Today Michigan Consumers for Healthcare launched a new website, www.consumersforhealthcare.org!
We’ve also moved our blog to www.consumersforhealthcare.org/blog, please join us there for continued coverage, insight and analysis of the Affordable Care Act in Michigan!
Posted in News
SCHUETTE PRAISES RULING ON HEALTH CARE
In the latest round of federal court opinions on the 2010 federal health care law, Attorney General Bill Schuette said Friday a decision that held the individual mandate unconstitutional was a “huge victory in the fight to protect the freedom of American citizens.”
On Friday, the U.S. 11th Circuit of Appeals, based in Atlanta, ruled the individual mandate that all persons have health insurance was unconstitutional, but the rest of the controversial law could stand. The individual mandate is the key provision in the law, however.
Michigan is part of a lawsuit in the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia and in a U.S. District court ruling in that circuit the law was held unconstitutional.
However, earlier this summer, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Michigan, ruled that health care law is constitutional.
With Friday’s ruling, Mr. Schuette said, the “voices of the framers of the Constitution live on. Their vision of a limited government that provides security from federal intrusion into individual lives has been validated once again.”
But the group Michigan Consumers for Healthcare issued a statement saying Friday’s split decision by the court would be a blip in the history of the act when the U.S. Supreme Court finally rules on the law.
Don Hazaert, executive director for the group, was confident the Supreme Court would ultimately rule for the law, as the court would not want to take away protections in the act for consumers that they would not be denied health insurance for pre-existing conditions and have the ability to have the same type of health care that politicians now enjoy.
Posted in News
Tagged ACA, Affordable Care Act, constitution, consumers, court, HCR, health care, health care law, health care reform, healthcare, insurance, MCH, Michigan, Supreme Court
MCHA Director Don Hazaert responded today in strong opposition to Michigan Insurance Commissioner R. Kevin Clinton’s request for a 3-year phase-in waiver to the 80% Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) for the individual consumer market in Michigan. Hazaert wrote Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius asking that she deny the state’s request, explaining the waiver would destabilize the Michigan healthcare market, lead to higher premiums and more uninsured and result in the loss of more than $50 million dollars in consumer rebate checks.
“Using the state’s own figures, this proposal would deny Michigan consumers more than $53 million dollars in insurance rebates over the next three years- all in the name of protecting the profitability of commercial insurers. The state has essentially decided that the insurance companies need your money more than you do,” remarked Hazaert.
Under federal healthcare reform, insurance carriers will only be allowed to keep 20 cents out of every dollar collected in premiums. The remaining 80 cents must be reinvested annually into the healthcare of the policyholders. Insurance carriers that fail to spend the full 80 cents on patient care must then write reimbursement checks back to consumers for the difference. Expressing concern for the profitability of state commercial carriers, the State of Michigan has requested that HHS provide a waiver allowing Michigan insurance carriers to keep 35 cents out of every dollar in 2012, 30 cents in 2113 and 25 cents in 2014.
What is at stake? If approved, this waiver will inevitably lead to higher premiums in our state over the next three years and more uninsured citizens, thereby destabilizing the insurance market. It also means that consumers will be denied an estimated $25 million in rebate checks in 2012, $18.4 million in 2013 and $10.7 million in 2014.
To read MCHA Director Don Hazaert’s letter to Secretary Sebelius, click here.
To submit your own comment regarding the Michigan waiver application, you may write Secretary Sebellius at MLRAdjustments@hhs.gov. Please include Michigan in the email subject line.
Michigan Consumers for Healthcare signed onto a letter along with the National Health Law Program and other organizations urging the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to fully implement the recent recommendations from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) regarding preventive services for women.
The letter is as follows:
Dear Secretary Sebelius:
We write to you to urge HHS to fully implement the recent recommendations from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) regarding preventive services for women, and to require that all of the IOM-recommended services be included in health care coverage without cost sharing. The undersigned organizations represent a diverse array of organizations committed to access to quality health care, in particular for low-income women and communities.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) set out baseline definitions for preventive services and, with respect to women, charged HRSA with developing comprehensive guidelines for additional preventive care and screenings. In August of 2010, your office commissioned the IOM to develop recommendations regarding the preventive women’s health services that should be added. The IOM report was issued on July 20, 2011. The IOM process included an exhaustive evidence-based review of health care services, extensive stakeholder input, and careful analysis of current coverage trends. We believe that the impeccable and commendable IOM process is reflected in the quality of the study results, and we strongly recommend that HHS fully adopt the IOM recommendations.
Specifically, the IOM recommendations fill important gaps in the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines: all eight identified services are entirely essential to health care for women. Addressing this full range of services will not only go a long way towards improving the health of women, but it will also help begin to address health disparities affecting racial and ethnic minorities who are more likely to lack affordable access to these services and/or be disproportionately at risk for conditions that the recommendations address. We also note that increased access to many of these eight services will also help reduce long-term health care costs, which is an objective of the ACA.
As HHS designs coverage policies around these preventive services, we encourage HHS to consider a few additional points. First, if adopted, robust coverage policies within each service category will be essential to meaningful access to the preventive services. For example, as noted in the IOM report, different contraceptive methods may have varying rates of effectiveness for different individuals. Contraceptive coverage must include all FDA-approved drugs, devices and supplies to ensure that each person has access to the most effective method for her health and personal needs.
Second, creating insurance coverage for preventive services does not guarantee that providers will prescribe or provide the services. HHS should also work to educate the provider community about the content and importance of the new coverage standards, as well as to encourage providers to make these preventive services readily available to their patients.
Third, we urge HHS to implement these standards uniformly, without weakening them with exceptions to the preventive services mandates for plans that have objections to any particular preventive service. Women deserve the highest quality health care coverage designed using evidence-based standards of medical practice. This is exactly the framework that the IOM has used, and the one we support. A recent report from the National Health Law Program, Health Care Refusals: Undermining Quality Care for Women, provides an extensive analysis of the disastrous health care consequences for women when medicine is based on personal beliefs instead of evidence-based medical standards.
We realize that HHS will hear from stakeholders who will criticize the IOM recommendations. We believe, however, that the thoughtful evidence-based process that the IOM followed and the quality results achieved speak for themselves. We note also that much of the criticism aimed at the IOM recommendations ignores the simple fact that many of these services are already covered by the majority of health insurances, but they may be unaffordable to some women without the requirement that they be covered without cost-sharing. Other criticism is based on misrepresentations or inaccuracies—such as allegations that this effort is about “free contraception” when in fact it is paid for through insurance premiums; or attempts to confuse contraception with abortion, when in fact the definition of contraception is very clear. The IOM did exactly what it was charged to do, and its recommendations should be heeded.
In conclusion, we urge HHS to fully implement the IOM recommendations in light of the critical health needs of women and the comprehensive evidence-based medical standards reflected in the report. If you have any questions or need any further information, please contact Leonardo Cuello, Staff Attorney at the National Health Law Program, at 202-289-7661.
MCHA is very excited to be moving along quickly in the hiring process! We welcomed Don Hazaert as Project Director in early May and one of Don’s first major responsibilities was drawing in talented, committed staff members to enhance the work of MCHA across Michigan. All staff positions (below) have been filled since Don’s arrival.
Dizzy Warren is MCHA’s Community Outreach Manager. Dizzy is the former Executive Director of the National Resource Center for the Healing of Racism and former President and CEO of the Urban League of Battle Creek. More recently she served as Partnership Specialist for the Bureau of Census and President and CEO of Sankofa Group.
Wafa Dinaro is MCHA’s Communications Manager. Wafa is a former legislative chief of staff and employee of MI House Communications. Wafa has spent the last six years in service to our country working for the Defense Department in locations such as Washington DC, Iraq, Jordan, and the Philippines. Wafa will be assigned to staff the MCHA Education Committee.
Steven Hernandez is MCHA’s Southeast Michigan Regional Policy Coordinator. Steven is a former executive director of a non-profit organization and has both significant non-profit and political organizing experience, including serving as Latino Volunteer Coordinator for the 2006 Michigan Coordinated Campaign. Steven will be assigned to staff the MCHA Policy Committee.
Eli Isaguirre is MCHA’s West Michigan Regional Policy Coordinator. Eli is a former campaign aide to Congressman Mark Schauer (D-Battle Creek) and former community organizer for Organizing for America. Eli recently returned home to Michigan, from Wisconsin, where he was working to organize two successful petition campaigns. Eli will be responsible for coordinating Western Michigan and will be assigned to staff the Grassroots committee.
Brett Williams is MCHA’s Mid-Michigan Regional Policy Coordinator. Brett is a former registered lobbyist with the Michigan Pharmacists Association. He is also a former legislative aide to State Representative Ehardt (R-Lapeer) and State Representative Julian (R-Durand) and currently serves as a member of the Oneida Township Board of Trustees. Brett will staff the yet to be convened State Legislative Advocates committee.
Posted in Implementation
On Tuesday, July 19, 2011 MCHA’S Eli Isaguirre spoke in Grand Rapids calling for the protection of seniors, children, people with disabilities and middle-class families in the current national debate on the federal debt ceiling.
Below are the remarks that were given by MCHA’s Regional Coordinator Eli Isaguirre:
Welcome and thank you for coming. My name is Eli Isaguirre and I represent Michigan Consumers for Healthcare Advancement, which is a bi-partisan coalition working collaboratively with a diverse alliance of consumers, partners and policymakers to attain affordable, accessible, quality healthcare for everyone in Michigan. Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike have joined together under MCHA to advocate for a new healthcare model that works for all Michigan citizens.
MCHA is participating in today’s event to express our statewide coalition’s concerns with dangerous and misguided budget initiatives being advanced by some members of Congress. Under the Ryan budget plan, federal Medicaid funding under a proposed block grant system would decrease 35 percent from what the federal government is now projected to provide to states. The loss of $750 billion dollars in federal aid to Medicaid will result in devastating cuts to critical programs, including an 80% reduction in support to nursing home residents, forcing many seniors to be kicked out of their nursing homes.
The debt ceiling debate taking place in Washington over that last few weeks will also affect the lives of Michigan residents. This debate over budgets and deficits is about more than just numbers on a page, more than just cutting and spending. This debate will decide if protecting health care for the poor, disabled, our children and the elderly is our priority.
Deficit reduction is important, but its price should not be putting an end to any part of health care security for millions. It should not be done through an approach that puts the country into a financial box that makes it difficult for the government to make appropriate or even critical spending adjustments in the future. A balanced approach that takes the long view of controlling, rather than just slashing, health care costs, can get us there. A truly balanced approach could even get us there while protecting the programs like Medicaid and Medicare that are vital to so many.
We have to move forward in protecting Medicare and Medicaid. Moving forward means strengthening Medicare and saving seniors money by continuing to crack down on waste, fraud and abuse. Moving forward means giving seniors the peace of mind that their prescription drug costs will be lower because they won’t ever fall back into the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap, or “donut hole.” It means keeping seniors healthy by allowing them to get preventive care such as annual check-ups, mammograms and screenings for cancer with no co-pay.
The way forward requires a responsible, balanced and long-term approach and MCHA will be working with members of Congress and the public to help us find that way forward.
This week MCHA Project Director Don Hazaert and Policy Advisor Jan Hudson from the Michigan League for Human Services testified before a joint meeting of the Michigan State Senate Health Policy and Insurance committees.
You can read their full remarks online and an excerpt of their tesimony is also included below:
“While there is always a degree of uncertainty in implementing such sweeping changes as prescribed under ACA, we are fortunate in that there is a similar exchange model already in place in Massachusetts. Thanks to former Governor Romney’s leadership, less than 2% of the citizens of Massachusetts last year were without health insurance, compared to a national average of 15.4%. According to analysis done by MIT, 60 percent of those gaining coverage under the Massachusetts plan had been previously uninsured. The 1.9% who remained uninsured were predominantly undocumented immigrants or persons provided with an affordability waiver.
The Massachusetts model also provides state policymakers some guidance as far as costs. Despite some hyper-partisan rhetoric regarding runaway program costs bankrupting its state’s treasury, the non-partisan 410(c)3 group FactCheck.org determined that costs stemming from the Massachusetts health care reform initiative were in line with initial expectations. The conservative watchdog group the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation concluded in their own analysis that the net added cost to Massachusetts taxpayers was $353 million in 2010, or roughly 1.2 percent of the state budget. Much of this cost was due to the fact that the initial Massachusetts legislation did not attempt to tackle the critical cost-control issue, something the federal legislation emphasizes.
I would like to add one final point regarding the Massachusetts model. The program is and always has been popular with the public. Boston Globe polling, conducted when the legislation was first enacted, placed public support at 61 percent. Three years later public support remained steady at 59 percent with opposition at only 28 percent. Additionally, a New England Journal of Medicine poll found 85 percent of practicing physicians in the state believed the law either had no impact or had a net positive impact on the quality of care being delivered.
I share this data on the Massachusetts exchange model simply to make the point that “what one state can do, another can do.” By working together as stakeholders and policymakers we can develop an effective and competitive healthcare marketplace that works for all consumers. I would add we also have the decided advantage of being able to learn from Massachusetts mistakes- such as a lack of cost control efforts and effective planning for the small business market- as we work together to build a state exchange that works for all consumers.
MCHA looks forward to being a partner in that critical process.”
Posted in Advocacy, Implementation, News
If you’ve been turned down for health insurance because of a pre-existing condition, or offered coverage only at an unaffordable price, you may have another option: the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan called HIP Michigan.
HIP Michigan is available to children and adults who’ve been locked out of the health insurance market because they have cancer, heart disease, diabetes, HIV/AIDS, asthma, or some other pre-existing medical condition.
With HIP Michigan, you’ll be insured for a wide range of benefits, including primary and specialty physicians’ services, hospital care, and prescription drugs. You won’t be charged a higher premium because of your medical condition and your eligibility isn’t based on your income.
Like commercial insurance plans, HIP Michigan requires you to pay a monthly premium, a deductible, and some cost-sharing expenses.
To qualify for HIP Michigan, you must:
With HIP Michigan, a person in his or her 60s can pay about $400-$600 a month in premiums for health care instead of paying an expected $27,000 or more for medical bills and potentially facing bankruptcy. Monthly cost are based on age and deductible and are available online.
Copays are $20 for a primary care doctor’s office visit, $30 for a specialist, and $100 for emergency room visits. Generic prescription copays are $10. Brand-name drug copays are $30 or $50. There’s no lifetime cap on the amount that PCIP pays for your care.
Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plans like HIP Michigan were created under the Affordable Care Act. It’s a transitional program until 2014, when all Americans—regardless of health status—will have access to affordable health insurance as the nation shifts to a new marketplace.
If you would like to learn more or apply visit the HIP Michigan website!
Posted in Implementation
Michigan Consumers for Healthcare Advancement (MCHA) applauded today’s federal appeals court ruling upholding the individual responsibility provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Specifically, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, Ohio, today issued a ruling supporting the constitutionality of the ACA’s expansion of health coverage to tens of millions of uninsured people, including thousands in Michigan. This statement is from MCHA Director Don Hazaert.
“We are grateful to the bipartisan panel of judges from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals who have upheld one of the most important provisions of the Affordable Care Act, which expands high-quality and affordable health coverage to tens of millions of people, including thousands in Michigan. The big winners today are Michigan healthcare consumers as this decision keeps our country on track for full implementation of historic healthcare reforms that will expand coverage, improve access, provide more consumer choice and ultimately drive down costs. When this law is fully implemented in 2014, Michigan consumers will no longer have to fear having their claims denied due to pre-existing conditions and can feel confident in knowing members of Congress will have to get their healthcare from the same place as average Americans.”
Learn More on the Decision Here (Courtesy NPR)
This is what a lot of health-care advocates were afraid of. Social Security has, to the surprise of many, been untouchable in this year’s various deficit talks and plans. Republicans reached out to touch the third rail of Medicare and got zapped. But Medicaid? Well, the program primarily serves the very young, the very poor and the very disabled. Those aren’t constituencies known for meting out iron-fisted vengeance at the ballot box. And sure enough, Janet Hook and Janet Adamy are reporting that “officials familiar with the talks in both parties say they expect Medicaid to be the biggest source of cuts in federal entitlement programs in whatever compromise emerges.”
Posted in News
healthcareadvancement.wordpress.com 