Health Care for Massachusetts Campaign

Hurricane Health Care

2005-09-21T14:06:00.000-04:00

Healthcare swept away
By Derrick Z. Jackson, Boston Globe, September 21, 2005

. . .With the exception of 1999 and 2000, the number of Americans without health insurance has risen steadily from just over 30 million in 1987. It is a bipartisan failure. After President Clinton dropped his botched attempt for a more universal form of healthcare in his first term, the numbers of the uninsured soared from 35 million to nearly 45 million. Aided by a booming economy, the numbers fell in Clinton's last two years to 40 million. Under Bush, the number cracked the 45 million barrier for the first time -- 45.8 million, to be exact.

Last week, as Bush conducted damage control over the negligent federal response to Katrina, the Kaiser Family Foundation released a report indicating that healthcare premiums continue to increase at triple the rate of inflation. The average cost of family health coverage is now $10,880, surpassing the gross earnings of someone working full time at the federal minimum wage.

In the Bush years, the cost of health insurance has skyrocketed by 73 percent. While Bush has given vastly disproportionate shares of his tax cuts to corporations and wealthy individuals under the guise that the rich will create jobs, not only has there been no rise in income for the average American; business firms, especially small ones, are cutting workers out of healthcare. Since Bush took office, the percentage of companies that offer health insurance has dropped from 69 percent to 60 percent.

Healthcare spending in the United States is expected to grow from $1.4 trillion last year to $3.1 trillion a year by 2012. Yet virtually nothing on a large scale has been done about it, with insurance companies, drug companies, and major medical associations lobbying forcefully on Capitol Hill and in state legislatures against cost controls and single-payer coverage. The travesty of the hospitals in New Orleans is only a prelude to the disaster that is about to strike healthcare in America.

Click here to read the full op-ed>

''Every year, health insurance becomes less affordable to working people."

2005-09-15T10:24:00.000-04:00

Fewer companies offering health benefits as costs rise
Premiums growing at 3 times rate of pay
By Jeffrey Krasner, Boston Globe Staff September 15, 2005

As health insurance costs continue to spiral upward, fewer companies are offering health benefits to their employees, according to a national survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

About 60 percent of companies nationwide offer health benefits to employees, compared to 69 percent in 2000, the survey found. Most of the companies that eliminated health benefits have fewer than 200 employees.

''It is low-wage workers who are being hurt the most by the steady drip, drip, drip of coverage draining out of the employer-based health insurance system," said Drew E. Altman, president of the foundation, a nonprofit that provides information and analysis of healthcare issues but does not take sides in policy debates. ''Every year, health insurance becomes less affordable to working people."

The annual survey underscored the ongoing increases in healthcare costs. It estimated insurance premiums rose this year by an average of 9.2 percent nationwide, compared to 11.2 percent last year and 13.9 percent in 2003. But Altman warned against reading too much into this year's lower number.

''Don't be fooled by the moderation in the rate of increase," he said. ''We've seen these dips before."

The survey said premium costs are rising at about three times the rate of increase of the average worker's earnings and at about two-and-a-half times the rate of inflation.

''We shouldn't expect anything other than for the rate of health premiums to greatly outpace the growth of wages and the growth of the general economy," Altman said.

Increases in Massachusetts have exceeded the national average. This year, most health plan members faced jumps of 10 to 13 percent, and the state's major health insurers are predicting increases of 10 to 12 percent next year for many customers.

Click here for the rest of the story>

Health Care's Potholes

2005-09-02T11:00:00.000-04:00

Health care's potholes
By David Lazarus, San Francisco Chronicle, Friday, September 2, 2005

Just about everyone has a tale of woe that illustrates why the U.S. health care system is in such miserable shape. Duane Vickrey's story is particularly illuminating.

It also gets to the heart of a problem many other people face: soaring insurance costs for the most mundane of medical conditions.

"Unless you can show you have a pristine state of health -- found more in theory than in nature -- they'll find a way to jack up your premiums," said Kevin Grumbach, who heads the Department of Family and Community Medicine at UCSF Medical School.

Vickrey, 41, graduated from UC Berkeley in May with a master's degree in social welfare. While attending classes, he was covered by a Blue Cross insurance plan available to students. He didn't step right into full-time work once he left school, so Vickrey decided to maintain his Blue Cross coverage under an individual policy.

He's not alone. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, more than 16 million Americans are covered by individual health insurance policies, as opposed to company-sponsored plans.Vickrey decided on a plan that cost a manageable $86 a month in premiums but that also came with a deductible of $3,500.

In other words, he's responsible for the first $3,500 in annual health care costs, making the plan primarily a hedge against catastrophic medical troubles. Luckily, Vickrey has no serious health issues. Or so he thought.

Click here to read the rest of the op-ed>

Insured not immune

2005-09-01T10:00:00.000-04:00

Even the insured can buckle under health care costs
Some make ends meet by forgoing treatment
By Julie Apple, USA TODAY, August 31, 2005

Medical progress has helped Americans live longer, but the exploding cost of those breakthroughs has polarized the nation: More than one in four Americans are faltering under the burden of health costs, while almost half — those lucky enough to be healthy or wealthy — are untouched.

The rest are a mix of those who say they worry about whether they will be able to pay routine medical bills in the future and those who have already started cutting corners — skipping treatments or not taking prescriptions — because of the costs.

Other findings from a nationwide survey of adults by USA TODAY, the Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard School of Public Health show that medical inflation is creating financial problems even for those who most assume should be able to handle the costs — those with health insurance.

Sixty-two percent of those struggling to pay medical bills have health insurance, underscoring how increasing premiums, deductibles and gaps in coverage are affecting families.

Click here for the rest of the story>

''It's all tied to the cost of health insurance."

2005-08-31T09:45:00.000-04:00

US study finds rise in state's uninsured
Trend underlines need for reform, officials say
By Liz Kowalczyk, Boston Globe Staff, August 31, 2005

The number of Massachusetts residents without health insurance jumped about 10 percent last year, surpassing the growth in the uninsured nationally and raising concerns whether climbing private health insurance premiums are shutting out middle-income workers.

The federal Census Bureau reported yesterday that the number of uninsured residents in Massachusetts grew to 748,000 last year, up by 66,000 people from 2003. Massachusetts healthcare organizations and the state have estimated a smaller number of uninsured -- between 460,000 and 532,000 residents last year.

But consumer advocates and Governor Mitt Romney's administration said that the underlying trend in the Census Bureau's figures is probably accurate.''It's a huge increase and unfortunately it's not a surprise," said John McDonough, executive director of a Boston-based advocacy group, Health Care for All. ''It's all tied to the cost of health insurance."

Click here for the rest of the story>

Click here to read the Globe's Editorial "Declining Health">

No Action: ConCon Rescheduled

2005-08-25T09:00:00.000-04:00

STATE HOUSE NEWS
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION – WEDNESDAY, AUG. 24, 2005

CONVENTION RETURNS: Senators arrived in the House Chamber at 12:56 pm. Sen. Havern of Arlington gaveled the convention to order.

RECESS UNTIL SEPT. 14: At 12:57 pm, the convention adopted Sen. Morrissey’s motion to recess and resume the convention on Wednesday, Sept. 14 at 1 pm.

PLAN FOR DEBATE ON SEPT. 14: After recessing, Sen. Havern returned to the rostrum and said it is the intention of the chair for debate on the calendar to transpire on that day. The sergeant-at-arms then led senators out of the chamber.

Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts Endorses Campaign

2005-08-16T10:16:00.000-04:00

We are pleased to announce that Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts has endorsed the Campaign. We appreciate their support and look forward to working with them on this historic campaign. To view the press release click here. Below are some excerpts.

"As the state's leading free-standing provider of reproductive health services for women, Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts is committed to improving access to health care for every resident of Massachusetts. That is why we are so supportive of an amendment that will guarantee all residents of the commonwealth access to affordable health insurance coverage," said Dianne Luby, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts.

“We are grateful and pleased that Planned Parenthood has chosen to add their energy to our efforts to fix the moral and economic crisis surrounding health care in our state once and for all,” said Barbara Roop, co-chair of the HCMC. “While the reform proposals now before the Legislature vary widely, everyone – left, center and right – is now publicly on record as favoring universal coverage. They need a ‘lock in’ to ensure reforms produce the ‘win-win’ outcomes essential to the health and financial stability of Massachusetts residents and the competitiveness of our economy — that's where the health care constitutional amendment comes in.”

“Decades of contribution by this venerated organization have resulted in significant achievements for the health and welfare of this state, particularly for women,” said Dr. John Goodson, co-chair of the HCMC. “Within its vision for the future, Planned Parenthood has proclaimed its desire to secure a future that ensures access to quality health care, education and advocacy for everyone. Their endorsement is further evidence of their unrelenting dedication to do so.”

Towns get creative in trimming costs

2005-08-15T14:35:00.000-04:00

Alternate health plans pay off
Towns find new health plans paying off Towns get creative in trimming costs

By Matt Carroll, Boston Globe, August 14, 2005

Municipal governments, staggering under the weight of health insurance costs that have jumped by more than half in the last five years, are experimenting with new ways to contain the budget-busting premiums.

Some communities, such as Milton and Brockton, have decided to set up self-insurance funds. Others, such as Carver, Lakeville, Marion, and Mattapoisett, are bolting from larger insurance pools to create their own group. And in Pembroke, among other towns, employees are being made to pick up more of the cost of their healthcare coverage.

Many officials hope legislation brewing on Beacon Hill will give them more tools to deal with what is often the hottest topic in union contract negotiations.

Senate President Robert E. Travaligni has proposed a bill that would allow local officials to set the percentage of medical costs paid by union employees, bypassing contentious contract negotiations. The legislation is strongly opposed by unions, resistance that leaves some town officials skeptical it will pass.

Officials also say that local solutions won't permanently cure what is essentially a national problem.

All costs are rising, but nothing rivals healthcare expenses, which have skyrocketed 63 percent since 2001, according to a study of 32 communities issued last month by the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation and the Massachusetts Municipal Association.

The increase is quadruple the growth rate in local budgets, the study said, with health insurance expenses now eating up 10 percent of municipal spending.

Click here for the rest of the story >

State's leaders need to get to yes on healthcare

2005-08-11T08:56:00.000-04:00

BOSTON GLOBE EDITORIAL
Romney's recommendation
August 11, 2005

IT MUST seem to Governor Romney that everyone in state government with a vote is conspiring against him getting anything done. The governor, always swimming upstream against a Democratic Legislature, hasn't improved relations by posing for national magazines and otherwise allowing rumors of his presidential ambitions to fly. It has made for a difficult summer.

Romney's vetoes of stem cell legislation and $110 million in budget spending were thumpingly overridden by the Legislature, and his veto of the emergency contraception bill faces the same fate. His housing, education, economic stimulus, and healthcare initiatives are stalled. This week even the slumbering Governor's Council roused itself to oppose a Romney judicial appointment for the first time, prompting the nominee to withdraw.

It would be best for Romney to clarify his intention whether to seek reelection as soon as possible so that legislators and the public could know for sure whether their governor is a lame duck. But even in Massachusetts some things ought to be above politics. Plans to improve housing, education, and especially healthcare need to be attended to with vigor when the August doldrums pass.

How to provide health insurance to the 460,000 Massachusetts residents still without it is a puzzle that has confounded governors going back to Michael Dukakis. Romney's plan would offer three solutions: basic, but mandatory, private plans for residents who can afford insurance but choose not to enroll; Medicaid coverage to those who are poor enough to be eligible but not registered with the program; and heavily subsidized, low-cost plans for everyone else.

One problem with Romney's initiative is that real people don't stay in static categories. They lose jobs and then become employed again, suddenly earning too much for the subsidized plans. Or they become ill and find they need more coverage than the bare-bones plans can offer. Without a single universal plan for everyone in the state, people in many circumstances still won't be covered.

Another weakness is that Romney's plan does little to control rising healthcare costs, other than leaving it up to the insurers to deny or restrict care -- part of the problem in the first place. The proposal needs to be independently analyzed for its cost.

Several other plans are circulating on Beacon Hill, and most have something to offer. The individual mandate idea at least recognizes that few people today get coverage all their working lives from one large employer. And Romney's bill includes protections against companies that do offer coverage now from dumping the benefit. The state's leaders need to get to yes on healthcare. A victory would benefit everyone in the state, not just Romney.

Health Care on Fall Agenda

2005-08-10T08:45:00.000-04:00

SENATE PRESIDENT: HEALTH CARE, JOBS BILL, AUTO REFORM ON FALL AGENDA

By Amy Lambiaso
STATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE
amy.lambiaso@statehousenews.com

STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, AUG. 10, 2005….State senators are poised to tackle auto insurance reform, health care, and issue their own plan to boost the state’s economy when they return in the fall, Senate leaders said Wednesday.In an interview Wednesday, Senate President Robert Travaglini said he is finalizing the Senate’s agenda for the fall and intends to speak with House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi soon to determine if Senate priorities are aligned with those of House leaders.

Travaglini remains committed to holding health care reform as his toppriority, he said today. The East Boston Democrat has pledged to push through a law that will cut the number of uninsured in half.The Health Care Financing Committee continues to review health care reform bills that would, among other things, reduce the cost of insurance products, raise the cigarette tax, and create incentives for employers and consumers to purchase insurance. Lawmakers say they have been meeting with experts this summer and are hoping to advance a proposal this fall....

In addition, Travaglini said the House and Senate joint Constitutional Convention scheduled for Aug. 24 will be a “formality,” given that many lawmakers will be on vacation and he and DiMasi return from their trip to Israel the day before. Travaglini, the presiding lawmaker at the convention, said he will have another senator preside in his absence.“We will come in, gavel in, and get out,” Travaglini said.Three pending constitutional amendments need one more vote of approval this session to reach the November 2006 ballot. Those proposals would ban gay marriage and establish same-sex civil unions, require the state to provide universal health care, and require the state to deposit funds into its rainy day account on an annual basis.

State planning to tighten rules for free care

2005-08-03T09:51:00.000-04:00

State planning to tighten rules for free care
Romney aides want more Medicaid enrollees
By Alice Dembner, Boston Globe Staff, August 3, 2005

Two weeks after Governor Mitt Romney proposed legislation to provide health insurance for all state residents, his administration is moving to change the rules for a ''free care" program in ways that advocates say could make it harder for the uninsured to get healthcare.

Under the rules, which would become effective Oct. 1, hundreds of thousands of uninsured residents would have to pay $3 to $5 copayments toward their medical care, which studies have shown can scare away poorer patients. In addition, some patients who currently get services through the state's free-care program, but have other options for coverage, would be excluded, and prescription coverage for all uninsured would be restricted.

The moves are designed to make sure that the free-care program is not more attractive than MassHealth, the state's Medicaid insurance program for low-income patients, according to the administration. It wants to encourage more patients to enroll in MassHealth, in which costs are shared by the state and federal governments. Financing of the free-care program -- $502 million for fiscal year 2006 -- comes from taxpayers, hospitals, and health insurers. An additional rationale for the changes, the administration said, is to make the free-care pool more like the insurance plans that Romney's legislation lays out.

Click here for the rest of the story >

Massachusetts health premiums to go up 10% or more

2005-08-02T09:44:00.000-04:00

Healthcare premiums to leap again
Rates could increase ranks of uninsured
By Jeffrey Krasner, Boston Globe Staff, August 2, 2005

Most Massachusetts companies and their workers will get hit with increases in their health insurance premiums of 10 percent or more beginning next year, according to the state's largest insurers.

Insurance companies and many employers are already negotiating rates and coverage for 2006. Insurers and industry consultants say employers may end up absorbing a bigger share of premium increases. Many companies will also opt for health plans in which workers have to pay higher-out-of-pocket costs to keep premiums down.

The double-digit increase -- coming on top of five consecutive years in which premiums increased by at least 10 percent -- are expected to lead to a greater number of uninsured people in the state as more companies and workers find coverage too costly.

''As prices go up, some at the margin won't be able to afford to cover their families," said Michael Doonan, executive director of the Massachusetts Health Policy Forum, a nonpartisan research group. That will drive more people to Medicaid, the federal program administered by states for low-income individuals, Doonan said.

Insurers blamed the continued steep rise of health premiums on increasing hospital costs, rising prescription drug expenses, and an aging population.

Click here for the rest of the story >

Lawmakers mulling health care reform

2005-07-29T10:00:00.000-04:00

The Boston – Bay State Banner
July 28, 2005 – Vol. 40, No. 50

Lawmakers mulling health care reform
By Jeremy Schwab

With high health insurance costs plaguing state residents and businesses, Massachusetts lawmakers are considering four competing proposals to revamp the health insurance system.

The four plans have similar goals — increasing the number of insured residents while minimizing costs — but would achieve those goals in vastly different ways.

Supporters of a single-payer health care system that would eliminate most private insurance and give all Massachusetts residents government-funded health plans testified at the State House last week.

They said a single-payer system would be cost effective because it would have much lower administrative costs than HMO plans and would eliminate the need for the costly free care pool that funds care for the uninsured.

“Currently, 39 cents out of every dollar goes to overhead,” Sandy Eaton, chairman of the Mass-Care Coalition which supports the bill, told the Banner. “If we could cut back by, say, 10 percent, we would have billions more to cover everyone.”

In addition to saving administrative costs by streamlining and reducing paperwork such as means testing forms, the plan would create a statewide pool to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices.

The plan would need federal approval, as federal Medicare money would be rolled into the health care trust established under the plan.

Gov. Mitt Romney’s plan, meanwhile, would put little pressure on the insurance industry. Under his plan, insurers could create cheaper insurance products that cut back on some services while maintaining core coverage such as doctor visits, emergency care and prescription coverage.

The state would eliminate the free care pool and use the money instead to subsidize insurance for lower-income people not covered by Medicaid. If state residents refused to purchase health insurance, they could lose their personal exemption on their income tax under Romney’s plan.

“Affordable insurance can be available to all citizens without a government takeover of the health care system,” said Romney in a press release.

Romney’s poke at advocates who support an expanded government role in providing health care was matched last week with rhetoric from the other side.

“The market-based proposals which are so popular right now simply violate ideas of social justice,” Arnold Relman, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, told the Joint Committee on Health Care Financing.

A third proposal, supported by a coalition including the Greater Boston Interfaith Coalition, Health Care for All and the Service Employees International Union, would also offer health coverage to all residents, say supporters.

Dubbed the Health Access and Affordability Act, it would expand access to MassHealth, allow individuals to join large group coverage plans and force more employers to cover their workers.

A fourth plan, offered by Senate President Robert Travaglini, would cover half of the 532,000 uninsured state residents over the next two years, according to a press release.

Travaglini’s plan would loosen restrictions on health care companies as an incentive to cover more low-income people and force insurers to offer plans for individuals under 25 years old.

The plan would also seek to expand Medicaid enrollment for those who are eligible but un-enrolled and force large employers that do not offer insurance to pay for the free care costs incurred by their employees.

Observers familiar with the workings of the State House expect the Legislature to ultimately adopt a plan incorporating elements of the different proposals.

The wave of new proposals to reform the medical insurance system was spurred in part by the increasing cost of health coverage. Soaring costs are hurting state residents and businesses and overburdening the free care pool.

A drive to put on the ballot a constitutional amendment giving every resident a right to health care has also helped spur lawmakers to act.

“Every politician to look real has to come up with something, because it looks like the movement to amend the constitution is unstoppable,” said Eaton of Mass-Care.

Supporters collected over 70,000 signatures in 2003 to move the proposal to the Legislature, which passed the proposal at its constitutional convention last year. Assuming legislators pass it again at the constitutional convention tentatively scheduled for next month, the question will appear on the ballot in 2006.

Immigrants' Health Care

2005-07-26T15:12:00.000-04:00

PRESS RELEASE

Immigrants spend half as much on health care as native-born Americans
Study shows most immigrants have insurance, but use fewer services

LOS ANGELES (July 25) - Immigrants in the United States receive less than half the health-care services than do native-born Americans, according to study findings published in the August issue of the American Journal of Public Health.

Immigrant children get even lower levels of care, receiving 84 percent less than U.S.-born children, according to researchers at Harvard and Columbia universities and the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California.

"Our study lays to rest the myth that expensive care for immigrants is responsible for our nation's high health costs," says Sarita Mohanty, M.D., M.P.H., assistant professor of medicine at the Keck School of Medicine, who led the study while at Harvard. "The truth is that immigrants get far less care than other Americans. Further restricting their eligibility for care would save little money and place many immigrants-particularly children-at grave risk. Already, many immigrant children fail to get regular checkups, and as a result more end up needing emergency care, or get no care at all."

The study is the first to analyze nationwide spending on immigrants' health care. Researchers analyzed data on 21,241 people in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's 1998 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, which collects detailed health-spending data on a representative cross-section of Americans. Researchers determined how much is spent per capita on health care among immigrants and non-immigrants by adjusting for differences between the two groups in age, income, health status and insurance status.

According to the study, immigrants comprised more than 10 percent of the U.S. population but accounted for less than 8 percent of total health spending and only 8 percent of government health spending.

Per capita health expenditures averaged $1,139 per immigrant, significantly less than the $2,564 expenditure for non-immigrants. And 30 percent of immigrants used no health care at all in the course of a year.

Most immigrants had health insurance coverage. Though uninsured immigrants used the least health care of any group-61 percent less than their uninsured counterparts who were born in the U.S.-even immigrants with insurance coverage used 52 percent less health care than insured non-immigrants.

Immigrant children received far less care in doctors' offices (71 percent less than non-immigrant children) and received 72 percent less prescription medications. However, their emergency room costs -$45 per child-were nearly three times greater than those for U.S.-born children, reflecting the high cost of foregoing routine care.

"Our data indicates that many immigrants are actually helping to subsidize care for the rest of us," says study co-author Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., associate professor of medicine at Harvard. "Immigrant families are paying taxes-including Medicare payroll taxes-and most pay health insurance premiums, but they're getting only half as much care as other families."

Study co-author Olveen Carrasquillo, M.D., M.P.H., of Columbia University's College of Physicians and Surgeons noted: "Latino immigrants had the lowest health expenditures -$962 per person-which is half those of US-born Latinos ($1,870) and less than one third those of U.S.-born whites ($3,117). The future economic success of the United States depends on a healthy immigrant workforce. Our findings suggest an urgent need for partnerships between health organizations and community groups to improve access to care, particularly for minority immigrants."

###

Sairta A. Mohanty, Steffie Woolhandler, David U. Himmelstein, Susmita Pati, Olveen Carrasquillo and David H. Bor, "Health Care Expenditures of Immigrants in the United States: A Nationally Representative Analysis," American Journal of Public Health. Vol 95, No. 8, August 2005, pp. 1-8.

Health Costs Overwhelm Local Budgets

2005-07-25T14:26:00.000-04:00

Boston Globe Editorial
Healthy cooperation
July 25, 2005

A STUDY from the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation measures the stinging costs of providing health coverage to municipal workers. Changes in employee contributions and plan offerings may be necessary to keep rising healthcare costs from debilitating the operating budgets of cities and towns.

The study, conducted with the Massachusetts Municipal Association and released last week, found that taxpayer-funded healthcare costs for municipal workers rose 63 percent from 2001 to 2005, more than four times the overall rate of growth in local budgets. More than half of new revenues in cities and towns went to cover increases in healthcare costs, leaving little opportunity to improve basic services. And municipal managers are nearly helpless to deal with the problem.

There is a better way to provide quality healthcare at a reasonable cost to public employees. Municipal managers and union leaders need look no further than state government, where workers enjoy excellent, affordable health coverage. The annual increase in the cost of providing health coverage to state workers is about half that for municipal workers.

A quasi-independent body -- the Group Insurance Commission -- ensures that more than 250,000 state workers, dependents, and retirees receive quality health insurance and other benefits at a reasonable cost. Plan designs and price structures are discussed rationally among labor, management, and healthcare economists. The commission can be counted on to press private health plans for the best service for state workers. It can also take measures, such as adjusting workers' copayments, to protect taxpayers. The commission could be a model for local communities. Better yet, it could expand to take on the direct responsibility for overseeing healthcare benefits for municipal employees.

First, municipal unions must accept the need to seek solutions outside of the collective bargaining process. Even the most straightforward cost-saving proposals, such as requiring retirees to enroll in plans that bridge the gap between Medicare and the cost of medical service, often collapse under union resistance, according to Geoffrey Beckwith, head of the Municipal Association.

At the state level, the Legislature establishes the employee contribution for healthcare coverage. At the municipal level, the unions call the shots. Wisely, Senate President Robert Travaglini has proposed legislation that would provide city councils and town meetings with the same authority now enjoyed by the Legislature to set premium shares.Balance must be restored when the cost of workers' healthcare coverage cripples entire cities and towns.

A Stitch in Time

2005-06-20T11:48:00.000-04:00

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

2005-06-17T13:15:00.000-04:00

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

2005-06-16T12:03:00.000-04:00

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

2005-06-15T15:32:00.000-04:00

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

2005-06-14T12:03:00.000-04:00

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

2005-06-13T15:31:00.000-04:00

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

2005-06-10T12:46:00.000-04:00

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

2005-06-09T19:05:00.000-04:00

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

2005-06-08T14:34:00.000-04:00

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

2005-06-06T12:57:00.000-04:00

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.