Showing posts with label worries. Show all posts
Showing posts with label worries. Show all posts

Monday, June 4, 2012

Looming court ruling worries some with health woes

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Texan Sam Lovett had no health insurance in August 2010 when an emergency hospital stay brought the news from his doctors that his liver was failing and he could die within less than a year without a transplant.

The small distribution center where he worked did not provide health insurance. Lovett, 43, who lives near Comfort, Texas, was not able to buy private coverage on his own because of his already bad health. Though he had the resources to cover routine medical bills, he now needed a $400,000 organ transplant and no doctor or clinic would take him without insurance.

"They were making arrangements to send me to a hospice. One doctor flatly told me that I had a better chance of leaving the hospital dead than alive," said Lovett, who had a history of alcoholism and obesity.

But in the months that followed, Lovett was able to enroll in the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP). The program was created by the healthcare law that President Barack Obama, a Democrat, signed in March 2010 despite the united opposition of Republicans in Congress. The program paid for Lovett's transplant surgery at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix last December.

PCIP is a temporary government program set up to run until 2014, when the Obama healthcare law is due to take full effect and prevent insurance companies from the common practice of denying people coverage due to pre-existing medical conditions. About 60,000 Americans already are receiving medical coverage through the program, according to the Obama administration.

As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to rule in the next few weeks on whether to overturn the law considered to be Obama's signature domestic policy achievement, Lovett said the choice is very clear for him and others unable to get insurance without the statute's provisions.

"Without this, you're going to die," Lovett said in an interview arranged by the Consumers Union organization, which supports the law. "From my perspective, that's what the Supreme Court will sanction, or not - whether people will be allowed to die because they can't get insurance."

Unlike people in many other rich nations where health insurance is near universal, many Americans struggle without medical coverage even as the country pays more for healthcare than anywhere else in the world. The U.S. healthcare system is a patchwork of private insurance and restrictive government programs that has left tens of millions uninsured.

Many Americans receive health insurance only because their employers provide it as a job benefit. But some companies, particularly smaller employers, do not offer it. People with pre-existing medical conditions often are denied private coverage when they try to buy it on their own.

The Obama law represented the $2.6 trillion U.S. healthcare system's biggest overhaul in nearly 50 years. Twenty-six of the 50 U.S. states - including Lovett's home state of Texas - and a small business trade group challenged the law in court.

The Supreme Court heard three days of historic arguments in March on the fate of the law. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

PCIP is only one facet of a law intended to extend coverage to more than 30 million more Americans, create competitive health insurance exchanges in all 50 states and find new ways to deliver effective healthcare at lower costs.

Opponents of the law say it represents an encroachment by the federal government on the individual right to choose healthcare, meddles in the business of the states, and would saddle consumers with higher costs and less access to care.

Should the high court overturn the law, its provisions could become invalid immediately.

'START OVER'

Although conservatives revile the law, Republicans and other critics agree something should be done to give insurance access to people with pre-existing conditions and other health issues. Several Republican bills in Congress would create new insurance pools for extending affordable coverage.

"We need to get rid of the entire thing and start over with a very deliberative process," said Sean Spicer, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. "There's bipartisan recognition that these are valid concerns that need to be addressed. But we need to do it in a way that doesn't put government in the middle of healthcare."

Mitt Romney, Obama's Republican challenger in the November 6 U.S. election, has called for repealing the law.

If the whole law or key provisions are struck down, it may be tough to get any alternatives through a Congress in partisan gridlock even after the election. Republicans currently control the House of Representatives and Obama's fellow Democrats the Senate.

Republican lawmakers are working on an alternative healthcare agenda should the law be struck down. They may seek to reinstate some of its more popular consumer protections such as a provision, already in effect, that lets young adults remain under their parents' health insurance plans to age 26.

But the uninsured or uninsurable could wait months or years for an alternative plan to help them. Meanwhile, many people without insurance fear that a major illness could lead to astronomical healthcare bills and doom them to bankruptcy.

Statistics show that as many as one in four working-age American adults go without health insurance in a given year, often due to unemployment and other job changes.

Helen Berger of Boise, Idaho, said she has not seen a doctor since her husband, Russ, lost his information technology job 10 months ago.

They had the option of paying to continue to get his former employer's insurance plan under a U.S. law known as COBRA. But the $1,350 monthly premium was way more than they could afford on his $336-a-week government unemployment check.

Her 2-year-old son and 8-year-old daughter are eligible for a government health assistance program for children. The family also qualifies for $400 a month in food stamps.

Joining the state-federal Medicaid program for the poor would mean giving up assets including their home, she said. So Helen, 55, and Russ Berger, 57, are going without coverage until he can find another job or a charitable health clinic.

"We're going in the hole (financially) every month without having to pay any health insurance. And now we're coming up on a year being on unemployment (benefits), not knowing if that will continue," Helen Berger said in an interview arranged by the advocacy group Families USA, which supports the law.

Because information technology specialists like her husband often land jobs as outside contractors without health benefits, Berger said a return to employment likely would mean they would have to buy their own insurance. She said she hopes affordable medical coverage will become available once the state insurance exchanges are launched as scheduled under the Obama law in 2014.

"If anything happens between now and then, we're kind of in a bad place," she said.

Her state, Idaho, also is among those challenging the law.

'I'LL BELIEVE IT WHEN I SEE IT'

Gail Richardson of Stone Mountain, Georgia, said she is skeptical the law will help her, but hopes to qualify for its expanded Medicaid eligibility, which also would begin in 2014.

"I just found out about it and was really happy. I used to think it would benefit a lot of people but not me," she said. "But I still say I'll believe it when I see it."

Richardson, a 59-year-old freelance writer, has autoimmune liver disease and psoriatic arthritis. With an annual income of about $11,000, she said she cannot afford to join the PCIP program that paid for Lovett's liver transplant.

That's because the law requires PCIP coverage to be priced in line with plans for healthy customers in each state. In Georgia, the standard PCIP plan for someone her age costs $470 a month in premiums and can lead to out-of-pocket expenses such as deductibles and co-pays of $5,950 to $7,000.

Richardson is not eligible for Medicaid in Georgia, which is available in the state to adults without children only if they are elderly, disabled, blind, pregnant or suffering from certain forms of cancer. She gets much of her medical needs at discounted prices, or for free from assistance programs offered by drug companies and a supermarket pharmacy chain.

"I pay about $54 for three months' worth of one prescription and get the other two free. My doctor does blood work every six months and charges about $78 per visit, which I repay in monthly installments," Richardson said in an interview arranged by Consumers Union. "You can see how that's dwarfed by the expense of premiums I couldn't possibly afford."

The Obama law would expand Medicaid to cover people with annual incomes of up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, or about $15,000.

"I'd have peace of mind, knowing that if something serious happened to me, I'd be able to get care," she said.

Her state also was among those challenging the law, including the Medicaid expansion.

(Editing by Michele Gershberg and Will Dunham)


View the original article here

Monday, March 19, 2012

Health care proposal worries Washington educators

Charles Bickenheuser said he and his wife are treated well by their health care coverage.

The two Pasco School District teachers have individual insurance plans that don't require them to pay out-of-pocket premiums. Their coverage paid for Bickenheuser's heart valve replacement several years ago, as well as a surgery for his wife.

Now, though, he said they're considering retiring earlier and moving to Bickenheuser's home state of Montana because of a proposal in the Washington Senate to establish a single insurance policy for all public school employees.

By his understanding, Bickenheuser said it would cost him and his wife an additional $600 to $700 a month at least.

"(That's) a big piece of change," he said.

Senate Bill 6442 is in the Senate Rules Committee, waiting to move to the Senate floor for a vote. And everyone is saying something different about how the bill would affect school employees, taxpayers and district budgets.

Teachers say the bill is an unnecessary government intrusion into their health care that would cost taxpayers and districts more money.

"It isn't that we have this amazing Cadillac plan," said Jeri Morrow, president of the Richland Education Association.

Classified employees -- custodians, school secretaries, nurses and para-educators -- and their representatives said the bill is necessary to level the playing field for all school employees and prepare for health care costs that are only going up.

"Classified employees are the canary in the coal mine," said Heather Meier, communications coordinator for the Public School Employees of Washington.

Tri-City school district officials, however say they either don't yet know of the possible effects of the legislation or don't expect it to change their budgets.

"It doesn't look like this bill would be of any savings or cost to the district," said Lorraine Cooper, spokeswoman for the Kennewick School District.

Currently, teachers and classified employees and their unions negotiate with their school districts for health care coverage.

For teachers, monthly costs depend on the level of coverage they want and how many people are covered under that plan. The lowest cost plan costs from $466 for an individual to up to $1,056 for a whole family. More extensive coverage costs even more, with a monthly cost of more than $2,000 for a whole family.

The school district's share of that depends on how many years of service the employee has with the district and their salary level.

The cumulative cost to the state for the hundreds of different health care plans is estimated at $1 billion a year, according to a legislative report.

If approved, SB 6442 would pool all public school employees into one group and have them all fall under one health insurance plan. The plan would be administered by a new state agency, the School Employees Benefits Board.

Leslee Caul, spokeswoman for the Pasco School District, said the district does not have a position on the bill and administrators have not done a cost analysis.

Steve Aagaard, spokesman for the Richland School District, said he wasn't sure if the true costs of the proposal are known. Rich Puryear, the Richland district's finance director, said he had not analyzed the potential fiscal impact.

Lawmakers, including state Sens. Jerome Delvin, R-Richland, and Jana Holmquist Newbry, R-Moses Lake, said the consolidation of plans would save taxpayers money. They've also said the new system would be more equitable for classified staff, who typically lose more of their paycheck to health care costs.

The Public School Employees, or PSE, supports the legislation. Meier said some classified employees pay $1,500 to $1,600 a month for health care coverage. The higher cost compared to what teachers pay is because classified employees work fewer hours and have lower salary levels.

Additionally, the pool of classified employees contributing to health care is smaller and fluctuates as people drop or take on coverage, meaning those employees don't necessarily pay the same amount each month, she said.

The Washington Association of School Administrators supports the bill, pointing out that it provides more equity between school employees, reduces district administrative responsibility when it comes to providing health care benefits and adds increased transparency on how tax dollars are spent.

Proponents also claim the bill would make coverage more affordable in the longterm for all school employees.

Teachers, their local unions and the Washington Education Association, however, have said they have a number of problems with the legislation.

Jim Gow, WEA regional director, said the financial report provided to the Senate indicates it will cost the state $44.8 million to establish the new system. And teachers also would have to pay a monthly fee as part of their coverage.

Morrow said costs also would go up for many teachers, as the cost of individual coverage would increase and married teachers working in the same district would no longer be able to maintain individual accounts.

She and others pointed out that teachers currently cost the state less in health care costs than other state employees.

A report on the proposal by the Washington Health Care Authority said it expects positive results of consolidating public school employee health care.

However, districts would no longer receive a set amount of money per employee from the state to cover health care costs. That amount would vary depending on the employee's selected coverage level, leaving districts on the hook, at least at first, for covering unforseen costs of employee care.

Another concern: It's not entirely known how the new plan would affect premiums. And Gow said it is not clear what benefits a single plan would cover.


Mid-Columbia teachers rally to oppose bill (w/ gallery, video)


" tooltipId="mi_tt1">

Mid-Columbia teachers rally to oppose bill (w/ gallery, video)

PASCO — Kristi Williams says a plan to overhaul health care for K-12 school employees is the latest attempt by state lawmakers to undermine education.

Surrounded by people wearing red "We Teach Washington" T-shirts and holding posters, she noted the loss of cost-of-living salary increases, professional days and salary cuts in recent years.

"They just keep hitting public education over and over again," said the music teacher from Robert Frost Elementary School in Pasco.


Teachers to protest health care plans today (w/ video, gallery)


" tooltipId="mi_tt2">

Teachers to protest health care plans today (w/ video, gallery)

PASCO — Teachers from the Tri-Cities and the Mid-Columbia met at 5 p.m. today in the Chiawana High School gym in Pasco to protest a state plan to reform their health care plans.

Senate Bill 6442 would eliminate the current health insurance plans offered to school district employees and place them under a new state department.


Teacher health care





" tooltipId="mi_tt3">

Teacher health care

Here's an irony: Some of the Republican state senators who counsel fear about Obamacare are now among those devising a government takeover of teachers' health care. Their proposed bill (SB 6442) will create a new state agency to take local decisions about health coverage away from the districts and teachers. This new central-planning office will cost $45 million just to set up. Teachers will be required to pay for it with new fees. The central office will then find "cost savings." How? Only two choices: Carve away coverage and take more from our paychecks for premiums.

As an eighth-year teacher, my monthly take-home pay is $1,900 after insurance is deducted. Paying more for eviscerated health coverage will be a crushing burden to many of us. It will accelerate the exodus of experienced teachers from our schools.

So why would our Republican legislators join Democrats in leading a government takeover of health care? Here's my thought. In Wisconsin and Indiana, Republican legislators have staged frontal


Teacher health benefits ripe for restructuring


" tooltipId="mi_tt4">

Teacher health benefits ripe for restructuring

Legislation that would restructure the state education system's fractured approach to health insurance pits teachers against virtually every other school employee.

Put us on the side of the janitors, bus drivers and secretaries, many of whom are desperate for better benefits.

Those essential workers -- along with state taxpayers -- stand to gain if Washington consolidates health insurance policies for school employees.


OLYMPIA: Washington could be first to require abortion coverage


" tooltipId="mi_tt5">

OLYMPIA: Washington could be first to require abortion coverage

OLYMPIA — At a time when many states are making it harder for women to get abortions, Washington appears headed in the opposite direction.

Fifteen states have passed laws restricting insurers from covering abortions and 12 others are considering similar measures.

By contrast, a bill that has passed Washington’s House and is working its way through the Senate would make the state the first to require all health insurance plans under its jurisdiction — except those claiming a conscience-based exemption — to include abortion coverage.


View the original article here