Joined: 04 Apr 2006 Posts: 2 Location: Washington DC
Harmful Legisltation to Mental Health Posted: 04-05-06 09:42am
I came across this legislation senate bill
1955, that senator enzi is pushing which
basically he is trying to create insurance
coverage for small businesses. Initially
this sounds great, but it actually
overrides state consumer protections and
would result in bare bones health coverage
for small business employees. Under this
bill insurance companies would not have to
provide coverage for all kinds of mental
health services this is terrible for
people across the country. Frist is even
supporting this bill and he is a doctor,
he should not be supporting any bill like
this. So has anyone heard anything about
this? If so what do you think? I am
outraged and I hope that other people are
with me in seeing that this is terrible
legislation.
|
HealthyHeart
New User, Becoming EHEALTHy
Joined: 04 Apr 2006 Posts: 2 Location: Washington DC
Posted: 04-12-06 10:49am
Despite no one posting on this issue (it
is a huge deal to me right now) there is
an update I wanted to post in case anyone
is reading this. Its great news in
opposition to the enzi bill. Aarp came
out yesterday speaking against the bill.
If more organizations come out in
opposition then it will be harder for the
senate to pass this bill. I attached an
article from the hill.
A small-business health-insurance bill
expected to hit the senate floor next
month already has spurred intense lobbying
— and now has attracted the attention of
the influential senior-citizens group
aarp.
Last week, aarp came out squarely against
the legislation, which would allow trade
associations representing small companies
to offer health benefits through
small-business health plans, also known as
association health plans (ahps).
At the same time that aarp is working
closely with the bush administration to
sign up seniors for the new medicare
prescription-drug benefit, the group’s
lobbyists are working to stall one of the
gop’s best chances at passing a
healthcare-reform bill during an election
year.
Senate health, education, labor and
pensions (help) committee chairman mike
enzi (r-wyo.) moved the bill through his
committee in march and got it on a fast
track to the senate floor largely by
neutralizing the opposition of some key
interest groups, most notably the health
insurers that fought against previous
association-health-plan bills.
The aggressive involvement of the
deep-pocketed and powerful aarp could
change the debate.
The senate bill is the latest in a string
of measures considered by congress in
recent years, but those were not a high
priority for aarp, said david certner, the
group’s director of federal affairs.
“we haven’t weighed in in a very big
way” in the past, he said.
Aarp believes, however, that the latest
version of the bill threatens the health
coverage of older workers, he explained.
The house has passed legislation to create
association health plans numerous times.
The bills faltered in the senate, however,
largely because the plans would not have
to comply with certain state laws.
Many states require health insurers to
cover specific diseases or treatments and
forbid them from refusing to cover older
or sicker people or from charging them
higher premiums. Health plans sold under
the enzi bill would not have to follow
those rules.
Certain states have adopted laws designed
to prevent older or sicker people from
being priced out of the insurance market
or from being charged unaffordable
premiums.
Critics of the state mandates say that the
rulses discourage insurers from selling
plans in those states, making it harder
for consumers to obtain health insurance,
and that allowing health insurers to offer
the same benefits in multiple states will
expand the availability of insurance.
The enzi bill goes further than the
original ahp bill, certner said. Enzi’s
bill would allow health-insurance
companies to offer plans that are exempt
from the state laws to anyone, not just to
small businesses buying coverage through
associations. The bill also would require
insurers to offer at least one more
generous plan.
Nevertheless, certner said that allowing
insurers to charge higher premiums for
older people would create an incentive for
employers not to hire older workers, who
tend to use more healthcare services. He
suggested that the bill would sacrifice
older workers in the service of helping
younger small-business employees.
“there’s going to be winners and
losers,” certner said. “the impact
tends to be on [the] older and sicker.”
patients groups such as the american
diabetes association and the american
cancer society are fighting the bill for
similar reasons.
The health-insurance industry long opposed
ahps in part because those new products
would have been exempt from state laws
that their other plans would have had to
follow. But the insurers like the
provisions in enzi’s bill that would
allow them to sell the same plan
nationwide, irrespective of state laws.
Health insurers are divided on the enzi
bill, however, and their two largest trade
associations have been notably quiet.
America’s health insurance plans (ahip)
and the blue cross blue shield association
have stopped short of endorsing or
rebuking the bill and have continued to
negotiate with enzi and other senators.
Likewise, the national governors
association and the national association
of insurance commissioners stood against
the previous bills but so far have
remained publicly neutral on enzi’s.