Dept. of Stupid Vetoes...

Saturday, September 27, 2008

The Governor today vetoed SB 1633 by Senator Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica), a bill sponsored by Western Center for Law and Poverty (WCLP), and supported by Health Access California, Consumers Union, and many other consumer groups working together against medical debt.

This consumer protection bill attempted to remedy a growing problem, as identified by legal services advocates around the state. Some dentists signing people up for credit to pay for their treatment, but a few are charging them (with interest!) before the patients gets the service, or other dubious practices (signing people up under anathesia!). With the good work of Elizabeth Landsberg and others at WCLP, a compromise was reached with the dentists association, it had Republican Senator Sam Aanestad, a dentist, as a co-author, and it passed the Senate 35-3, and the Assembly 79-0. Arbor Day legislation doesn't get votes like that.

So what was the problem? Here's the veto message.

The historic delay in passing the 2008-2009 State Budget has forced me to prioritize the bills sent to my desk at the end of the year’s legislative session. Given the delay, I am only signing bills that are the highest priority for California. This bill does not meet that standard and I cannot sign it at this time.

That's the weakest excuse I've ever heard. The budget delay made me do it? What an abdication of responsibility.

What's the real reason? Pique? Politics? Phooey.

Labels: MedicalDebt, Schwarzenegger

posted by Anthony Wright | Permalink | 8:23 PM


 

Further sad economic news that will get even worse..

Thursday, September 25, 2008

More deflating news. The NY Times reports on how unpaid medical bills are creating more of a strain for families, according to a new study from the Center for Studying Health System Change.

The study shows a striking increase in the number of families with medical debt. Here are the highlights:

• 57 million Americans were in families that had problems paying medical bills last year -- a 33% increase from five years ago;
• 75% of people with medical debt *had* health insurance;
• 20% of those with medical bill problems considered filing bankruptcy. About 4% followed through with it (2.2 million Americans).

This study comes out as we see that health care premiums continue to outpace our stagnant wages. Health care, sadly, is becoming a luxury.

Labels: InTheNews, MedicalDebt, Research

posted by Hanh Kim Quach | Permalink | 1:33 PM


 

Another economic indicator...

Americans - feeling poorer and dejected -- are cutting health care out of their budgets for the first time in a decade. The article was in the Wall Street Journal this week.

Here's a striking paragraph:

The number of prescriptions filled in the U.S. fell 0.5% in the first quarter and a steeper 1.97% in the second, compared with the same periods in 2007 -- the first negative quarters in at least a decade, according to data from market researcher IMS Health. Despite an aging and growing U.S. population, the number of physician office visits also has been declining since the end of 2006. Between July 2007 and 2008, the most recent month for which data are available, visits fell 1.2%, according to IMS.

And that survey only counts the first six months of this year. I can only imagine how the numbers will slide after the economic mayhem of this quarter.

In a survey by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners last month,
22% of 686 consumers said that economy-related woes were causing them to go
to the doctor less often. About 11% said they've scaled back on prescription
drugs to save money. Some of the areas being hit include hip and knee
replacements, mammograms, and visits to the emergency room, according to a
survey conducted by D2Hawkeye Inc., a Waltham, Mass., medical data analytics
firm, on behalf of The Wall Street Journal.

Unfortunately, health care reform will become a casualty of the current banking crisis at the national level, and has already become a casualty of state and local budget crises -- at a time when public options for health care and more efficient, quality and affordable health care are needed most.

Labels: InTheNews, MedicalDebt

posted by Hanh Kim Quach | Permalink | 11:15 AM


 

It's not a joke....

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

This story from the satirical newspaper, The Onion, is actually supposed to be a joke -- but really, it's dead on:

After years of battling crippling premiums and agonizing deductibles, local resident Michael Haige finally succumbed this week to the health insurance policy that had ravaged his adult life. Haige, who had suffered from limited medical coverage for nearly a decade, passed away early Monday morning. According to sources, the 46-year-old was laid to rest at Fairplains cemetery, surrounded by friends, family members, and more than $300,000 of mounting debt.
...

According to an independent study released last month by the Mayo Clinic, health insurance is the nation's No. 2 cause of death, claiming the lives of some 400,000 Americans each year. A silent killer, health insurance often strikes without warning, its harmful and profit-based policies avoiding detection until it is far too late. Although the cruel bureaucratic disorder does not discriminate, statistics have shown that senior citizens, young dependents, and those woefully underemployed are most at risk.

Actually, there is a statistic, which relates to the uninsured. According to the Institute of Medicine, it's more like 18,000 annually who die from lack of insurance, making it the sixth most common cause of death

Labels: Funny, MedicalDebt

posted by Hanh Kim Quach | Permalink | 8:30 AM


 

I'm loving it...

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

I love the Divided We Fail/AARP commercials that are running during the Democratic National Convention that highlight how financially devastating the current health care system is to the 1.85 million Americans who must declare bankruptcy annually.

AARP has this really cool website on the stories.

Labels: MedicalDebt, YearOfReform

posted by Hanh Kim Quach | Permalink | 11:17 AM


 

A step forward! NOT a stumble...

Friday, August 22, 2008

The Riverside Press-Enterprise this week had an editorial called "Health Stumble'' bemoaning Sen. Sheila Kuehl's SB1440, which would require all health insurance offered in the state to spend at least 85% premiums on providing health care -- that is physical exams, surgery, mammograms -- you name it. SB1440 is now awaiting concurrence on the Senate Floor -- thank goodness.

They cite a Rand Corp. study which *only* looked at health plans regulated by the Department of Managed Health Care. Those health plans are not allowed to spend more than 15% on administration (of course, that doesn't count profit, but at least it's a target). But, as we know, health insurance plans in California are regulated by two agencies -- DMHC *and* the Department of Insurance.

Until a couple of years ago, some plans at the Department of Insurance (ahem, Blue Cross) spent as little as 51 cents for ever premium dollar on health care. (This we gleaned from a DOI powerpoint presentation at a public hearing). Meanwhile the company would spend 23 cents of every dollar consumers pay to use against consumers -- fighting bills for patient services, scouring health records in order to retroactively rescind policies, and other administrative costs. The remaining 27 cents is reserved for profit and executive bonuses.

That was changed and the DOI now requires that health plans spend at least 70% of their premiums on providing health care -- but that's still far short of 85%.

The Press-Enterprise argues that "medical loss ratios'' don't really tell us much about the plan's efficiency or quality of care. True -- but right now, we have *nothing*.

In an information void, such as the one we have now, the percentage of premium dollars spent on patient care is an important (though not the only) measure of a plan’s value. Unfortunately, low-value products (like the ones offered at DOI) are marketed to consumers for their low premiums. Patients do not have the actuarial expertise, or information to assess whether a particular low-premium product will actually provide them value – meaning it would pay for physician visits, drugs and other health costs when they need it.

Products that have low medical-loss ratios often:

• do not have maternity coverage,
• do not cover prescription drugs,
• have high deductibles,
• high co-insurance, and
• lack caps on how much consumers need to spend out-of-pocket for their illnesses.

Such flimsy coverage causes consumers to deter care, or leaves them saddled with medical debt. And that's a stumble.

Labels: Kuehl, Legislation, MedicalDebt, Underinsurance

posted by Hanh Kim Quach | Permalink | 1:48 PM


 

Radio break...

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Okay. I'm not as savvy as Anthony and can't figure out how to embed this funny Onion Radio piece onto the blog, so here it is:

Republican Enjoys Paying Huge Health Insurance Premiums

Labels: Funny, MedicalDebt, Republicans

posted by Hanh Kim Quach | Permalink | 10:19 AM


 

Coast to coast consumer protections...

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Congratulations to New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine, who just signed a law to prevent hospitals overcharging the uninsured. Previously in 2006, both California and New York passed comprehensive legislation to prohibit hospitals from overcharging those who don't have an insurer or government program to negotiate for them, and as a result, get charged more 3-4 times or more of what insurance companies or public program pay for the exact same service.

The New Jersey bill, described by ace health reporter Lindy Washburn of the Bergen Record, would limit charges to 15% above Medicare rates.

More information about the California law--AB774 (Chan)--is on the Health Access website. We continue to be active in making sure the law is enforced, that patients know about their rights, and to work in the policy arena against overcharging and medical debt. (Watch for more announcements this fall.) It's good to see New Jersey and other states looking at this issue, so that the consumer protections can be more widespread.

Labels: Hospitals, MedicalDebt, OtherStates

posted by Anthony Wright | Permalink | 3:30 PM


 

Another reason to pick on HSAs ...

Wednesday, August 06, 2008

Proponents of these deplorable Health Savings Accounts say they like them because consumers can take matters into their own hands in lots of ways: you can "shop around'' for care (although, I'm not sure how we do this when we don't have cost and quality transparency, yet) and you can save for health expenses in retirement.

A new EBRI study takes on the latter point head-on. Their research shows that consumers contributing the maximum to their HSAs (plus catch-up) will only have saved between 16 percent and 33 percent of what they will *actually* need in retirement to cover health expenses.

The study assumes that Medicare will cover half of what a person needs in retirement (about $376,000). With an HSA, an individual would accumlate $59,000 over 10 years (with the catch-up deposits).

A man with average health expenses and an average life span would need to have saved $132,000 to cover drugs, premiums and other out-of-pocket expenses in retirement. That's more than twice what could be saved under the HSA. And that's assuming he's average and dies on time. If he lives longer, he'd need $266,000 -- 4.5 times more than is in the HSA. In the most expensive scenario, he lives a long time with LOTS of health care needs -- he'd need $555,0000.

Women have it even worse since we live longer. A retiring woman would need $181,000 to cover drugs, premiums and other out-of-pocket expenses in retirement. A woman who lives beyond the average life span, and incurs higher than average health costs needs $654,000. Add to this the gender wage gap and......

It's unclear to me whether the savings projections EBRI takes into account the fact that consumes with HSAs will likely be using a chunk of the money they invest in the account because a prerequisite to having and HSA is being underinsured. Bush Administration rules require that consumers must be insured only by a high-deductible health plan (a deductible of *at least* $1,100) in order to open such an account. You also can't save more than the deductible, so......

Seems like a bad deal all around:
* You can't shop around
* You have a crummy health plan
* You're *still* broke in retirement.

Don't sign me up for that one.

Labels: MedicalDebt, Research, Underinsurance

posted by Hanh Kim Quach | Permalink | 12:21 PM


 

When medical debt attacks...

Wednesday, June 04, 2008

If you want to know more about the financial consequences of being uninsured, read yesterday's Wall Street Journal article by Sara Rubenstein.

In a move that consumer groups say could increase pressure on people with unpaid medical bills, some hospitals are trying out a new tactic to recoup patients' debts: They're auctioning the debt online.

Hospitals have long relied on outside collection agencies to go after debtors. Under traditional arrangements, these agencies receive a percentage of any money they get from a debtor; the more they collect, the more they earn.

Now, some of the same collection agencies, as well as other firms that purchase debt outright, have begun participating as bidders in online auctions, in which they buy the debt or provide guaranteed payments to hospitals for access to the unpaid accounts. Some experts say this gives them more reason to aggressively pursue patients in arrears. Auctions can drive up the amount paid for debt, meaning a collector must recoup more money from patients to cover its initial investment and turn a profit. And the winning bidders often get to keep all the money they collect on the auctioned debt.

Health Access California has talked to lots of Californians with medical debt, as we worked to pass AB774(Chan), to prevent hospitals from overcharging the uninsured. Invariably, the experience of these patients in dealing with the bill was worse after the bill was referred to collections, and much worse after the debt was sold. That's why AB774 included a moratorium on patients being sent to collections. There are other existing consumer protections against aggressive collections practices, but is it enough?

Winning bidders may "have to work harder" to make a profit from auctioned debt, says Michael Klozotsky, an analyst at Kaulkin Ginsberg Co., a collections-industry strategic-advice company. "Working harder means sometimes using strategies that are more aggressive.

"Many of the auctions of hospital debt have been done through Web site ARxChange.com1 -- shorthand for "accounts receivable exchange" -- owned by TriCap Technology Group. Another site is medipent.com2, run by Medipent LLC. The auction-site owners, both small companies based in New York, say their systems create safeguards that protect patients from potential abuse. Collection firms are vetted for their tactics and approach to patient needs and concerns before they are allowed to participate in auctions, the site owners say. The site owners also try to ensure that collectors comply with hospital rules -- whether they must record phone calls, for instance, or get the hospital's permission before initiating a lawsuit against a patient. Hospitals have final say over who bids on their accounts, and, on ARxChange.com, don't necessarily award the contract to the highest bidder.

Consumer advocates say patients are less likely to successfully dispute bills or negotiate them downward if they are dealing with a third-party collector rather than a hospital directly. Collectors also are further removed from hospitals' financial-assistance policies."The hospital is an institution in the community, has a reputation, in many cases has a nonprofit mission to uphold," says Anthony Wright, executive director of the consumer-advocacy coalition Health Access California. "Once it goes to collections, that starts a process that can get a lot more antagonistic, a lot more aggressive, and a lot more damaging to a family's credit history and financial future."

The federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and some state laws govern how debt collectors can treat consumers. For instance, debt collectors aren't allowed to harass consumers or make false statements, including implying they will sue if they don't intend to do so. Consumer groups say calling the medical provider or your insurer could help clarify any confusion about what you owe. The hospital also could provide information about financial assistance or charity-care.

A hospital bill is typically the biggest bill a person gets in their entire life. The first goal is to prevent these situations from happening in the first place: to make sure people are covered, or have other financial options that can help pay the bill. But in any case, patients with medical debt should have basic consumer protections. We don't want people to not go to the hospital for fear of the bill, or those who come to collect it.

Labels: Hospitals, InTheNews, MedicalDebt

posted by Anthony Wright | Permalink | 10:59 AM


 

Healthcare Armageddon

Tuesday, May 06, 2008

The New York Times had an excellent article this weekend about workers, who have health coverage through work, feeling financially strained.

The reason: businesses - unable to absorb higher health care costs - have decided that workers need to absorb more of these costs. Businesses are buying crappier coverage (this doesn't mean cheaper premiums, just cheaper than more comprehensive plans, but still expensive) and asking workers to pay a greater share of the premium. So not only are premiums for workers increasing, but the plans that they are getting are getting worse, which means higher copays, deductibles, and less coverage.

It used to be that worrying about how to pay for health care happened mostly if you didn't have insurance. Then, it started creeping into the ranks of the insured -- but only those who bought insurance on their own, without the benefit of a group buying in bulk to negotiate lower rates. Now, though, health cost worries are hitting the employer market -- where most Americans get their coverage.

One *insured* worker said he was losing the equivalent of a month's worth of pay with the higher premium and deductibles. That's in addition to the fact that the coverage isn't very good.

The Times characterized these plans as "health insurance in name only.'' I like that: essentially people are paying to be uninsured under these plans.

My health plan colleagues would argue that having some kind of coverage is better than being uninsured. No?

But is it really? At what point does debt become so crushing that it doesn't matter if the number is $60,000 or $200,000 in debt, and accruing interest. Especially considering that families that are insured, earning more than 300% of the poverty level actually have negative (-$600) net financial assets according to the latest study by Health Affairs. On an annual income of $60,000, either way, you're screwed.

Labels: Employers, InTheNews, MedicalDebt, Underinsurance

posted by Hanh Kim Quach | Permalink | 2:01 PM


 

On top of student loans...

Sunday, April 20, 2008

We are coming close to high school and college graduations, so it's a good time to spotlight this post by Henry Stern on InsureBlog on student insurance.

The young are the most likely to be uninsured, and what is offered to them isn't a very good value. The post spotlights a very typical student policy that will leave some students will have significant medical debt even before graduation.

Labels: MedicalDebt, OtherBlogs, Underinsurance, YoungAndUninsured

posted by Anthony Wright | Permalink | 2:38 PM


 

Only in LA?

Friday, April 11, 2008

For those who were not able to witness Senate Health Committee in person, this week, it's not always as boring as you might think.

Committee Chair Sheila Kuehl and Sen. Dave Cox had an interesting exchange during testimony of our bill SB1522, which would help organize the individual insurance market and place caps on out-of-pocket costs. Most importantly, it would help weed out junk coverage and require at least mimimum coverage of doctor's office visits and preventive care.

Kuehl shared a story of a caller on a radio show who had ambulance workers lay a bill on her chest as she was being wheeled into the hospital emergency room.

"Surely,'' snorted Sen. Dave Cox, R-Fair Oaks, "they would do no such thing.''

Responded Kuehl: "Yes, Sen. Cox. And a hospital in LA would surely not dump patients on Skid row in the middle of the night.''

"Well...'' grunted Cox. "Maybe in Los Angeles.''

Labels: Legislation, MedicalDebt, Underinsurance, Uninsured

posted by Hanh Kim Quach | Permalink | 2:12 PM


 

Enabling My Mother

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Here's reason #6,782 that the status quo just isn't working -- and it's purely personal.

My mother, a Buddhist in name only, cannot help but worry about everything. She worries that my 17-year-old geeky, mute brother will join an Asian gang. She worries my sister, an engineer, spent too much on a couch. And she worries I'll die commuting to work on my bike.

Now, she's worried that her retiree insurance coverage won't pay my father's recent hospital bill.

The hospital has sent a bill for about $90,000.
The anesthesiologist sent an $8,000 bill.
The physician's assistant another $1,200.

And they keep rolling in.....

She's not asking for free health care. In fact, her deductible is $1,500 with an out-of-pocket maximum of $4,000. She and my father are willing to pay every dime of that -- and continue paying the $650 a month for coverage, as long as she can be assured that the coverage actually works.

I'm sure she'll be okay, but for once, I can't say I blame her for worrying. Ordinarily, (or knowing her, maybe not) I'm not sure my mother would necessarily fret over these bills. But stories in recent years about rescissions, denial of claims, and people hitting their lifetime limits has left her feeling very unsure about whether the insurance she has will be there when she needs it. Sadly, that's how many Americans feel today.

Labels: Insurers, MedicalDebt, YearOfReform

posted by Hanh Kim Quach | Permalink | 1:46 PM


 

Falling off a cliff

Thursday, December 13, 2007

The Department of Insurance has accused Blue Shield of illegally rescinding coverage for more than 200 Californians, according to a Los Angeles Times today. Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner is seeking a $12.6 million fine.

The other insurance regulator -- Department of Managed Health Care -- is still reviewing Blue Shield's cancellation practices. If violations are found, DMHC could impose additional fines on the company.

This is the third health insurer in the past year found to have improperly rescinded policies of their enrollees. The practice involves insurers retroactively cancelling policies on patients, who seek treatment for illnesses believing they are covered. After their policies are cancelled, patients and providers are on the hook for hundreds of thousands in unpaid medical expenses.

Blue Cross and Health Net were other insurers, either fined by the state, pursued in lawsuits, or both. Court documents showed Health Net was able to avoid nearly $36 million in medical expenses, and gave bonuses to those who helped the company avoid paying to treat patients' illnesses.

I wouldn't be surprised if more big insurers were nailed to the wall for this practice in the coming months, year.

Labels: Insurers, MedicalDebt

posted by Hanh Kim Quach | Permalink | 11:19 AM


 

What's he been doing all month?

Monday, October 08, 2007

So the governor's finally gotten moving on the bill signings, with less than a week left and 596 bills to swipe his pen across.

In today's list, we have SB350 (Runner), requested by debt collectors, which makes minor technical changes to the landmark AB774 (Chan) anti-hospital overcharging bill last year. Health Access, Consumers Union and Western Center on Law and Poverty closely monitored the bill to make sure the new law, AB774, was not diluted in any way. Health Access took a neutral position on the bill.

As many may recall, consumer advocates scored a major victory -- after five years -- last year when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation that would ban hospitals from charging uninsured and underinsured patients thousands and tens of thousands of dollars for services that they charged insurance companies just a fraction (like 25% of what the uninsured paid). Uninsured and underinsured patients can now pay the same rate as Medicare.

To read more about AB774, click here.

Labels: MedicalDebt, Underinsurance, Uninsured

posted by Hanh Kim Quach | Permalink | 5:08 PM


 

Spins a web...

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

The Health Affairs study on hospital overcharging that Hanh describes got national attention, including in the blogosphere from everybody from Juls Rosen to Ezra Klein.


The issue has been a focus and passion of Health Access California for five years, and its not a surprise that California, with one of the biggest problems, was one of the first and most ambitious in passing a law to solve it. AB774(Chan) was a big victory that will help many people avoid bankruptcy, but there's more work to do: hospital charges need to become transparent to relate to actual cost; and nobody should be left alone without group coverage.


While with Ezra, check out his review of Spider-Man 3. He gives it thumbs down for dialogue, but manages to see the movie as a message for universal health care. Given how many people saw it, hopefully others see it that way as well...

Labels: Hospitals, InTheNews, MedicalDebt, OtherBlogs

posted by Anthony Wright | Permalink | 4:06 PM


 

Soaking the poor...

Health Affairs' new issue, today, contains an excellent examination of hospital overcharging practices nationwide. (The study is summarized in these LA Times and SF Chronicle articles).

Essentially, it confirms what we advocates already knew: that hospital are routinely charging uninsured patients at least 2.5 times what Medicare and insurance companies pay for the same exact procedures.

In California, it's worse, with hospitals charging 4 times what Medicare allows, making it the third most egregious state in hospital overcharging. The results are similar to a Health Access investigation in 2004 called "Your Money or Your Health", that examined one hospital chain's pricing practices by looking at bankruptcy records.

What really blows is this: When the hospitals increase what they "charge'' it means that insurers can negotiate bigger discounts -- so insurers aren't paying higher rates.

"When the hospital increases its charges,...only self-pay (uninsured or
underinsured) patients are expected to pay the higher charges.''

And really, if someone is uninsured, it's most likely because they can't afford insurance in the first place. So how on earth could they afford the highest rates? The study finds that the collection rate from the uninsured is only about 10 percent.

Basically, this practice just means huge amounts of stress for patients who must deal with their illnesses, bills, and aggressive, name-calling debt collectors banging on their doors.

Now, the Health Affairs study looks at 2004 rates. That's two years before California passed AB774(Chan), sponsored by Health Access California, which took effect on January 1 of this year. It prevents this sort of overcharging for patients who are underinsured or earn less than 350% of poverty ($35,735 for an individual). Things should be a bit better for uninsured and underinsured patients now, as Anthony said in the SF Chronicle article:

"The ER visit that might have cost thousands of dollars may now cost several
hundred or a thousand dollars, which is still a lot of money, especially for
lower-income patient," he said. "But the patient at least has a fighting chance
to pay."

Labels: Hospitals, InTheNews, MedicalDebt, Research

posted by Hanh Kim Quach | Permalink | 11:25 AM


 

For our mothers and fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers

Friday, April 27, 2007

There's a common perception out there that seniors are "taken care of'' when it comes to health care. But many adults between the ages of 55 and 64 are increasingly filing for bankruptcy as a result -- partially -- of higher health care costs, according to this LA Times article.

when you think about it, though, it's no surprise. Medicare benefits don't begin until 65. By the time you're 55, you've got a good history of pre-existing conditions, making it more expensive to cover you. And employers are looking for younger, cheaper workers -- because you cost too much in more ways than one.

More reason for us to get on the ball and do something this year.

Labels: InTheNews, MedicalDebt, Medicare

posted by Hanh Kim Quach | Permalink | 11:22 AM


 

Fair is fair. Not charity.

Thursday, April 19, 2007

California enacted landmark legislation this year that would allow uninsured -- and underinsured -- hospital patients negotiate fair rates from hospitals.

As many are well aware, if you're uninsured and end up in the emergency room, you're often charged many times what insurance companies pay for the same procedures. Patients have reported visits that cost thousands of dollars per minute. Others have gone into bankruptcy as a result of needing health care at a time they were not insured.

As a result of these unfair and aggressive billing practices by hospitals, the Legislature passed (and governor signed) AB774 (Chan) last year, which would allow uninsured and underinsured patients to pay the same rates at Medicare.

Sen. George Runner, R-Antelope Valley, this year, is authoring a bill to clarify that law. Health Access is working with Sen. Runner's office to ensure that this effort is a technical clean-up. We appreciated his public commitment at Senate Health Committee yesterday to not move the bill unless it is something that stakeholders like us agree to. We want to ensure the hard-won consumer protections stay strong and that patients are not overcharged and thrown into financial turmoil because they had the misfortune to get sick.

But one clarification of our own: in yesterday's hearing, Runner repeatedly referred to the practice of "fair hospital pricing'' as "charity care.''

The law that Senator Runner is attempting to amend is not about "charity care.'' It shouldn't be considered "charity'' if you are simply paying the same price as public programs and big insurer.

Labels: Hospitals, Legislation, MedicalDebt, Sacramento

posted by Hanh Kim Quach | Permalink | 2:59 PM


 

Credit where credit is do to protect credit...

 

Healthy lifestyles and health care

 

High Risk a Bigger Risk under McCain

 

Going uncovered...

 

An unspoken, untrue consensus...

 

McCain's Plan IS a Tax Increase on the Middle Clas...

 

Big differences between them, and bigger impacts i...

 

Job Killer? No!

 

Feint Faint

 

Vote!