The Health Care Crisis in America   Important message from NAHU: The Citizens Health Care Working Group was created under the provisions of the 2003 Medicare Modernization and Prescription Act.  It is comprised of 14 members selected by the U.S. Comptroller General.  Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt serves as the fifteenth member.  The Citizens' group has been tasked with generating a nationwide debate on our current health care system and how improvements can be made to the system in order to provide every American the ability to obtain quality, affordable health care. The group has been and will continue to hold community meetings in cities around the country.  Once the meetings are completed, the working group will compile a report, open the report for public comment, and present a final document to Congress.  The end goal is for Congress to make recommendations on ways to improve the health care system.  For information on upcoming community meetings in your area. We recommend that you visit their website and complete the online survey.  Doing this will allow us the opportunity, an an association, to provide perspective that reflects the real needs of the employers and individuals who are or would be your customers.  Link to the survey.   Massachusetts Battles the unisured epidemic! "After nearly five months of negotiations, the Health Care Conference Committee reported out and the Legislature passed and sent to Governor Romney a comprehensive plan for increasing health insurance coverage for all residents of the Commonwealth. Throughout the entire process, MassAHU was involved. The association provided testimony before the Health Care Financing Committee, wrote to legislators and Conference Committee members and at our Beacon Hill Day, members of MassAHU met with their legislators to help influence the outcome of the reform effort. According to the Conference Committee's summary of the legislation, other highlights of the bill are: preserves federal Medicaid funding; simplifies health insurance for small businesses; reforms the uncompensated care pool; promotes financial stability of the health care system; promotes cost-effective, high quality care; and everyone "plays their part": individuals, government, health care providers and employers." (taken from MassAHU website) We sent an email to the President of Mass HUW to inquire about their involvement and their position on the new bill.  Julie Jennings' response: Katrina I am very short on time this week, so I will give you a quick answer now and can follow up next week if you want.  Or if you have not spoken with Janice Kupiec at nahu, she may fill you in. We knew something had to come out of the legislature b/c we were at risk of losing $385M in federal monies.  There were four bills last fall.  We did not align with any one bill but rather supported specific objectives and issues in health care reform.  When they ended up in conference committee, we were pretty much barred from the discussion.  All we could do is present our written testimony again to the committee members, we went to the state house to meet with our legislators, and our lobbyist submitted wording to the committee concerning the role of the producer in distribution of products. We were really fearful of the bill wording that opened up sale of products through fraternal organizations, associations, etc. and so we really focused on that part of it.  Although this seemed altruistic in protecting the agent, we came to the realization that we had to focus on that specific issue as our paramount issue for our members.  We did not abandon our other recommendations, but we knew that there were insurance carriers lobbying for important aspects (such as not merging the individual/group market) and there was no one protecting us. Do we agree with the concept?  I guess for myself I have to say it was a compromise bill that could have been a lot worse.  Do we agree with the concept of individual mandates?  Well that is controversial, but how many times have I heard members complain that the uninsured making value decisions on how to use their disposable income?  If we believe, as NAHU states in its position on the uninsured, that we want to reduce the number of uninsured and we want to do so within the private employer-based market, then I think we are somewhat successful in MA in preserving the employer-based system.  The question becomes how to deal with those who opt out of employer offered coverage, who can't afford it, or who are not working.  That is I guess where public policy and public funding come into play. No short answers on this debate.  I am anxious to see if this reform accomplishes what it sets out to do.  It will be up to us as producers to educate our clients and bring them whatever options there are in the market to reduce the number of uninsured workers in the state.  I am very skeptical that we can lower the cost of insurance without addressing some other important issues such as transparency and probably have to consider better controls over utilization of services in the free care market.  I support the development of community health centers to provide easily accessible, quality, affordable primary care to all residents of our state.  Until we put a handle on waste and abuse by those who don't pay I see a growing burden to the system.  Best regards, Julie Jennings Read the Mass Bill 58