases. Cities and towns are making unbelievable choices, including losing police and teachers because of the health care crisis. The good news is that there are hundreds of thousands of people across the Commonwealth who recognize the crisis, and are moving to fundamentally reform the system. We need reform on many levels, but all the proposals need a solid foundation—the Health Care Amendment.

Town votes to eliminate health insurance

This past Monday in Bridgewater, at the annual Town Meeting voters overwhelmingly voted to end stipends for 8 part-time elected town officials, because the cost of the health insurance associated with those stipends was too high. The town paid $18,000 in stipends, and more than $95,000 in health insurance. Under state law, elected officials who receive even modest annual stipends qualify for participation in their community's health plan at the same contribution rate as other municipal employees.

According to an article in the Boston Globe, “Eliminating the stipends, and thus eliminating the health insurance benefit, is one way cash-strapped towns are trying to save money.” It was reported that the town has been paying 90 percent of the premiums, as with its full-time employees. The average family plan that previously required a contribution of about $110 each month from the elected official will jump to over $1,000 per month.

New Health Care Poll

According to a poll of 400 Massachusetts likely voters released yesterday by 7NEWS and Suffolk University 67% of those questioned believed that the Commonwealth should provide health care for every resident. The same poll also showed, however, that 52% did not believe the Commonwealth could afford it. Also, 69% believed that people who can afford health care should be compelled to pay for it. If you are like us, you may find these findings contradictory; however, the take home message is that everyone needs health insurance-- one way or another. That sentiment is clear, widespread and the lowest common denominator in the debate. That is also what the Amendment is all about, putting that sentiment—health care for everyone-- into our state constitution.

Insured But Not Protected

An article that appeared yesterday in the Journal of Health Affairs showed that “underinsured” Americans—and there are 16 million of them—go without needed medical services. The study shows that 38 percent go without prescriptions, 32 percent decide not to see a doctor even when they have a medical problem, 30 percent skip tests, treatment or follow-up care, and 18 percent forgo care from specialists. This happens primarily because of cost. The report notes that the figures are similar between people who have no insurance and the people who are underinsured; this means that simply providing people with some kind of insurance is not enough—it needs to be comprehensive. High deductibles and limited benefits, especially in regards to medications and mental health, were the primary reasons for underinsurance. You might notice that the amendment calls for both medications and mental health coverage.

Everyone’s Problem

People frequently discuss the moral imperative of providing health care—and it is. However, just as important is the financial side of the equation. Last Friday this article appeared in the NY Times about GM’s difficulties in providing health care to its union members. The most important thing to take away from it is not a he-said she-said who is the bad guy, but instead to realize that this issue is critical for everyone involved. The only way we will be able to get a healthy system will be through fundamental reform, and that is never easy. However, we will be in a perpetual health care crisis until underlying structural problems are fixed. The only way to fix those problems is to provide a mandate to lawmakers to do it, and a tool for ensuring that health care remains a central issue until it is fixed. That means a constitutional amendment.

Health Care Breaks Cities and Towns

An article yesterday in the Winchester Star is more evidence of how towns and cities across Massachusetts are struggling to deal with the rising cost of insurance for city employees. The town spent $6.4 million on insurance for its town employees, the largest single item on the budget. Cities and Towns across the Commonwealth, like businesses and individuals, are caught in a problem larger they can tackle alone. The Constitutional Amendment would ensure that the state takes action to solve the issue. Now is the time for our Legislature to work with stakeholders, make some hard decisions, and come up with a solution that works for the people of Massachusetts.

Higher Premiums for Everyone

A new study out from Families USA quantifies the cost of the uninsured. The study looked at how much the uninsured cost people who have insurance, and showed that on average, people with insurance paid $922 more in premiums because of the uninsured. It’s more evidence that the problem of the uninsured is not just bad for them; it’s bad for all of us. It is not fair for people to pay for health care based on random circumstance. That is part of the reason why the Constitutional Amendment calls for equitable financing. There are many ways to ensure that everyone pays their fair share, but the current system is not one of those ways. We need fundamental change to control the rising costs everyone faces, and the foundation for that fundamental reform is the Constitutional Amendment.

From Capitol Hill to Beacon Hill

Yesterday, Barbara Roop and Michael Carr went to Washington and met with leaders from America’s Agenda and the Center for American Progress and briefed them on the Campaign. They also made a presentation to a group of health care leaders at a lunchtime program sponsored by the Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO. The meetings went extremely well, and folks in Washington can help spread the word about the Amendment. As the Campaign moves forward, we will be looking for their support.

This morning, we joined health care advocates of all stripes as we converged on Beacon Hill to show our support for fundamental health care reform. We watched as the Joint Committee on Health Care Financing Committee met in an overflowing Gardner Auditorium to hear about the problems facing the health care system in Massachusetts and possible solutions to help fix it. Senate President Traviglini and Governor Romney testified, as did a variety of leaders from business, medicine, and advocacy groups. Standing in the room, the biggest impression the event made on us was the demand for fundamental health care reform. The bills before the committee would both go a long way towards making that reform a reality.

Looking back on the history of health care reform in Massachusetts, we can’t forget that the Legislature has passed big initiatives before. Slowly, those reforms were repealed, unfunded, and eroded. That is why we need a Constitutional Amendment—to make sure that all the work that advocates and legislators put into fundamental reform does not go to waste. An Amendment is the only way we can lock in these important reforms and ensure that the movement to guarantee everyone access to affordable coverage does not lose steam until that promise has been fulfilled for everyone in our Commonwealth.

Health Hits the Hill

Beacon Hill promises to be an interesting place this Wednesday (10am, Gardner Auditorium), when Massachusetts residents will press their growing concerns about health care cost and access to legislators. Concerns about health care are now regularly register as the most important in surveys about voter concerns. A large part of the health care community will be there—activists, physicians, nurses, hospital leaders, insurance and employer groups, and businesses. Senate President Robert Travaglini is also expected to testify on his bills to health insurance access.

From the Airwaves to the Op-ed Page

Yesterday evening WARE 1250AM was host to Barbara Roop, our campaign co-chair and Michael Carr, our campaign manager. State Representative Mark J. Carron (D) of Southbridge, the show's host, invited Barbara and Michael on to discuss the state of the campaign (strong), the state of health care in Massachusetts (not so strong), and the need for reform (very strong). The show is called MAP-- Massachusetts and Politics-- and is broadcast from 4-6pm on Thursdays in the central part of the state. If you heard the program, we'd love to hear what you thought about it.
In something slightly different, today we have assembled a collection of editorials from around the country calling for universal health insurance. The pieces are interesting to read, but the main point that each of them stress is twofold: 1) covering everyone is a moral imperative, and 2) covering everyone is an economic imperative. Health care is one sector where good, fiscally sound policy also happens to take the moral high ground. Also interesting was the observation that doing nothing is not an option. If things continue as they are today, unchecked, the consequences will be catastrophic. So, without further talk, the articles are:

Why the Nation Will Embrace Universal Health Care in the Seattle Times, WA
We can End the Healthcare Crisis in the Tallahassee Democrat, FL
Social Justice Includes Healthcare in the San Jose Mercury News, CA

Have a good weekend.

California's Insurance Troubles

In more news from around the country, a new study from UC Berkeley's Center on Labor on California’s health care situation painted a grim picture of the future. According to the study, if health insurance rates keep rising at current levels only one half of all working California families will have job based health insurance by 2010. Rising premiums, deductibles, and co-pays are forcing many Californians to go without coverage because they cannot afford it. The study reported that for every 10% increase in premiums, 910,000 working families lose coverage nationwide. Couple that with the fact that there have been double-digit premium increases year in and year out, and you begin to get the scope of the problem.

The following are brief excerpts from an article in the SF Chronicle:

"For middle-income and low-wage workers, job-based coverage is increasing becoming completely unavailable," said Bob Brownstein, policy director for Working Partnerships, a nonprofit labor research group. "This situation places an enormous number of working families ... at grave risk of economic or medical crisis."

“The report doesn't paint an exaggerated sky-is-falling scenario, said Tim Biddle, senior vice president in the San Francisco office of the Segal Co., an employee-benefit and actuarial consulting firm.

"The sky is falling," Biddle said. "Employers are starting to hit the wall in what they can afford in terms of health care."’

Let the States Experiment

CongressDaily recently reported that at the 12th annual "Princeton Conference" held on May 20th health policy experts proposed that the federal government provide states with a "policy toolbox" to allow them to experiment with different methods for reducing the number of uninsured residents in their states. The idea was proposed by Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation and Henry Aaron of the Brookings Institution during the conference which was attended by academics, congressional staff, government officials and representatives from the health care industry. Under their proposal, states would be encouraged to test different methods for improving health care coverage and states that showed improved coverage would be rewarded. The health care proposals would be approved by a federal commission, and Congress would vote on a slate of plans. Neither Congress nor the Bush administration would have the final vote over which method is used in each state. According to Butler, the proposal would simultaneously "enable members of Congress to accept approaches they would never allow in their own states and provide the ability to experiment with different approaches over a five-year period.