The health care debate continues...

Hello readers (assuming I still have any after taking nearly a week off).

I hope everyone had a great holiday and you are all gearing up for a 2010 Special Election blitz starting on Saturday.

Not sure how much I missed over the weekend (other than some nut job trying to blow up a plane), but since it's Tuesday I figure you are all probably more caught up than me and I am going to skip a roundup.  Starting tomorrow the site should be back to normal, but for now I am just going to update you on developments from yesterday and today.

Let's start with health care.

Massachusetts

Yesterday, Republican nominee for U.S. Senate Scott Brown filed legislation "imposing a moratorium on mandated health insurance coverages and shifting from the Legislature to the Massachusetts Connector Authority the power to reduce the number of mandated coverages that must be included in private health care plans."  Catchy.

I think what Brown did was late-file a bill that would eliminate so-called "minimum creditable coverage" rules from the state's health care requirements, and allow the Connector Board to remove some coverage options if they so choose (and if I am wrong about what his bill does, please email me or comment).

Right now everyone in Massachusetts is required to have health insurance coverage (which you all know), but the definition of what constitutes "coverage" varies with pretty much anyone you talk to.  Does "coverage" mean having just basic coverage for hospital visits? Or does it cover mental health services, surgery, etc.?  That has been an ongoing debate in the legislature and medical circles since health care reform passed.

According to a Brown campaign press release, Massachusetts law currently mandates that 37 different coverages be included in every health care plan offered in the state.

"Setting such a high number of mandated coverages means that health care consumers are paying for coverage they do not necessarily need. Examples of mandated coverages include chiropractic services and in vitro fertilization – expensive therapies that are not used by the average health care consumer but that are factored into the monthly premium."

Brown said insurers should be free to put together policies that are tailored for the needs of their customers: "If someone wants chiropractic care, they should purchase a policy that includes it, but no one should be required to buy it if they don’t want or need it."

The release notes that Brown’s bill also requires the Connector Authority to annually review the cost, utilization, and effectiveness of state mandated coverages– an assessment that is not currently undertaken. It also places a moratorium on any new mandated benefit legislation, an important cost control move.

Martha Coakley's campaign was quick to fire back.  In a press release of their own last night, the Coakley team noted that Brown's legislation "would allow the removal of coverage for critical health services for women, children, and seniors...such as mammograms, minimum maternity stays for new mothers, hospice care for seniors, and bone marrow transplants for breast cancers patients."

Team Coakley says that, according to a 2008 report by the Commonwealth’s Division of Health Care Finance and Policy, Brown's plan for removing mandated coverage across the board would only result in a net cost reduction of approximately 3-4% in health premiums.

“Scott Brown’s apparent solution to controlling health care costs is to cut coverage for consumers and raise profits for insurers,” Coakley Campaign Manager Kevin Conroy said. “If this bill becomes law, it would allow the removal of coverage for services such as hospice care for seniors, minimum maternity stays for mothers, mammograms, and bone marrow transplants. Martha Coakley understands that the solution to health care is expanding coverage, increasing transparency, and reducing health care costs for all.”

The Coakley press release notes that Brown's plan would eliminate coverage for:

• Bone marrow transplants for breast cancer patients;
• Mammograms;
• Minimum maternity stays;
• Hospice care for seniors;
• In-vitro fertilization;
• Diabetes-related services; and
• Lead poisoning screening.

Wonder what voter bloc the AG is appealing to...

Washington, DC

Brown also used the release to reiterate his opposition to the national health care bill in Congress, saying it raises taxes, increases spending and expands government too much. He pledged to vote to stop it from becoming law.

“In 2006, we were the first in the nation to tackle the issue of getting all of our citizens insured. We have achieved 97 percent coverage. It makes no sense for us through higher taxes and fees to subsidize coverage expansions in other states,” said Brown. “Our focus should be on containing costs in our current state health insurance program. One way to tackle that issue is by removing burdensome insurance regulations that drive up the cost of private policies.”

He also sent an email this afternoon including a link to a New York Times op-ed column by Bob Herbert, in which he writes about the "middle class tax time bomb" ticking in the Senate's health care plan.

Coakley, on the other hand, used her release to reinforce her support for the Senate's health care bill.

The release notes that "Coakley supports the Senate Health Care Reform bill that would make health care coverage more affordable, reduce our nation’s long-term deficit, and provide specific additional benefits to Massachusetts including:

• Providing an additional $500 million for Medicaid and Medicare.
• Extending tax credits to small businesses, including nonprofits, that have less than 25 employees and which offer health insurance.
• Reducing drug prices for seniors caught in the Medicare Part D doughnut hole. 
• Helping small businesses pay for their retirees’ health care coverage.

On Christmas Eve, following the Senate vote, Coakley had said that the bill, "offers a real solution to reduce these skyrocketing health care costs while reducing our long-term deficit. For Scott Brown to suggest that we should do nothing and continue with the status quo is simply not acceptable.”

Anyone else starting to get tired of reading/writing/talking about health care?