How is health care reform going in Massachusetts? Very well so far – although that is not necessarily the impression conveyed by media reports.
Associated Industries of Massachusetts was deeply involved on behalf of its members – basically, employers who already offer employee health benefits – in the process that produced the reform law, and we continue to be engaged in its implementation. I am privileged to serve on the boards of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation, which funded important preparatory research, and of the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, created to oversee new insurance offerings under the reform law.
Already, in much less than a year, we have extended high quality health insurance coverage to 100,000 Massachusetts residents under the state’s Medicaid program and the Connector’s free or subsidized Commonwealth Care Health Insurance Program for low-income people. This is approximately one-quarter of the uninsured individuals whom the law was intended to reach. The continuing implementation of Commonwealth Care, an upcoming program for young adults, and approval of additional offerings designed to satisfy the individual mandate set to take effect July 1 will surely drive further enrollments.
This first phase of implementation has certainly moved Massachusetts into the lead among all states in the proportion of residents with health insurance coverage.
A major challenge facing us now is ensuring that affordable products will be available to residents of Massachusetts who will be required to purchase health insurance on July 1st without a subsidy. The Connector Board will in the near future determine exactly what benefits must be included in a basic health insurance product to meet the standards for “minimum creditable coverage.”
Setting this standard too high will result in products that are simply not affordable for individuals at the lower end of the income spectrum. For example, requiring insurance products to cover prescription drugs will force 200,000 individuals who currently purchase health insurance to buy more expensive coverage than they already have. We do not believe this was the intent of the reform law that promised to offer individuals more choice and flexibility on selecting insurance products.
I do believe, however, that this and other major challenges we face in the coming months can be addressed in a meaningful way by all sides supporting constructive compromise and preserving the delicate balance of shared responsibility that has been the hallmark of health care reform in Massachusetts.
Richard C. Lord
President and CEO
Associated Industries of Massachusetts
Member, Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority
Setting the Record Straight re: Rick Lord on ‘BUR’s Blog
OK, first, Rick Lord, President of Associated Industries of MA, is undeniably one of the nicest guys in Massachusetts public policy. A business leader with a brain and heart. A good guy. So it makes sense for WBUR’s new blog to post him first. Unfortunately, as of about 9pm tonight, the reply function on their new site isn’t working — so we have to set some important factual matters straight right here instead of their site. Rick writes about the progress of health reform implementation. Fine until he gets to the money quote, about “minimum creditable coverage” and prescription drugs, right here:
Setting this standard too high will result in products that are simply not affordable for individuals at the lower end of the income spectrum. For example, requiring insurance products to cover prescription drugs will force 200,000 individuals who currently purchase health insurance to buy more expensive coverage than they already have. We do not believe this was the intent of the reform law that promised to offer individuals more choice and flexibility on selecting insurance products.
Two comments on the “intent of the reform law:”
1. At the ACT Coalition’s Monday press briefing on MCC, Rep. Patricia Walrath, House Chair of the Legislature’s Health Care Financing Committee and Chair of the Health Reform Conference Committee, stated with no margin for confusion her legislative intent that prescription drug coverage would be part of the MCC standard. Sen. Richard Moore, Walrath’s Senate counterpart, sent a written statement making the same conclusion.
2. How about Mitt Romney? What was his “intent?” Click here for Gov. Mitt Romney’s powerpoint presentation of April 6 2005, slide four.
“What is a Commonwealth Care Affordable Insurance Product?” is the headline.
First bullet: “This is not a ‘bare-bones’ product. Policy must include:”
Sixth item: “Prescription drug benefits”
Important Note: In April 2005, Romney referred to coverage for the under-300% population as “Safety Net Care,” and non-subsidized coverage for the over-300% fpl population as “Commonwealth Care.”
Intent? Unless Rick has some evidence to put on the table, it’s case closed.
Second comment: “requiring insurance products to cover prescription drugs will force 200,000 individuals who currently purchase health insurance to buy more expensive coverage than they already have…”
Correction — the MA Association of Health Plans released a single number, 200,000, claiming 200,000 current policy holders had coverage that does not meet the MCC standards being discussed by the Connector Board. MAHP did not provide any information on the cost of these policies — whether they meet the .60 actuarial standard, and if not, by how much. Nothing. Nada. Just the 200,000 number with no back-up documentation. Rick, we’ve been asking them to be “transparent” about their number since they released it a month ago, and they have refused to release any other numbers beyond 200,000. Maybe we can ask them together. In the meantime, there is not a shred of evidence to back up your statement.
John McDonough
All of this bureaucracy required to make this law work is only worsening the situation where enormous amounts of resources and dollars allocated to ‘health care’ do nothing to deliver care at all.
I run a business with 30 employees. This law has made my job monstrously more complicated. Whole file cabinets need to be devoted to the information and the forms required to insure employees.
How about just focusing those dollars on delivery of health care? I mean payments to clinics, not a sop to the insurance companies.
It’s kind of hard to hear Rick Lord write about how successful this is. Both running this company and being the mother of young adults with low wage jobs that do not offer health insurance indicate to me that this law is just a diversion from discussion of the real, hard issues.
Why do we provide elementary education for free, but not health care?