Some of us who are being seriously harmed by this so-called health care reform have posted time and time again but are ignored, so we’ve stayed away from this blog for a long time.

Glad also that you have mentioned the inconsistent numbers of “newly” insured vs those who remain uninsured and the source of these stats.

I’m working with Healthcare-NOW, CNA and doctors for single payer across the nation as well as people in D.C. educating them about unreported truth regarding the MA plan – not from an emotional standpoint, but based on facts, figures and personal experiences of doctors and residents.

A single-payer system is the only way to achieve equitable, comprehensive, quality care for everyone in a fiscally responsible manner. The bureaucratic nonsystem of paperwork that is MA health care reform is a nightmare for everyone involved to contend with, and is one reason among many why coverage is being dropped.

I pray that the MA plan does not become the model for the nation because the harm will be far more serious on a larger scale. Furthermore, this plan will not help the current economic mess; it will make things worse for many reasons too detailed for this blog.

We who are being adversely affected by this law are definately worse off than before. The stress alone from the unaffordable premiums and penalties combined with reading the success spin and self-congratulatory comments by key players and politicians is harmful to our health when we truly know and understand what is happening to the targeted population.

Thank you again for your candid and meaningful remarks.

further follow-up to your response to my comment:

1- Calculating the number who are still uninsured using unverifiable state tabulations of the number who are newly insured reproduces the kind of errors that caused the press to accept previous underestimates. No reliable source estimates the current number uninsured by using an old figure for the number uninsured and then subtracting reported numbers of newly covered individuals derived from insurance companies. Such insurance company figures can’t reliably sort out duplicate coverage (e.g. families in which both husband and wife carry family policies); kids away at college who used to carry coverage out-of-state but whose parents have moved them onto their Massachusetts family policy (as allowed under the health reform)and will appear as newly insured; or even some out-of-state residents working for Massachusetts firms.

4- The Blendon survey asked people “directly affected” by the reform (i.e. those who were uninsured in the past year or had changed coverage due to the law) whether the uninsured had been helped or hurt, and whether they personally had been helped or hurt. Their answers provide the best on the ground view of the impact of reform. More say the reform has hurt than helped the uninsured.

Finally, it’s disturbing that even good reporters like you continue to quote data from the Blue Cross Foundation as if it comes from an uninvolved party. Blue Cross Foundation is funded by Blue Cross, which has a huge financial stake in the specifics of reform – and in derailing reform options that might endanger its huge profits – $209 million last year alone. Good reporters would not quote Pfizer-funded drug policy research without pointing out the drug maker’s financial stake. The same should be true of Massachusetts Blue Cross.

1) stats – we have used 500-600,000 uninsured as the starting point (the Romney administration number was lower). 500-600k is a mix of the Urban Institute estimate and the Census Bureau rolling avg. The state says there are now 440,000 (not all but mostly) newly insured. If that leaves 160,000 or 200,000 people without coverage…then 3%, or less, seems reasonable to me.

2)cheerleaders – yes I did just interview supporters because I think it is more telling to hear them say it would be difficult to adapt this law nationally than to hear that POV from those who already oppose the law.

3)the Blue Cross survey – there is no question that health care costs are THE issue for individuals, employers and the state. I think I made that point here as I have in numerous other stories.

4) Bob Blendon’s survey – was that the question about penalties? I’ll reread the article and get back to you on that one.

Finally, the safety net tensions are very important. I plan to write more about that soon.

Thanks again for taking the time to weigh in.

Best, Martha

Thank you for your careful listening and comment.

Best, Martha Bebinger

1) Funding – Massachusetts cannot fund the program without federal assistance. In other words it is not self-sustaining. This is partly because of the incredibly high and continually escalating cost of healthcare in this state, partly because employers who do not provide healthcare benefits do not have to furnish significant revenue towards the program, and partly because member’s premiums are subsidized to an unsustainable level.

2) ER visits – There are too many people who continue to use the emergency rooms as their primary care providers. Perhaps refusing to cover visits to the ER except for actual emergency treatment might discourage this. Addressing this will help with #1 above.

3) Physician access – There are an insufficient number of primary care physicians in the state. Addressing this will help with #2 above.

4) Malpractice insurance costs – Coverage is extremely and increasingly expensive due in part to the ability of the James Sokoloves and their ilk to file lawsuits at the drop of a hat and to aggressively advertise for plaintiffs. Many of these suits are settled out of court for relatively short money but this drives up premiums. Perhaps we can mandate trials for any such lawsuit which would greatly increase the money spent by these firms to bring suit and possibly discourage some of this behavior. Addressing this issue will help with all three items above.

Best Regards,

Alan Prodouz

Your report on the Massachusetts health reform this morning was disappointing. You cite statistics from and interviewed only the officials who have consistently been cheerleaders for the reform plan. The statistics on the uninsured that you cited come from the same biased sources that underestimated the number of uninsured at the outset – a number which we disputed back then, and everyone now admits was incorrect. Moreover, even a recent survey by Blue Cross shows a large numbers of Massachusetts residents have grave problems in affording care. Even more disturbing, Bob Blendon’s recent Health Affairs piece found that among those directly affected by the reform, more felt that it had hurt the uninsured than felt it had helped. With the impending dismantling of safety net institutions, which is clearly driven by the rising costs of the health reform, balanced reporting is ever more urgent.

Regards,

David

This law was why Massachusetts had so few uninsured people compared to other states. This last Universal Health Care law just filled in the final remaining gaps.