By Robert Gavin, Globe Staff | November 2, 2005
Chief executives of some of Massachusetts' biggest employers said yesterday that they support universal health insurance, but rejected requiring businesses to foot the bill as damaging to job growth in the state.
Instead, said Charles ''Ed" Haldeman Jr., chief executive of the mutual fund company Putnam Investments, providing health insurance to all should be financed through an increase in individual income taxes, which he described as the fairest and broadest way to share the costs.
Haldeman, tapped two years ago to rebuild Putnam's credibility and operations after the mutual fund market-timing scandal, made the suggestion during a panel discussion among leading Massachusetts chief executives. The discussion, tackling a range of issues on the state's economic competitiveness, airs tonight at 8 on New England Cable News.
In an interview after the show was taped in NECN's studio, Haldeman said employer mandates put the burden on narrow segments of society -- businesses and their customers -- without regard for ability to pay. The income tax, he said, is not only broad-based but progressive, in that those with higher incomes pay more.
Access to healthcare, he said, ''is the responsibility of us all."
Both Governor Mitt Romney and House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi, through spokeswomen, rejected the idea of a broad-based tax increase to finance universal coverage. Romney wants to require individuals to have health insurance and has proposed covering the uninsured by taking the roughly $1 billion the state currently spends on free care and reallocating it to a subsidized health insurance product, for which everyone would pay based on what they could afford.
DiMasi this week proposed requiring businesses with more than 10 workers that do not provide health insurance to pay a payroll tax of 5 to 7 percent to expand coverage. His plan would also create a subsidized health insurance program, based on ability to pay, and require all to carry insurance. Kimberly Haberlin, DiMasi's spokeswoman, said, ''The House plan at its core is about shared responsibility -- individuals, business, and government all pulling together."
Paul Guzzi, president of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, agreed an income tax increase would be a hard sell. But, he added, ''an additional mandate on employers would not strengthen our competitiveness."
Employer groups have criticized proposals to require companies to provide company-paid health insurance, or pay higher taxes, as adding to some of the highest labor, energy, and real estate costs in the country.
In a recent survey of 100 CEOs of Massachusetts firms, 55 percent said mandating universal healthcare through employer insurance programs would make the state less competitive. Nearly 40 percent said such a mandate would improve competitiveness. The poll was commissioned by NECN and the Greater Boston Chamber.
The key issue remains how to pay for expanding healthcare coverage. Ultimately, Massachusetts chief executives said, the federal government would have to play a major role. But in the meantime, said James Mongan, CEO of Partners HealthCare System, there's a ''real role for certain states to assume a leadership position."
Wednesday, November 2, 2005
Tuesday, November 1, 2005
Lack of Health INsurane Kills
By Kay Lapp James
Being without health insurance can kill you, say Drs. Linda and Gene Farley, and access to medical care should be a right, not a privilege.
The two doctors spoke on the health care crisis and the need for a national health care plan at a meeting Thursday of the Dells Progressive Voices. About 20 people heard the Farleys describe with numbers and anecdotes the plight of the uninsured in America.
The two retired University of Wisconsin-Madison Medical School faculty members also were once family practice doctors and believe the country can afford to provide medical care to everyone.
Gene Farley asked anyone who does not believe health care is a right to say on whose doorstep the uninsured will die.
The uninsured die because they don't have insurance, said Linda Farley. In 2002, 18,314 adults died because they did not have insurance and could not afford medical care.
U.S. taxpayers pay the health care bill for about 50 percent of the U.S. population through Medicare for seniors, veterans, Native Americans, Medicaid for the disabled, children and the poor elderly, and for public employees on the local, state and national level. Of the rest of the population, 45 million don't have any insurance. Of those without insurance, 50 percent are employed and 25 percent are children.
While Americans may brag about the quality of care here, Linda Farley pointed to comparisons showing that the United States had poorer life outcomes than countries with national health care plans.
The U.S. had the highest infant mortality rate in 1999 (7.1 babies per 1,000 births)among a group of developed countries, that comprises Australia, Canada, Italy, Germany, France and Sweden.
In that same year and among those same countries, women lived fewer years in the United States. Here women can expect to live an average of 79 years, while in France they can live an average of about four more years.
"Every other industrialized nation (except the United States) has a healthcare system that assures medical care for all," said Linda Farley.
Those countries also spend less than the United States does per person. Most spend less than half what the U.S. does, she said.
Besides the lower death rates, those countries also have more accountability for care and higher satisfaction with care, she said.
The way to cut costs and to insure everyone is to go with a one-payer health care system, the couple said. That eliminates the most costly feature of the U.S. health care system � the multiple payers: insurance companies, HMOs, PPOs and the government.
As an example of the savings that could be achieved, the Farleys compared the same size hospitals in the United States and in Canada. In the U.S., a patient bill must cover the costs of 356 people in the billing department, which adds about $372 to each bill. In Canada, the same size hospital needs just nine people in its billing department and billing adds $68 to a patient's bill.
In addition to a more cumbersome billing process, hospitals and other medical facilities have been adding administrators. Since the 1970s, the number of administrators has grown by 2,500 percent while the number of registered nurses in hospitals has hardly grown. The growth of the clerical staff has spawned the increase in administration.
Linda Farley also pointed to the salaries of the CEOs of health insurance and managed care companies. The salaries start around $1 million and the highest, $5 million, goes to the CEO of Cigna, Wilson Taylor. Those salaries don't include the stocks the CEOs also receive. Taylor also receives $64.2 million in stock.
The Farleys also cited drug manufacturers as contributing the high cost of health care. In a chart, they showed that drug companies spend 27 percent of their income on manufacturing, 35 percent on administration and marketing, 7 percent on taxes and only 13 percent on research and development. A drug manufacturer has profits of about 18 percent, Linda Farley said, which was much more than the average Fortune 500 company. It makes about 5 percent profit.
Doctors' salaries are less of a problem, although some who have become partners in hospitals, clinics and insurance organizations have become millionaires. Gene Farley noted that when Medicare began in the 1960s, doctors' incomes began to rise. Prior to that time, health care was considered a charity and doctors often weren't paid for the care they provided. With Medicare, doctors could count on being paid.
"People say we can't afford universal care, but we're already paying for it," Gene Farley said.
Bills to set up a universal or single-payer system in Wisconsin have been introduced in the state Legislature. Under such a system, the Farleys said the state could save money. In 2003, spending here for health administration totaled $7.72 billion. They say that a single-payer health insurance would have saved $5.52 billion or enough to provide $13,513 for each of the 409,000 uninsured people in the state.
Gene Farley said he does not understand why businesses here do not support a single-payer, universal health care system. Canadian businesses have cheaper operating costs because of the universal system there and support it. In Canada, every business has to pay into the system.
The United States or even Wisconsin won't get a single-payer system unless people demand it, Gene Farley said. He urged people to be noisy and contact their legislators. He also urged everyone to vote, noting that poor people who pay the steepest price for health care (they get no discounts like the government and HMOs or PPOs get) don't vote.
"It won't get any better until people speak up," said Gene Farley.
Being without health insurance can kill you, say Drs. Linda and Gene Farley, and access to medical care should be a right, not a privilege.
The two doctors spoke on the health care crisis and the need for a national health care plan at a meeting Thursday of the Dells Progressive Voices. About 20 people heard the Farleys describe with numbers and anecdotes the plight of the uninsured in America.
The two retired University of Wisconsin-Madison Medical School faculty members also were once family practice doctors and believe the country can afford to provide medical care to everyone.
Gene Farley asked anyone who does not believe health care is a right to say on whose doorstep the uninsured will die.
The uninsured die because they don't have insurance, said Linda Farley. In 2002, 18,314 adults died because they did not have insurance and could not afford medical care.
U.S. taxpayers pay the health care bill for about 50 percent of the U.S. population through Medicare for seniors, veterans, Native Americans, Medicaid for the disabled, children and the poor elderly, and for public employees on the local, state and national level. Of the rest of the population, 45 million don't have any insurance. Of those without insurance, 50 percent are employed and 25 percent are children.
While Americans may brag about the quality of care here, Linda Farley pointed to comparisons showing that the United States had poorer life outcomes than countries with national health care plans.
The U.S. had the highest infant mortality rate in 1999 (7.1 babies per 1,000 births)among a group of developed countries, that comprises Australia, Canada, Italy, Germany, France and Sweden.
In that same year and among those same countries, women lived fewer years in the United States. Here women can expect to live an average of 79 years, while in France they can live an average of about four more years.
"Every other industrialized nation (except the United States) has a healthcare system that assures medical care for all," said Linda Farley.
Those countries also spend less than the United States does per person. Most spend less than half what the U.S. does, she said.
Besides the lower death rates, those countries also have more accountability for care and higher satisfaction with care, she said.
The way to cut costs and to insure everyone is to go with a one-payer health care system, the couple said. That eliminates the most costly feature of the U.S. health care system � the multiple payers: insurance companies, HMOs, PPOs and the government.
As an example of the savings that could be achieved, the Farleys compared the same size hospitals in the United States and in Canada. In the U.S., a patient bill must cover the costs of 356 people in the billing department, which adds about $372 to each bill. In Canada, the same size hospital needs just nine people in its billing department and billing adds $68 to a patient's bill.
In addition to a more cumbersome billing process, hospitals and other medical facilities have been adding administrators. Since the 1970s, the number of administrators has grown by 2,500 percent while the number of registered nurses in hospitals has hardly grown. The growth of the clerical staff has spawned the increase in administration.
Linda Farley also pointed to the salaries of the CEOs of health insurance and managed care companies. The salaries start around $1 million and the highest, $5 million, goes to the CEO of Cigna, Wilson Taylor. Those salaries don't include the stocks the CEOs also receive. Taylor also receives $64.2 million in stock.
The Farleys also cited drug manufacturers as contributing the high cost of health care. In a chart, they showed that drug companies spend 27 percent of their income on manufacturing, 35 percent on administration and marketing, 7 percent on taxes and only 13 percent on research and development. A drug manufacturer has profits of about 18 percent, Linda Farley said, which was much more than the average Fortune 500 company. It makes about 5 percent profit.
Doctors' salaries are less of a problem, although some who have become partners in hospitals, clinics and insurance organizations have become millionaires. Gene Farley noted that when Medicare began in the 1960s, doctors' incomes began to rise. Prior to that time, health care was considered a charity and doctors often weren't paid for the care they provided. With Medicare, doctors could count on being paid.
"People say we can't afford universal care, but we're already paying for it," Gene Farley said.
Bills to set up a universal or single-payer system in Wisconsin have been introduced in the state Legislature. Under such a system, the Farleys said the state could save money. In 2003, spending here for health administration totaled $7.72 billion. They say that a single-payer health insurance would have saved $5.52 billion or enough to provide $13,513 for each of the 409,000 uninsured people in the state.
Gene Farley said he does not understand why businesses here do not support a single-payer, universal health care system. Canadian businesses have cheaper operating costs because of the universal system there and support it. In Canada, every business has to pay into the system.
The United States or even Wisconsin won't get a single-payer system unless people demand it, Gene Farley said. He urged people to be noisy and contact their legislators. He also urged everyone to vote, noting that poor people who pay the steepest price for health care (they get no discounts like the government and HMOs or PPOs get) don't vote.
"It won't get any better until people speak up," said Gene Farley.
Humana profit falls
Health benefits provider Humana Inc. reported a 41 percent drop in third-quarter profits that were dragged down by the settlement of a lawsuit as well as costs from Hurricane Katrina.
The company posted net income of $49.9 million, or 30 cents per share, including 27 cents per share in expenses from settling a class-action case, as well as 3 cents per share in Hurricane Katrina expenses.
Excluding the items, Louis-ville-based Humana said it would have earned 60 cents per share, up 15 percent from a year ago.
Quarterly revenue increased to $3.82 billion.
The upswing in Humana's Medicare business offset sluggishness in its commercial sector. ''Medicare is carrying them right now,'' said Joe France, an analyst with Banc of America Securities.
The company posted net income of $49.9 million, or 30 cents per share, including 27 cents per share in expenses from settling a class-action case, as well as 3 cents per share in Hurricane Katrina expenses.
Excluding the items, Louis-ville-based Humana said it would have earned 60 cents per share, up 15 percent from a year ago.
Quarterly revenue increased to $3.82 billion.
The upswing in Humana's Medicare business offset sluggishness in its commercial sector. ''Medicare is carrying them right now,'' said Joe France, an analyst with Banc of America Securities.
Marsh & McLennan Reports Higher 3Q Profits
From Yahoo News
NEW YORK - Marsh & McLennan Companies Inc., the nation's largest insurance brokerage, reported Tuesday that its profits rose in the third quarter despite a drop in revenue.
The New York-based company said net income for the July-September period rose to $65 million, or 12 cents a share, from $21 million, or 4 cents a share, a year earlier.
The company, which is still recovering from last year's regulatory challenges to the way it conducted its property and casualty sales, said excluding special items, profits for the quarter were $189 million, or 35 cents a share, compared with earnings of $225 million, or 42 cents a share, a year earlier. The results included expensing of stock options and other adjustments that shaved 5 cents from the third-quarter results, the company said.
Revenue was $2.9 billion, down 2 percent from $2.95 billion a year earlier.
Analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial had projected earnings of 38 cents a share on $3 billion in revenue.
Marsh & McLennan was at the center of an investigation launched by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer last year into bid rigging, price fixing and the use of hidden incentive fees to steer property and casualty insurance contracts.
In January, the company agreed to pay $850 million in restitution over several years to settle Spitzer's allegations. It also pledged to reform its commission practices.
Michael G. Cherkasky, president and chief executive of Marsh & McLennan, said in a statement accompanying the results that the company "continued in the quarter to make progress and take steps which will make it a better and more-profitable company next year."
He said the changes included new rate cards and the restructuring of several units, expected to result in some $400 million in cost savings.
Revenue declined 6 percent to $1.4 billion in the company's risk and insurance services business and dropped 11 percent to $371 at Putnam Investments, the firm's money management arm. But revenue was up 22 percent to $268 million at Kroll, the company's risk consulting division, and advanced 4 percent to $936 million in the Mercer Human Resource Consulting unit.
Net income for the first nine months of the year totaled $365 million, or 67 cents a share, on revenue of $9.2 billion. That compared with profits of $856 million, or $1.60 a share, on about the same revenue in 2004.
Excluding special items, net income for the first nine months totaled $700 million, or $1.30 a share, down from profits of $1.1 billion, or $2.11 a share in 2005.
NEW YORK - Marsh & McLennan Companies Inc., the nation's largest insurance brokerage, reported Tuesday that its profits rose in the third quarter despite a drop in revenue.
The New York-based company said net income for the July-September period rose to $65 million, or 12 cents a share, from $21 million, or 4 cents a share, a year earlier.
The company, which is still recovering from last year's regulatory challenges to the way it conducted its property and casualty sales, said excluding special items, profits for the quarter were $189 million, or 35 cents a share, compared with earnings of $225 million, or 42 cents a share, a year earlier. The results included expensing of stock options and other adjustments that shaved 5 cents from the third-quarter results, the company said.
Revenue was $2.9 billion, down 2 percent from $2.95 billion a year earlier.
Analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial had projected earnings of 38 cents a share on $3 billion in revenue.
Marsh & McLennan was at the center of an investigation launched by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer last year into bid rigging, price fixing and the use of hidden incentive fees to steer property and casualty insurance contracts.
In January, the company agreed to pay $850 million in restitution over several years to settle Spitzer's allegations. It also pledged to reform its commission practices.
Michael G. Cherkasky, president and chief executive of Marsh & McLennan, said in a statement accompanying the results that the company "continued in the quarter to make progress and take steps which will make it a better and more-profitable company next year."
He said the changes included new rate cards and the restructuring of several units, expected to result in some $400 million in cost savings.
Revenue declined 6 percent to $1.4 billion in the company's risk and insurance services business and dropped 11 percent to $371 at Putnam Investments, the firm's money management arm. But revenue was up 22 percent to $268 million at Kroll, the company's risk consulting division, and advanced 4 percent to $936 million in the Mercer Human Resource Consulting unit.
Net income for the first nine months of the year totaled $365 million, or 67 cents a share, on revenue of $9.2 billion. That compared with profits of $856 million, or $1.60 a share, on about the same revenue in 2004.
Excluding special items, net income for the first nine months totaled $700 million, or $1.30 a share, down from profits of $1.1 billion, or $2.11 a share in 2005.
Get health insurance off sick list, candidates say
BY MICHAEL DAIGLE
DAILY RECORD
Republican incumbents Richard Merkt of Mendham Township and Michael Patrick Carroll of Morris Township are being challenged for their 2-year seats in the state Assembly's 25th District by Democrats Thomas Jackson of Morris Township and Janice Schindler of Mountain Lakes.
The candidates are being asked one question a week until the Nov. 8 election. This week we posed an additional question:
One of the fastest-growing cost areas for state hospitals is charity care, fueled by a rising number of working poor without health insurance seeking care in emergency rooms, inadequate reimbursement by the state for charity care costs and large numbers of immigrants seeking care. What can be proposed to avoid having more of this cost picked up by the state government, and thus taxpayers? Should the state set minimum standards for company insurance plans so the taxpayers do not pay the bills for otherwise employed workers? Is it time to pressure the federal government to reopen the discussion about health insurance policy?
Jackson
The real issue is how we can make health care costs more affordable in New Jersey. Today, we have nearly 1.4 million people uninsured, nearly 265,000 of whom are children. Compounding this problem is the fact that some large employers, like Wal-Mart, are brazenly shifting their health-care costs to the state, and ultimately to the taxpayers.
During the 1980s, I worked for what was then one of the country's largest health-care insurers. I witnessed firsthand the shift from traditional indemnity programs to preferred provider programs to true managed care programs like health maintenance organizations (HMOs), all of which were efforts to stem the double-digit rise in health care costs. None of these programs have worked.
My opponents, no doubt, will recommend some combination of shifting costs to employees and tort reform. The fact of the matter is that shifting more costs to employees is a form of an indirect tax increase, and controlling frivolous lawsuits will only result in less than an incremental decrease in the cost of health care.
The problem is that we have a structural defect in our health care delivery system. We need to enact legislation that would require large corporations to provide health insurance to their employees and stop shifting the cost onto the state; offer tax breaks to individuals who are not covered on a group plan; allow small businesses to pool their health care costs so that insurance becomes more affordable; and focus on preventative health care to drive down health care costs in the long term.
Schindler:
A majority of New Jersey's 1.4 million uninsured individuals are working poor -- individuals who make too much money to qualify for Medicaid but too little to pay for health insurance. They often receive primary care in hospital emergency rooms. The state subsidizes the hospitals for a portion of the expenses incurred.
To compensate for the remaining portion of these unpaid expenses, hospitals are forced to charge higher rates to private insurance companies, which in turn increases the premiums paid by businesses and their employees. Consequently, I support programs that increase access to affordable health insurance.
These programs include: taking a portion of these charity care dollars to subsidize health insurance for the working poor; creating insurance pools for individuals and small businesses so that people can have bulk buying power; requiring insurance companies to allow parents to cover their adult children aged 19 to 30; and encouraging small businesses to form association health plans to purchase insurance for employees with the assistance of a new risk pool created by the state.
I will work to allow families to "buy in" to programs such as Family Care at a cost which amounts to a substantial savings over purchasing health care in the private sector.
I support the bipartisan "Family Health Care Coverage Act" that reforms the NJ FamilyCare Program and provides for an expansion of NJ FamilyCare and Medicaid eligibility for parents and adults without dependent children and consolidates NJ KidCare and NJ FamilyCare programs into the NJ FamilyCare Program. Our incumbent, Assemblyman Carroll, voted against this bill.
I will work to make health care more affordable by consolidating state programs that buy prescription drugs. I support the increased use of generic drugs to save additional costs.
Finally, I will work on a bipartisan basis to demand that the federal government provide the necessary and appropriate funding for the many unfunded mandates imposed on New Jersey.
Our incumbents voted against a resolution urging Congress to extend the temporary increase in Medicaid benefits (AR147).
Carroll:
While many folks decry the growing number of uninsured, they simultaneously advocate policies essentially guaranteed to increase their number. Policies such as community rating (in which someone with AIDS pays about the same premium as a perfectly healthy 22 year old), and mandatory top-of-the line coverage hugely inflates costs.
In Kansas, a basic insurance policy can be had for $172 per month; that's one-sixth of what a policy costs in New Jersey. We're a more expensive state, but not six times more expensive.
If we adopted more rational requirements, we could hugely decrease the costs of a basic policy, and cover virtually all the un- or under-insured with a basic policy. (A proposal in Congress would allow precisely this to happen.)
The state should most certainly not impose additional mandates on businesses. Those businesses which didn't immediately fold or move would simply increase their prices to cover the additional burden; whether the costs of governmental mandates are paid by "consumers" or "taxpayers" is really a moot point.
And, yes, the time has come to pressure federal officials to adopt the proposal to permit interstate competition among insurance carriers.
The last thing we need, though, is yet more governmental control. As the old adage runs, if you think health care's expensive now, just wait until it's "free."
Merkt:
The present, over-regulated, health insurance system in New Jersey is near breakdown. The answer is not more government, because the state created the problem with scores of health insurance coverage mandates, charity care mandates to hospitals, managed care mandates, a ponderous bureaucracy, and rules, rules, rules.
The state has driven the cost of health insurance beyond the means of many New Jersey families and businesses.
Having created massive groups of uninsured, the state promised universal health coverage in New Jersey by ordering hospitals to provide charity health care, regardless of patients' ability to pay. But for years, the state shorted hospitals on payment for free health care they were ordered to provide, putting their survival at risk.
Whenever the state mandates that anyone provide a service, the state must fully pay for the cost of its mandate.
It should look at less expensive ways of delivering health care services, such as clinics, which are far more cost-effective and appropriate for minor ailments. And it should roll back many of the coverage mandates and rules it has enacted to reduce the cost of health insurance for individuals and small businesses.
DAILY RECORD
Republican incumbents Richard Merkt of Mendham Township and Michael Patrick Carroll of Morris Township are being challenged for their 2-year seats in the state Assembly's 25th District by Democrats Thomas Jackson of Morris Township and Janice Schindler of Mountain Lakes.
The candidates are being asked one question a week until the Nov. 8 election. This week we posed an additional question:
One of the fastest-growing cost areas for state hospitals is charity care, fueled by a rising number of working poor without health insurance seeking care in emergency rooms, inadequate reimbursement by the state for charity care costs and large numbers of immigrants seeking care. What can be proposed to avoid having more of this cost picked up by the state government, and thus taxpayers? Should the state set minimum standards for company insurance plans so the taxpayers do not pay the bills for otherwise employed workers? Is it time to pressure the federal government to reopen the discussion about health insurance policy?
Jackson
The real issue is how we can make health care costs more affordable in New Jersey. Today, we have nearly 1.4 million people uninsured, nearly 265,000 of whom are children. Compounding this problem is the fact that some large employers, like Wal-Mart, are brazenly shifting their health-care costs to the state, and ultimately to the taxpayers.
During the 1980s, I worked for what was then one of the country's largest health-care insurers. I witnessed firsthand the shift from traditional indemnity programs to preferred provider programs to true managed care programs like health maintenance organizations (HMOs), all of which were efforts to stem the double-digit rise in health care costs. None of these programs have worked.
My opponents, no doubt, will recommend some combination of shifting costs to employees and tort reform. The fact of the matter is that shifting more costs to employees is a form of an indirect tax increase, and controlling frivolous lawsuits will only result in less than an incremental decrease in the cost of health care.
The problem is that we have a structural defect in our health care delivery system. We need to enact legislation that would require large corporations to provide health insurance to their employees and stop shifting the cost onto the state; offer tax breaks to individuals who are not covered on a group plan; allow small businesses to pool their health care costs so that insurance becomes more affordable; and focus on preventative health care to drive down health care costs in the long term.
Schindler:
A majority of New Jersey's 1.4 million uninsured individuals are working poor -- individuals who make too much money to qualify for Medicaid but too little to pay for health insurance. They often receive primary care in hospital emergency rooms. The state subsidizes the hospitals for a portion of the expenses incurred.
To compensate for the remaining portion of these unpaid expenses, hospitals are forced to charge higher rates to private insurance companies, which in turn increases the premiums paid by businesses and their employees. Consequently, I support programs that increase access to affordable health insurance.
These programs include: taking a portion of these charity care dollars to subsidize health insurance for the working poor; creating insurance pools for individuals and small businesses so that people can have bulk buying power; requiring insurance companies to allow parents to cover their adult children aged 19 to 30; and encouraging small businesses to form association health plans to purchase insurance for employees with the assistance of a new risk pool created by the state.
I will work to allow families to "buy in" to programs such as Family Care at a cost which amounts to a substantial savings over purchasing health care in the private sector.
I support the bipartisan "Family Health Care Coverage Act" that reforms the NJ FamilyCare Program and provides for an expansion of NJ FamilyCare and Medicaid eligibility for parents and adults without dependent children and consolidates NJ KidCare and NJ FamilyCare programs into the NJ FamilyCare Program. Our incumbent, Assemblyman Carroll, voted against this bill.
I will work to make health care more affordable by consolidating state programs that buy prescription drugs. I support the increased use of generic drugs to save additional costs.
Finally, I will work on a bipartisan basis to demand that the federal government provide the necessary and appropriate funding for the many unfunded mandates imposed on New Jersey.
Our incumbents voted against a resolution urging Congress to extend the temporary increase in Medicaid benefits (AR147).
Carroll:
While many folks decry the growing number of uninsured, they simultaneously advocate policies essentially guaranteed to increase their number. Policies such as community rating (in which someone with AIDS pays about the same premium as a perfectly healthy 22 year old), and mandatory top-of-the line coverage hugely inflates costs.
In Kansas, a basic insurance policy can be had for $172 per month; that's one-sixth of what a policy costs in New Jersey. We're a more expensive state, but not six times more expensive.
If we adopted more rational requirements, we could hugely decrease the costs of a basic policy, and cover virtually all the un- or under-insured with a basic policy. (A proposal in Congress would allow precisely this to happen.)
The state should most certainly not impose additional mandates on businesses. Those businesses which didn't immediately fold or move would simply increase their prices to cover the additional burden; whether the costs of governmental mandates are paid by "consumers" or "taxpayers" is really a moot point.
And, yes, the time has come to pressure federal officials to adopt the proposal to permit interstate competition among insurance carriers.
The last thing we need, though, is yet more governmental control. As the old adage runs, if you think health care's expensive now, just wait until it's "free."
Merkt:
The present, over-regulated, health insurance system in New Jersey is near breakdown. The answer is not more government, because the state created the problem with scores of health insurance coverage mandates, charity care mandates to hospitals, managed care mandates, a ponderous bureaucracy, and rules, rules, rules.
The state has driven the cost of health insurance beyond the means of many New Jersey families and businesses.
Having created massive groups of uninsured, the state promised universal health coverage in New Jersey by ordering hospitals to provide charity health care, regardless of patients' ability to pay. But for years, the state shorted hospitals on payment for free health care they were ordered to provide, putting their survival at risk.
Whenever the state mandates that anyone provide a service, the state must fully pay for the cost of its mandate.
It should look at less expensive ways of delivering health care services, such as clinics, which are far more cost-effective and appropriate for minor ailments. And it should roll back many of the coverage mandates and rules it has enacted to reduce the cost of health insurance for individuals and small businesses.
Health Insurance Up 22 Percent for Neb. Employees
Insurance Journal
October 31, 2005
Nebraska state employees will pay 22.1 percent more for health insurance next year, after union representatives and administrators failed to reach a compromise.
The rising premiums will cost taxpayers about $21.4 million over the next year because the state, as the employer, pays 79 percent of the premium costs.
According to the Lincoln Journal Star, employees received a 3 percent pay increase in July, but for many, higher premiums will wipe out any take-home pay increase.
During discussions over the past few weeks, the union offered state administrators several alternatives, based primarily on the anticipation the actual cost increase would be less than the predicted 22.1 percent.
Because the plan is self-funded, the administration needs to make sure the dollars collected from premiums will cover the costs of claims.
The actuarial study indicates state employees used more health care than they had used in the past, and more than consultants predicted.
About 14,000 state employees purchase the health insurance. Employees will receive information on the increases during the health plan sign-up period Nov. 7 to Dec. 2.
October 31, 2005
Nebraska state employees will pay 22.1 percent more for health insurance next year, after union representatives and administrators failed to reach a compromise.
The rising premiums will cost taxpayers about $21.4 million over the next year because the state, as the employer, pays 79 percent of the premium costs.
According to the Lincoln Journal Star, employees received a 3 percent pay increase in July, but for many, higher premiums will wipe out any take-home pay increase.
During discussions over the past few weeks, the union offered state administrators several alternatives, based primarily on the anticipation the actual cost increase would be less than the predicted 22.1 percent.
Because the plan is self-funded, the administration needs to make sure the dollars collected from premiums will cover the costs of claims.
The actuarial study indicates state employees used more health care than they had used in the past, and more than consultants predicted.
About 14,000 state employees purchase the health insurance. Employees will receive information on the increases during the health plan sign-up period Nov. 7 to Dec. 2.
Auto Insurance Companies don't care about color
KENN PETERS
AUTO NOTEBOOK
Let's say you're going to buy a new car, but you have some concerns about the cost of insurance for your new ride.
Are certain colors more expensive to insure than others? Does vehicle weight matter?
The Drive Group of Progressive Insurance Companies answered some of the most common misconceptions drivers have about insurance, based on the results of a survey of 1,000 drivers.
It turns out there are many myths concerning car insurance.
Car color
Myth. Twenty-five percent of drivers surveyed think the color of their car affects their auto insurance rate.
Fact. Color is not used to calculate auto insurance rates. Information used includes the vehicle's year, make, model, body type and engine size and information about the driver.
Comprehensive coverage
Myth. Forty-eight percent of drivers surveyed thought their car insurance policy's comprehensive coverage protects them in all situations because, after all, it's "comprehensive."
Fact. Comprehensive coverage is one type of protection available on an auto insurance policy. Other examples are collision or uninsured-motorist coverage. Comprehensive coverage pays only for damage caused by an event other than a collision, such as fire, theft, or vandalism; or for weather-related damage, such as hail or water damage; or damage caused when a vehicle collides with an animal. It also provides a rental car if a vehicle is stolen.
Bob Hunter, director of insurance for the Consumer Federation of America, said the word "comprehensive" is misleading, because it means just a small part of coverage. "I don't blame people for being confused," he said.
Rental reimbursement
Myth. Thirty-three percent of drivers surveyed did not know what protection is provided through rental reimbursement coverage.
Fact. Rental reimbursement coverage pays for the cost to rent a replacement vehicle when the insured driver's car is in the shop because of an accident.
Bundling insurance and rates
Myth. Fifty-one percent of drivers say they'll always get a better rate if they "bundle" their insurance.
Fact. Just because a driver buys more than one product from the same insurance company doesn't always mean he or she is getting the best rate available. In many cases, there are savings to be had by talking with an independent agent or broker who can customize insurance.
"We always advise people to get quotes from several companies. If you buy all of your insurance from the same company you will get a discount, but what is the initial cost," he said. "You could be getting a discount and still be paying more,." Hunter said.
Rates and the driver's age
Myth. Sixty percent of those surveyed think rates go down drastically when a driver turns 25.
Fact. Young and older drivers typically have the most car crashes, and car insurance companies' customers have different claims experiences.
AUTO NOTEBOOK
Let's say you're going to buy a new car, but you have some concerns about the cost of insurance for your new ride.
Are certain colors more expensive to insure than others? Does vehicle weight matter?
The Drive Group of Progressive Insurance Companies answered some of the most common misconceptions drivers have about insurance, based on the results of a survey of 1,000 drivers.
It turns out there are many myths concerning car insurance.
Car color
Myth. Twenty-five percent of drivers surveyed think the color of their car affects their auto insurance rate.
Fact. Color is not used to calculate auto insurance rates. Information used includes the vehicle's year, make, model, body type and engine size and information about the driver.
Comprehensive coverage
Myth. Forty-eight percent of drivers surveyed thought their car insurance policy's comprehensive coverage protects them in all situations because, after all, it's "comprehensive."
Fact. Comprehensive coverage is one type of protection available on an auto insurance policy. Other examples are collision or uninsured-motorist coverage. Comprehensive coverage pays only for damage caused by an event other than a collision, such as fire, theft, or vandalism; or for weather-related damage, such as hail or water damage; or damage caused when a vehicle collides with an animal. It also provides a rental car if a vehicle is stolen.
Bob Hunter, director of insurance for the Consumer Federation of America, said the word "comprehensive" is misleading, because it means just a small part of coverage. "I don't blame people for being confused," he said.
Rental reimbursement
Myth. Thirty-three percent of drivers surveyed did not know what protection is provided through rental reimbursement coverage.
Fact. Rental reimbursement coverage pays for the cost to rent a replacement vehicle when the insured driver's car is in the shop because of an accident.
Bundling insurance and rates
Myth. Fifty-one percent of drivers say they'll always get a better rate if they "bundle" their insurance.
Fact. Just because a driver buys more than one product from the same insurance company doesn't always mean he or she is getting the best rate available. In many cases, there are savings to be had by talking with an independent agent or broker who can customize insurance.
"We always advise people to get quotes from several companies. If you buy all of your insurance from the same company you will get a discount, but what is the initial cost," he said. "You could be getting a discount and still be paying more,." Hunter said.
Rates and the driver's age
Myth. Sixty percent of those surveyed think rates go down drastically when a driver turns 25.
Fact. Young and older drivers typically have the most car crashes, and car insurance companies' customers have different claims experiences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
:.
