|
Health Access Weblog
|
Thursday, October 28, 2004
HEALTH ACCESS UPDATE
Thursday, October 28th, 2004
THE FUTURE OF EMPLOYER-BASED HEALTH COVERAGE
- Pillar of Health System Under Threat
- Trends Illuminate Debate Over Proposition 72
With the debate on Proposition 72 focusing attention on the future of employer-based health coverage, below is a fact sheet summarizing recent academic research on trends with on-the-job health benefits.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACT SHEET: The Future of Employer-Based Coverage in California
The way that most Californians get health coverage is becoming endangered.
* EMPLOYERS ARE THE PILLAR OF OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM: Most Californians—over 18 million—get health coverage through their employer, or that of a family member. Of the rest of the state’s 36 million residents, over 10 million get coverage from the public insurance programs like Medi-Cal, Medicare, and Healthy Families. This leaves over 6 million are uninsured. (Only one million purchase health coverage as individuals, either because it is unaffordable or unavailable.) Employer-based coverage is the main pillar of our health care system.
YET THE UNINSURED ARE EMPLOYED: Yet the foundation of our health care system—employers voluntarily providing health coverage to their workers and their families—is threatening to unravel. Already over 80% of the uninsured are workers and their families—those who work but are not offered health coverage by their employer. (California Health Interview Survey, UCLA Center for Health Policy Reseach) Recent studies show that employers are starting to scale back coverage, or even drop health benefits entirely. As more employers follow suit, we may reach a tipping point when the system collapses.
* MORE JOBS NO LONGER PROVIDE HEALTH BENEFITS: Nationally, the percentage of all workers receiving health coverage from their employer in 2004 is 61%, down significantly from the recent peak of 65% in 2001. As a consequence, there are at least 5 million fewer jobs providing health insurance in 2004 than 2001. (Annual Employer Health Benefits Survey released by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust, September 2004)
FEWER CALIFORNIA EMPLOYERS PROVIDE COVERAGE. California has one of the worst rates of employers offering coverage of all 50 states. One analysis has 62.9% of the nonelderly population in employer-based coverage, but only 57.3% in California (and 49.6% in Los Angeles). When employer-based coverage is down, the percentage of uninsured people goes up: 17.6% of the nation, 20.3% of California, 26.9% of those in Los Angeles. (2004 March Current Population Survey, analyses by UCLA Center for Health Policy Research)
LARGE EMPLOYERS ARE INCREASINGLY NOT PROVIDING HEALTH COVERAGE: Despite the perception that the uninsured are either unemployed or work in small businesses, 26% are workers, or are the dependents of a worker, in a large firm. “From 1987 to 2001, the proportion of uninsured workers who were employed by firms of 500 or more employees grew from 25 to 32 percent.” The increase of uninsurance rose over twice as much in large firms (57%) than in small ones (25%). (Glied, Lambrew, Little. “The Growing Share of Uninsured Workers Employed by Large Firms.” The Commonwealth Fund. October 2003.)
* EMPLOYERS ARE SHIFTING COSTS TO THEIR WORKERS: “Employers across the nation and in California have begun the shift a greater share of health care expenses to employees. In the past year, 57% of employers nationally and 44% of California employers increased employee cost-sharing. In addition, 17% of California and U.S. firms reduced the range of benefits covered in their health plans.” For the future, two-thirds are likely to increase employees’ share of cost at the point of service. Most employers also expect to increase premium contributions for dependents as well as employee-only coverage.” Even 9% report plans to drop some or all coverage for employees and dependents. These plans are as prevalent, if not more so, in large firms as well as small firms. (“Insurance Markets: Health Benefit Costs: Employers Share the Pain.” The California HealthCare Foundation. July 2003.)
HEALTH COSTS GO UP FOR EMPLOYERS, BUT MUCH MORE FOR WORKERS: “Employees in California are contributing significantly more for coverage, particularly for family coverage. Compared to 2002 levels, worker contributions grew nearly 35% for family coverage and by about 22% for single coverage. Workers’ average share of the premium costs for family coverage in 2003 grew to 30%” While the cost of health care in general rose more than the rate of inflation, the worker contribution rose even more. “Over the past three years, total premiums for family coverage increased by almost 42%. Worker contributions for family coverage increased by nearly 70% (from $1,450 in 2000, to $2,452 in 2003) over the same period.” Finally, for the future, “half of all large firms (51%) reported that they are very likely to increase the amount employees pay for insurance in 2004.” (“California Employer Health Benefits Survey.” Kaiser Family Foundation/Health Research and Education Trust. March 2004.)
* WORKERS ARE STARTING TO FIND ON-THE-JOB COVERAGE UNAFFORDABLE: The vast majority of workers that are offered coverage take it up, but because of the shift of costs from employers to employees, more workers are going uninsured, finding the coverage too expensive. “More workers in recent years have decided not to participate in employer-sponsored health plans because of cost concerns as premiums and copayments increase.” In 2002, 88 percent of all people eligible for insurance at work, including their spouses and children, purchased it, down from 90 percent in 1999. Declines were steepest for low-income workers and their children. In 2002, 66.8 percent of low-income workers eligible for their employer's insurance purchased it, down from 72.6 percent in 1999. Only 58.6 percent of their children were covered. (Linda Blumberg & John Holahan, Urban Institute, July 2004)
THE CYCLE CONTINUES: As employers scale back coverage or drop it altogether, competing employers are pressured to follow suit, leaving even more people underinsured or uninsured. Without some standard, employers could find themselves in a "race to the bottom" with regard to health benefits, causing great disruption in our health care system.
Labels: Updates
posted by Anthony Wright |
Permalink |
8:46 AM
a
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
HEALTH ACCESS CALIFORNIA ALERT
Wednesday, October 27th, 2004
Why has McDonald's, of all companies, become the biggest opponent of an critical health care law supported by doctors, nurses, and consumer groups? McDonald’s and its franchisees have given $1.4 million to oppose Proposition 72, an important measure that would protect the coverage that millions of Californians get on-the-job, extend such coverage to one million more California workers and family members, and provide fairness for employers and taxpayers that often must bear the cost of paying for the health care of those employers that do not provide coverage. The author of the critically-acclaimed book "Fast Food Nation" provides a revealing look at the measure's opposition in this recent Los Angeles Times editorial.
Please forward to those California voters thinking about their vote on Proposition 72. For more information, go to the campaign website at:
http://www.yesonprop72.com/.
--------
COMMENTARY
Super-Sized Deception From Fast-Food Giants
By Eric Schlosser
Eric Schlosser is the author of "Fast Food Nation" (HarperCollins, 2002).
LOS ANGELES TIMES, October 24th, 2004
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-schlosser24oct24,1,2238970.story
The television ad funded by the opponents of Proposition 72 — an initiative that would require large and medium-sized business owners to give health benefits to their workers — offers a grim scenario. "Our family-run restaurant is doing OK," says a lovely Latina, walking past tables crowded with customers. "Well enough to provide benefits for our workers." But Proposition 72 would threaten all of that, she adds. It would cost her restaurant more than $100,000. It would force her to raise prices or fire workers. It would mean getting rid of the restaurant's "good private health plan" in favor of a "government-run plan." The ad ends by warning viewers that Proposition 72 would kill jobs and eliminate health benefits.
If George Orwell were alive today, he would marvel at the ad's scare tactics, distortions and its fundamental misrepresentation of Proposition 72. For one thing, the woman in the ad isn't a restaurant owner; she's an actress. The Los Angeles restaurant where the ad was filmed actually has only 12 employees, making it too small to be affected. The initiative would require employee access to private plans, not government insurance.
Moreover, the leading corporate sponsor of the effort to block its passage is McDonald's. Other sponsors include Burger King, Wendy's, Jack in the Box, Walgreen, Best Buy, Target, Sears and Yum! Brands (owner of Taco Bell, Pizza Hut and KFC). Concern for the plight of family businesses is now being used as a political tool by the very companies that have driven mom-and-pops out of business.
T
he fact that Proposition 72 even appears on the ballot is further evidence of how California's initiative laws, initially passed to thwart corporate influence in politics, now facilitate just the opposite. In 2003, the Legislature passed a bill requiring that large and medium-sized companies offer health insurance to their workers. The story should have ended once then-Gov. Gray Davis signed the bill into law. Instead, the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Restaurant Assn. and their corporate allies have spent millions of dollars to rescind the law through the initiative process.
A "yes" vote for Proposition 72 would keep the law, calling for companies with 50 to 199 full-time workers to provide them with health insurance by 2007. Companies with 200 or more full-time workers would have to insure them and their dependents by 2006.
The fast-food industry is the nation's largest employer of minimum-wage labor. The only American workers who consistently earn less are migrant farm workers. Led by McDonald's, the industry has pioneered a workforce that earns low wages, gets little training, receives few benefits and has one of the highest turnover rates of any trade. Retail giants such as Target and Wal-Mart have emulated these labor policies, and there's good reason such service-sector positions are called "McJobs."
Jot Condie, president of the California Restaurant Assn., says passage of Proposition 72 would immediately cause one-fifth of the state's restaurants to shut down. In fact, the proposition would apply to fewer than one-tenth of the state's restaurants and retail stores. Among employers with more than 200 full-time workers, 99% already provide health insurance; among those with 50 to 150 workers, 94% do. Opponents of Proposition 72 say it would add annual health insurance costs of $2,500 to $7,000 per worker, but supporters argue that such costs are wildly inflated because most fast-food workers are young, healthy and single. Starbucks already offers health benefits to full-time staff, as does Costco.
Eight years ago, the California Restaurant Assn. claimed that proposed increases in the state and federal minimum wage would force the industry to fire more than 100,000 workers. Nevertheless, minimum wages were raised — and the annual revenues of the California restaurant industry have nearly doubled in the last decade. The industry is the largest private employer in the state. It provides health insurance to executives and should now do the same for all full-time employees. Its healthcare costs are now largely covered by taxpayers. California spends about $4.6 billion a year on medical care for the uninsured, while hospitals absorb an additional $5 billion.
Proposition 72 isn't a panacea. But it would provide insurance for more than 1 million people. The disinformation being spread by multinational fast-food chains shouldn't dissuade voters from doing what's right. Thirty years ago, Hawaii adopted a similar plan. Today, it has one of the best healthcare systems in the U.S. — and on Maui, there's no shortage of Big Macs.
Labels: Updates
posted by Anthony Wright |
Permalink |
1:04 PM
a
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
HEALTH ACCESS CALIFORNIA ALERT
Tuesday, October 26th, 2004
HEALTH CARE HANGS IN BALANCE WITH ELECTION ONE WEEK AWAY
- Proposition 72 Continues Lead in Field, LA Times Polls
- New Ad Reveals How Taxpayers Pay for the Health Care of Wal-Mart's Workers
- Consumer Groups Take the "Wal-Mart Challenge"
- Employers Come Out In Support of Proposition 72
Doctors, nurses, patient advocates, and consumer groups are on the airwaves and in the street making the case for Proposition 72, which would set standards for on-the-job health benefits, like the minimum wage does for pay.
YES ON PROP 72: The measure is intended to protect the health coverage that millions of Californians rely on now, extend such coverage to a million more California workers and their family members, and provide fairness to employers and taxpayers who are now paying for the health care of those employers that do not provide coverage to their workers. Supporters can read about the measure, donate online, and send E-mails to encourage friends and family to support Prop 72 at the campaign website, at:
http://www.yesonprop72.com
POLLING: Proposition 72 continues to lead in polls, although a significant percentage--about a quarter--of the electorate is undecided. The most recent Los Angeles Times poll shows the YES side leading 45% to 29%. The most recent Field Poll is almost identical, with the measure ahead 46% to 29%. Both polls are after weeks of polling by both the YES and NO campaigns.
That the measure is leading is generally good news for health advocates, but the outcome is not assured. "Mark DiCamillo, the Field Poll Research director... said of Proposition 72: “If I had to guess, I would say it is likely to pass.” (San Diego Union Tribune, October 22nd) However, some observers believe that voters who are undecided generally tend to vote "no" on propositions, meaning this could be a very close vote. Whether that rule holds true is up for debate: “In California, well-publicized measures have overcome that rule to win, and the last proposition on this year’s ballot is among the best-known. The business interests that put Proposition 72 on the ballot are hoping for a ‘no’ vote because defeating the referendum would repeal a state law requiring employers provide workers health insurance. The ‘yes’ vote is leading in the polls, and John J. Pitney, Claremont McKenna College government professor, said the public is paying such close attention to health care issues that voters won’t automatically cast a ‘no’ vote on this proposition.” (Sacramento Bee, October 24th)
OPPOSITION ADS: The opponents of Proposition 72 recently put out a third ad, which again makes deceptive claims about the economic impact of the measure, and mentions the position of Governor Arnold Schwazenegger. Below are specific instances where the ad is simply false. You can see the ad, and a comprehensive fact-check, at:
http://www.yesonprop72.com.
- The ad continues to falsely claim that that it create a "government-run health care plan."
- The ad claims that the cost of the measure is about $7 billion, but the source was the Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC), a company that the NO campaign paid $55,000 -- commissioned as “Campaign Consultants." Earlier this year, a judge found that the $7 billion cost figure was so "false and misleading" that she ordered the word "estimated" in front of the figure in the opposition's ballot arguments.
- The ad also claims that 150,000 jobs will be lost under Proposition 72. The same organizations--the Chamber of Commerce, the California Restaurant Association--have come up with similar dire, and false, predictions every time the minimum wage is increased. In 1996, these same opponents predicted that over 100,000 jobs would be lost over Proposition 210, a minimum wage increase. Yet in the year after the passage of the measure, jobs went up by 100,000 in the restaurant sector alone.
AD ON TAXPAYERS VS. WAL-MART: Proposition 72 supporters unveiled a new ad this weekend, highlighting a UC Berkeley study showing the California taxpayers pay $32 million in order to provide health care for the workers at Wal-Mart. Earlier today, Proposition 72 supporters held pickets at rallies in San Jose and Los Angeles, making the point that when large employers don't provide health benefits to their workers, those costs fall onto taxpayers.
WAL-MART's CHALLENGE: In Saturday's Los Angeles Times, Wal-Mart denied it: "Bob McAdam, a Wal-Mart executive, said it was "totally false" that the company encouraged workers to apply for public benefits. "There's no proof that any of our associates are on public assistance," he said. "I defy anyone to prove it."" (LA Times, October 23rd.) On Tuesday, Wal-Mart continued its opposition to the measure by contributing $500,000 to the opposition campaign.
Supporters of Proposition 72 took up the "Wal-Mart Challenge" presented by the company's executive, by having several former Wal-Mart workers speak out, revealing that they relied on Medi-Cal coverage during their employment with the giant retailer. Documents reveal the systems that Wal-Mart has in place to facilitate their workers' enrollment in public assistance programs. And a Georgia survey showed that over 10,000 children are in that state's PeachCare program, over 10 times more than any other employer. More information is in a short report by the Consumer Federation of California, at:
http://www.consumerfedofca.org/index.fpl/550472/article/913.html
EMPLOYERS COME OUT IN SUPPORT: With the focus on large companies like McDonald's and Wal-Mart that don't provide health coverage to their workers and place that burden on taxpayers, it might be easy to miss that many employers have come forward to support the measure. Proposition 72 supports fairness for employers that do provide coverage, but are forced to compete against those that don't. BELOW is a AP article on business that are supportive and neutral on the measure.
---
SOME EMPLOYERS SUPPORT HEALTH INSURANCE MANDATE
by STEVE LAWRENCE, Associated Press
SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS, October 24th, 2004
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/the_valley/10002450.htm
SACRAMENTO - Andrew Ross runs two book stores in Berkeley and struggles to keep up with rising health insurance costs. But he supports Proposition 72, the Nov. 2 ballot measure that would require him to help provide coverage for his workers.
"We think health insurance is important; we want to keep it," he says. "(But) the exact amount and nature of health care has become a matter of contention really, because it's very difficult to afford providing it at levels we have done."
He figures Proposition 72 would help hold down his costs by spreading the insurance burden among employers who don't provide coverage or offer less generous plans than his company, Cody's Books.
"It's not a perfect solution, but it's a better solution than we have now."
Proposition 72 would implement a law passed last year by the Legislature that would require employers with 50 or more workers to pay for at least 80 percent of the cost of coverage for employees who work more than 100 hours a month.
Companies with at least 200 employees would also have to cover their dependents, either by buying insurance directly or obtaining it through a state pool.
Supporters say it would provide coverage for about 1.1 million of the approximately 6 million Californians who lack health insurance.
The proposal has drawn heated opposition from much of state's business community, particularly fast-food restaurants and some department store chains, which argue that it would mean higher prices and lost jobs without controlling health care costs.
"In a nutshell, we don't believe it's the answer to health care issues in California," says Chris Brathwaite, a spokesman for Sears Roebuck and Co., which has contributed $400,000 of the $13.5 million raised by the measure's opponents.
Most of the $8.1 million supporting the proposition has come from labor unions, but the ballot measure has at least a few supporters among owners of the state's 1.1 million businesses.
"Proposition 72 says each employer will take responsibility," says Spencer Karpf, owner and chief executive officer of Software Management Consultants, a Southern California company that provides temporary staffing for information technology companies. "That levels the playing field for everybody."
Seventy percent of California employers offered health insurance to their workers last year, with as many as 99 percent of the largest firms paying for coverage, according to a survey released in March by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust.
But only 79 percent of employees who worked for those employers were eligible for that insurance and typically they paid 30 percent of the premiums for family coverage instead of the 20 percent allowed by Proposition 72, the survey found. Single workers picked up only 14 percent of premium costs.
Sears, which has 29,000 employees in California, pays for most of the cost of covering its full-time workers, but doesn't insure part-timers, although it is part of a business coalition that is looking for ways to provide that coverage, Brathwaite said.
"We have about 100,000 part-time workers who are uninsured at various sales outlets in the country," he said. "We made a decision sometime back that it was virtually unaffordable to cover part-time employees."
Sears is not alone. Only 49 percent of California employees worked for companies last year that offered health benefits to part-time workers and only 6 percent worked for employers that paid benefits for temporary workers, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation study.
But some employers manage to cover their part-timers, including Starbucks Coffee Co., which provides coverage for employees who work at least 20 hours a week.
"We believe that offering comprehensive health care coverage to part- and full-time (employees) does help in recruiting and retaining the best people," said Audrey Lincoff, Starbucks' spokeswoman. "This is a significant point of differentiation for Starbucks in today's economy."
Costco Wholesale Corp., which has 90 stores in California and about 28,000 employees, also covers part-timers and views employee health insurance as a plus.
"It helps attract good people," said Jim Sinegal, Costco's president and chief executive officer. "In the final analysis it's good business."
Neither company has jumped into the fight over Proposition 72, although Lincoff says Starbucks believes that employers have to take a role in solving the nation's health care problems.
Sinegal says the ballot measure could be "pretty onerous" for some companies. "We don't think it's a good idea just from that standpoint, but we're not politicians, we're merchants."
Barry Hermanson, the owner of a San Francisco temporary worker agency, says Proposition 72 will help employers who pay for comprehensive health insurance and those who wish they could but fear losing a cost advantage to competitors if they did.
It also will ease the impact on state and local government budgets caused by uninsured workers relying on hospital emergency rooms for their health care needs, he says.
"At some point, as it is with the minimum wage, you have to say what is a minimum accepted standard we will allow in our society." he says. "We see an increasing amount of tax money being spent on public health because people are not covered anywhere else."
Labels: Updates
posted by Anthony Wright |
Permalink |
8:30 AM
a
Monday, October 25, 2004
HEALTH ACCESS UPDATE
Monday, October 25th, 2004
GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER SPEAKS ON KEY HEALTH CARE ISSUES
* The Uninsured, Prescription Drugs, the Budget and CPR
On Monday, October 18th, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger held a rare public forum where he spoke on a range of subjects, from policy issues to his movie career to his relationship with his wife. BELOW is several extended quotes from that interview at the Panetta Institute, containing several nuggets of interest to health care advocates.
Last year, newly-elected Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was a blank slate on health care issues. He barely mentioned health care issues during his campaign, or even after he was elected.
In the past year, he has not made health issues a priority, but has amassed a record on the subject. This record includes proposing severe cuts to health coverage programs for children and people with disabilities (propsals that which were subsequently retracted), and vetoing numerous bills to benefit health care consumers, on issues like prescription drugs costs, hospital overcharging, and maternity coverage.
The Governor has a clear ideological position siding with business interests over consumer interests, and against raising revenues needed to sustainably fund the health and other vital services in the budget. Yet in this interview, he reveals some of his thinking on the specific health issues:
- He seems to blame the uninsured for not having health coverage, rather than their employers for not providing it. He also wrongly seems to equate the six million uninsured with uundocumented immigrants. He indicates that he would like to require that individuals buy health coverage, proposal of great concern for health consumer advocates.
- While he vetoed four bills faciliating the reimportation of prescription drugs from Canada, he said he would sign them if the federal government told him it was OK. This is a strange admission, given that multiple governors of both parties signed similar measures in their states.
- While some of the CPR ideas are "bogus," he will move forward with an edited set of proposals through the legislature and on the ballot.
- He would like to shift money away from "social programs" and toward infrastructure, but would look at "changes" in sales and property taxes.
ON HEALTH CARE AND THE UNINSURED: "The other thing is that we have too many people that are uninsured in this state. We have to really address this once and for all, and figure out a way of how we do it, like with car insurance, where we make it law that people carry insurance and that they are really insured, because it's unfair to so many people when you have people using the hospitals for emergency, and then creating a huge cost.
"And of course I feel very sympathetic towards the people also that are here, if it is undocumented immigrants or others, that maybe need emergency services, or their wife is pregnant and needs the delivery and all this.
"So, I mean, there are a lot of problems like that, that we are facing, but we have to address that. I'm just in the office now 11 months, so I cannot address all of those issues, but that's one of the issues that I want to address next, is how do we provide healthcare for all the people in California?"
ON DRUGS FROM CANADA: "Well, first of all, as you know, getting drugs, prescription drugs from Canada, is illegal. The federal government forbids us to go outside. So for the legislators to send me a bill that says I should sign a bill that is illegal is absolutely ludicrous, because I told them on the phone, "This is illegal. Don't send me the bill...."
"It is illegal. If it is legal, from the federal government telling us that it's legal to go to Canada, tomorrow I will sign the bill. Of course I will sign the bill, because I am, -- I have the philosophy that people should be able to shop all over the world. I believe in open borders. You should be able to go and shop and go buy the best, and get the best deal, for anything. If it's for your car, for your sweater, for your drugs. Whatever it is, all over the world, wherever you can get the best price. That's what I believe, including the drugs from Canada, or anywhere else."
ON THE BUDGET: "The important thing is that we stimulate the economy. I know there are people always trying to raise taxes, and to create more revenues. But raising taxes means that the public sector will again be heavier, and heavier, and getting more and more bloated, which we don't want....
"And that is the basic bottom line. Don't raise taxes...."
"We have spent much more time, and put much more money, into social programs and into welfare programs, but not enough into our infrastructure. So our transportation, highways, freeways, and our ports, it all needs to be brought up to date. We are behind the times in that, so it is important that now we slowly make a switch and put more money into the infrastructure...."
"And eventually there have to be also changes in as far as sales tax and property tax and all that, which as you know, there are a few people like Hertzberg and others, Steinberg and all those other guys, are working on it and trying to make those changes...."
ON THE CALIFORNIA PERFORMANCE REVIEW: "Now, there are more than 1,000 ideas. Of course, some of them are bogus ideas, some of them are really great ideas. So what we are doing right now, we have goe, taken this through the public process. We had public hearings, because we wanted the input of the people, we wanted to open it up and show them all the various different things that we were thinking of, and then let the public, let them have their input. They did that now, and now we're going to edit it down. And then we're going to present -- part of it we do through me office. Part of it will be done through legislators. And then the things that will not go through the legislators, we will go and take it directly to the people, and let the people vote on it. I will put it on a ballot, because that's the only way we can get it done."
Labels: Updates
posted by Anthony Wright |
Permalink |
4:27 PM
a
Friday, October 15, 2004
From the Hon. Sheila Kuehl, state Senator. Please feel free to forward...
--
Dear Friend:
I am writing to tell you about my strong support for Proposition 72, otherwise known as the Health Insurance Act. As you may know, Proposition 72 protects the provisions now in the law that, once implemented, will require large and medium-sized companies to pay at least 80% of the cost of employee’s premiums for health insurance. This law means that an additional 1.1 million working people and children, who are currently without insurance, will have the benefits of insurance.
California, like the rest of our country, is facing a mounting health care crisis with no end in sight. Health care premiums have nearly doubled and there are now 45 million Americans who are uninsured. Emergency facilities all over the state are shutting down, partially as the result of serving a rising number of people who have no health insurance.
Proposition 72 protects the positive steps California took in 2003 toward increasing the number of working Californians who have insurance. This Proposition, not surprisingly, is facing a serious challenge in November, and, in all of our interests, it must be vigorously defended.
Historically, it has been employers who have moved the United States toward an employer based health care model. Now that the system is falling apart, an alarming number of employers are excusing themselves from the table, leaving workers to pay the tab. It is troubling that employers who have worked hard to maintain coverage are finding it harder and harder to compete with companies who have dropped health care coverage. As a result, the ranks of the uninsured are growing rapidly. Reaching a long term solution will require that employers are at the table with a critical stake in reform. Proposition 72 sends an important message to employers that simply dropping coverage because costs are out of control is not a reasonable solution.
The movement toward health care reform in California must include a combination of long, intermediate and short term efforts. Proposition 72 covers over a million workers and children, reduces competitive pressures between companies to eliminate benefits, and sends a message that we need to work collectively to find a solution that works for all of us. Proposition 72 represents an essential step toward quality affordable health care for all and as such I urge your strong support.
Given the importance of this election, please join me in pledging to vote YES on Prop 72, at the campaign website: www.yesonprop72.com. Get others to also sign up, so they can get updates on the progress of the campaign.
The opposition is spending millions to defeat us, so I also ask for your contribution, to counter the TV advertising assault in the final days of the campaign. To donate online, go to www.yesonprop72.com, and then click “Contribute.”
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Sheila James Kuehl
Senator, 23rd District
Labels: Updates
posted by Anthony Wright |
Permalink |
9:26 AM
a
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
HEALTH ACCESS ALERT
Wednesday, October 13th, 2004
PROPOSITION 72 CAMPAIGN DEVELOPMENTS: POLLS AND ADS
Proposition 72, which would ensure health coverage for millions of working Californians and their families, continues to enjoy a lead in the polls, even after weeks of false and deceptive attack ads by the opposition. Today, the YES ON PROP 72 campaign is releasing its second ad, featuring a nurse talking about the "emergency" in California's health care system, and the provisions of Proposition 72 that help address the crisis.
HEALTH CARE PROTECTIONS: By voting YES on Proposition 72, California voters will affirm the Health Insurance Act, which would require large and medium employers to provide private health coverage to their workers. It would set a standard for health benefits--similar to the minimum wage law for pay--that employers should pay at least 80% of the premium. As a result, Proposition 72 would:
- Protect the coverage of millions of Californians that get on-the-job health coverage, but are concerned about their employer scaling back health benefits or dropping coverage altogether.
- Extend coverage to over a million Californians that work but do now currently get on-the-job health benefits.
- Provide fairness to the majority of employers that provide good benefits to their workers but have to compete against those that don't, and to taxpayers that often are asked to provide coverage and care for the workers of those that don't.
POLLS: The Field Poll yesterday released its most recent findings on health care measures on the November ballot. It found that voters support Proposition 72, by a 45% to 29% margin, with 26% undecided.
http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/RLS2140.pdf
The results, including the 16-point lead, are almost identical to the Field Poll in early August, which is remarkable, given that the opposition spent millions of dollars on three weeks on television ads. The Yes on Prop 72 campaign had not aired any commercials at the time the poll was taken a week and a half ago. ADS: For three weeks, the opposition to Prop 72 aired two ads against the health care measure. The first was a couple discussing the measure at a kitchen table. The second was a woman in a restaurant talking to the campaign. In both cases, the statements made were false and misleading. Supporters of Prop 72 have produced analyses refuting these ads, at:
http://www.yesonprop72.com/ Last week, a newspaper report exposed the deceptive nature of the ads. The woman is not a restaurant owner, but a actress. The restaurant portrayed employs only 12 people, and thus would not be impacted by Proposition 72. Finally, her statements are factually wrong, misrepresenting the proposal, and its impact. The San Francisco Chronicle article is at:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/10/04/BAG9S93CAE1.DTL Soon afterwards, the opposition campaign withdrew all its broadcast advertising for last week. In press reports, they deny their action had anything to do with the controversy around the ad, and in fact have re-started airing the same ad this week. Last week, the YES on PROP 72 campaign introduced an ad with Dr. Richard Corlin, past president of the California Medical Association, and the American Medical Association. He states his credentials as "a doctor, not an actor," and refutes as "scare tactics" the claims of the opposition that Proposition 72 is "government-run health care," and simply described the bill.
Today, the YES on PROP 72 campaign introduced its second ad with a nurse talking about an "emergency in California," and describing the specifics of Proposition 72 as a way to address it. You can view both ads at:
http://www.yesonprop72.com/ ALERT: The polls indicate that there is a large number of voters that are undecided on Proposition 72. Please use the YES ON PROP 72 website to send to your friends, family, colleagues and others information on Proposition 72:
http://www.yesonprop72.com/10friends ALERT: Organizational supporters of Proposition 72 should send a similar alert out to your lists and newsletters as well, asking people to go to the website, encourage friends to go as well, to write letters to the editor in support of Prop 72, and to participate in get-out-the-vote efforts. For information and assistance, contact Health Access California or the campaign directly.
CAMPAIGN UPDATE: NO ON PROPOSITION 64 In addition to YES on PROP 72, Health Access California, the statewide health care consumer advocacy coalition, has taken positions on two other ballot measures. Health Access California urges "NO" votes on Propositions 64, which would take away the consumer advocates' ability to enforce public health and consumer protections, and 65, which would rob the state of budgeting flexibility. The original supporters of Proposition 65 have abandoned their measure. The business interests that support Proposition 64 have been running telvision ads, although the Field Poll shows the NO side leading, 38%-26%. The NO side has released clever Internet animation describing the impact of the measure, at:
http://www.noonprop64.com/
ALERT: Send the link to friends and other California voters, so they can find out the impact of Proposition 64.
Labels: Updates
posted by Anthony Wright |
Permalink |
9:34 AM
a
Saturday, October 02, 2004
HEALTH ACCESS UPDATE
Saturday, October 2, 2004
FINAL LEGISLATIVE REPORT:GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER VETOES DRUG
BILLS, MANY OTHERS
- Overall: Governor Sides With Industry, Against Consumers.
- A String of Vetoes on Range of Health Issues
- Also: Update on Proposition 72 TV Advertising
PRESCRIPTION DRUG BILLS VETOED: GOVERNOR FAILS IN DEAL WITH DRUG COMPANIES
To the dismay but not the surprise of health advocates, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a half-dozen bills to address the issues of the high cost of prescription drugs. He did this along with many other vetoes on Thursday, the last day he had to decide on a range of issues.
The vetoes of the prescription drug bills, perhaps some of the highest-profile measures on his desk, capped off a gubernatorial signing season that saw numerous consumer protection measure get vetoed, in health care and other areas. In all, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed nearly 25% of the 1270 bills sent to him, the highest percentage of vetoes since 1967 (excepting Governor Davis in 2002). BELOW is a recap of the final status of key health care consumer advocacy bills that reached the Governor's desk.
NO DEAL WITH DRUG COS: The Governor's efforts to announce an alternative proposal backfired. When indicating his inclination to veto these bills, the Governor suggested he would use the bills as leverage to bargain with the drug companies. Yet on Thursday, the bills were vetoed, and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kim Belshe had to hold a press conference with no deal to announce.
VETO MESSAGE: The Governor's veto message says the Canadian reimportation bills "violate federal law" and references his "California Rx" alternative proposal, which he claims would use "the purchasing power of low income seniors and uninsured Californians up to 300% of the federal poverty level ($47,000 for a family of three) to secure meaningful discounts in prescription drug costs." In the letter, he had to admit, "while I am encouraged by the concrete commitments made by some members of the industry, I am disappointed that many companies have not yet stepped up and offered meaningful discounts for this population."
Similar to his message to hospitals about overcharging practices, the Governor admonishes the industry to deal with the problem voluntarily. "Over the next six weeks, I will continue negotiations to secure significant discounts for California's low-income uninsured. If, however, specific companies and the industry as a whole are not willing to provide a real solution to this problem, I will work closely with the State Legislature to develop an approach that guarantees significant reductions in prescription drug prices for California’s low-income uninsured residents. ...For a voluntary, negotiated model such as California Rx to word, the drug companies must come forward and negotiate in good faith... but if I cannot rely on the good faith negotiations of the industry, I will use all the options at my disposal to secure lower-cost prescription drugs for low-income, uninsured Californians." Yet in her press conference, Secretary Belshe ruled out considering any bills facilitating Canadian reimportation. This position ignores the changing federal stance toward reimportation, and denies the Administration any negotiating leverage.
The Governor's "veto messages," is available on his web site, under his press releases, under "Legislative Update", at:
http://www.governor.ca.gov/state/govsite/gov_homepage.jsp
BILLS SIGNED AND VETOED: RECAP
Below are the fifteen bills that Health Access California and other consumer groups supported and that made it to the Governor's desk, along with their final status. Only four of the fifteen were signed:
* PRESCRIPTION DRUGS/CANADIAN REIMPORTATION
- SB1144 (Burton) would have required the Department of General Services to include Canadian sources in its prescription drug purchases. [VETOED]
- SB1149 (Ortiz) would have required the Board of Pharmacy to provide information on Canadian pharmacies that can safely provide prescription drugs to Californians. [VETOED]
- AB1957 (Frommer) would have enhanced the safety of importation of prescription drugs from Canada. [VETOED]
- SB1333 (Perata) would have allowed Medi-Cal and the AIDS Drugs Assistance Program (ADAP) to reimburse pharmacies that purchase drugs from Canadian pharmacies. [VETOED]
* PRESCRIPTION DRUGS/OTHER COST CONTROL MEASURES
- AB1958 (Frommer) would have authorized CalPERS to establish or enter into a pharmaceutical purchasing consortium with other private or public entities. [VETOED]
- B1959 (Chu) will permit review of prescription drug contracts and procurement practices used by various state agencies, including Medi-Cal, CalPERS, mental health, and developmental disabilities. [SIGNED]
- AB1960 (Pavley) would have regulated pharmaceutical benefit managers, including requiring disclosures of their revenues and formularies. [VETOED]
- SB1765 (Sher) will codify the voluntary guidelines of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), requiring limits and disclosure on gifts, meals, and other inducements offered to doctors and other prescribing health providers. [SIGNED]
- The Governor also vetoed SB1563 (Escutia), supported by community clinics to reduce their drug costs.
* HOSPITAL OVERCHARGING OF SELF-PAY PATIENTS: SB379 (Ortiz) would have provided self-pay hospital patients with basic consumer financial protections and would have protected self-pay hospital patients from being charged more than the insured. [VETOED]
* MATERNITY COVERAGE: SB1555 (Speier) would have ensured that maternity coverage is included in health insurance coverage. [VETOED]
* STUDY OF OUT OF POCKET COSTS: AB2289 (Chan), sponsored by Health Access California, would have required the Department of Managed Health Care and the Department Insurance to gather detailed information on what people with insurance pay in deductibles, co-pays and other out-of-pocket costs. [VETOED]
* HOSPITAL CLOSURES: AB2874 (Diaz) would have ensured notice in the event of the closure of an emergency room or hospital, to allow communities to consider purchasing the facility. [VETOED] (Governor Schwarzenegger also vetoed SB1540 (Margett), to enforce notice of emergency room closures.
* CHILD ASTHMA SUPPLIES: AB2185 (Frommer) will ensure that pediatric asthma devices such as inhaler spacers, nebulizers, and peak flow meters are included in health coverage. [SIGNED]
* EXPRESS ENROLLMENT: SB1196 (Cedillo) will permit information from a school lunch application to be used to determine eligibility for Healthy Families and other insurance programs, with parental consent. [SIGNED]
* MEDI-CAL BALANCE BILLING: AB2285 (Chu) would have protected Medi-Cal beneficiaries from the illegal and inappropriate billing that currently takes place. [VETOED]
Consumer groups also cited other bills that were vetoed, on car buying, consumer rebates, and other matters. Another health-related bill the Governor vetoed that was supported by consumer groups was SB 1487 (Speier) to require hospitals to provide data on hospital-acquired infections.
PROPOSITION 72: UPDATE ON TV ADS
Doctors and nurses from the Yes on 72 coalition demanded this week that their opponents, funded by the California Restaurant Association, take down their false and misleading television ad.
The ad features a woman speaking in a restaurant. She identifies herself as family-run restaurant owner. She claims that Prop 72 will cost her over $100,000, yet she also claims that she already provides benefits for her employees. She also claims that Prop 72 would force her into a government run healthcare system.
In fact, if an employer provides good coverage to their employees, nothing in Proposition 72 requires them to change that coverage, period. The ad also fails to acknowledge that small businesses like the one she portrays (those under 50 employees) are not affected by Prop 72 – and, in fact, 93% of restaurants are smaller than 50 employees and thus not impacted.
The latest opposition ad is slated to run until October 10. For a transcript of the ad and the campaign’s response to it, go to www.yesonprop72.com.
The Yes on 72 campaign is expected to debut its own ads, featuring real people telling the truth about the health care crisis, and about the content of Proposition 72, starting this coming Monday, October 4. The release of this ad will be the focus of a rally with Treasurer Phil Angelides Monday morning at 11:00am in Sacramento.
Labels: Updates
posted by Anthony Wright |
Permalink |
8:33 AM
a
Webmaster: webmaster@health-access.org
|
|
|
Anthony Wright is the executive director, |
| with a background as a consumer advocate and community organizer on many issues, including health issues for the last ten years in California and New Jersey. |
|
|
|
Hanh Kim Quach is the policy coordinator; previously serving as |
| a newspaper reporter covering the Capitol for the Orange County Register and other papers for eight years |
|
-
-
feed
feed
Topic Search Other Blogs Our Bloggers Contact Us weblog@health-access.org
