Lobby your CA Reps to Vote NO on ABX1 1 bad health reform compromise

Volunteer in your city

ABX1 1 Healthcare reform

In California, we can do way better than ABX1 1 healthcare refom, which is special interest policy that enriches the private health insurance companies.

ABX1 1 healthcare refom is inferior to SB 840 Single Payer(private care, public insurance) in 3 main ways:

1) ABX1 1 fails to provide universal coverage and SB 840 does. ABX1 1 denies 1/3 of the uninsured access to quality affordable healthcare and allows private insurers to drop people in many different ways. SB 840 covers all California residents.

2) ABX1 1 fails to control healthcare costs and SB 840 does through global budgeting. ABX1 1 costs $14 billion a year and SB 840 saves $8 billion a year.

3) ABX1 1 fails to enforce health quality controls and SB 840 does. ABX1 1 allows thousands of uncomparable private health insurance plans to set their own standards of quality. SB 840 creates one high quality, public insurance plan that is accountable to all Californians and not based on private insurance company profits.

Many groups join us in rejecting ABX1 1. Among them are The League of Women Voters of California, California Physicians Alliance, California Nurse's Union.

Private Health Insurance Foundation Analysis of ABX1 1(comments in red)

Californians to Be Covered

Estimated two-thirds of uninsured Californians. SB840 covers all California residents.
Requirements Imposed on
Consumers/ Individuals
All Californians are required to have a minimum level of coverage, to be determined by the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board (MRMIB).

If the total cost of coverage for the minimum mandated policy exceeds 6.5% of family income, then individual is exempt from the mandate.
MRMIB will consider additional exemptions in cases of serious hardship. An Individual mandate can never provide universal healthcare because many will not choose to purchase insurance. An individual mandate exists for car insurance but 20% drivers in california do not buy it.

Treatment of Self-Employed
Same individual mandate applies.
Requirements Imposed on employers
Pay or play approach - employers required to pay 2 - 6.5% of Social Security wages for employee health care expenditures or pay equivalent amount into a trust fund to allow employees to access coverage through a pool.

Sliding scaled based on payroll size of the firm.
Pay or play imposed separately for full and part-time workers. Employers who provide insurance will drop coverage to pay into trust fund because will save between 3-7.5% of payroll on healthcare costs. Employers who do not provide insurance will cry poverty as always.

Treatment of Small Employers
Lower payroll employers would pay a smaller contribution based on a sliding scale.
Changes in Provider Payments/Funding Medi-Cal rate increases for physicians to 80% of Medicare rates. Yes.This is great!
Public Program Expansions and
Support for Low-Income Individuals
Healthy Families expansion for children in families with incomes 133 - 300% FPL, regardless of immigration status, pending the appropriation of state funds.
Expands Healthy Families coverage to parents with incomes 133% - 300% FPL, pending federal approval and pending the appropriation of state funds.
Medi-Cal expansion to single Medically Indigent Adults up to 250% FPL (benefits may be less than traditional Medi-Cal).
Medi-Cal expansion (via benchmark plan with new pool) to adults ages 19 and 20 earning less than 250% FPL (benefits may be less than traditional Medi-Cal).
New coverage program for childless adults under 100% FPL (contingent on unspecified county contributions). Benefits may be less than traditional Medi-Cal; where applicable, provided through new Local Coverage Option.
Proponents envision individuals with incomes 250 - 450% FPL will receive a tax subsidy to help purchase coverage through the new pool.
Individual/ family contribution toward premium for coverage obtained through purchasing pool is linked to gross income:
0 - 150% FPL pays no premiums or out-of-pocket costs;
151 - 300% FPL pays no more than 5% of income in premiums.

Insurance Market Requirements/ Reforms:

Guaranteed Issue, Rating Reforms, and Other Requirements Imposed on Health Plans

* By 2010, all health plans required to guarantee issue and use community rating in the individual market (e.g. premiums may vary based on age and geography, not health condition) for individuals without serious medical conditions.
* Simplified medical underwriting, including standardized individual application form. Requires health plans to offer five classes of benefits to facilitate comparison shopping.Will fail. Governments have been trying these same reforms for 20 years with the same lousy results. Insurers will add many more plans so that comparisons are impossible. Insurance brokers want more plans to help sell individualized policies which then messes up the comparisons. Insurers will create many more application forms so that the one required by the government is meaningless.
* Applies rules currently regulating the small group market (such as guaranteed issue) to the mid-sized (51 – 100 employees) employer market.
* Health plans must spend 85% of premiums on patient care. Will fail because the clever accountants for insurers will figure out ways to reclassify insurance profits as patient care. How well do you think Republican administrations will enforce this?


Insurance Market
Requirements/Reforms:

Connector/Purchasing Pool

Establishes CA Cooperative Health Insurance Purchasing Program (Cal-CHIPP) to be administered by MRMIB to negotiate and purchase health insurance for eligible enrollees.

Maximum contribution cannot exceed 5% of family income for families earning less than 300% FPL.
MRMIB would set premiums for those earning less than 300% FPL to meet the 5% requirement.

Insurance Market
Requirements/Reforms:

Participant Contribution to Obtain
Coverage Through Purchasing Pool

* Maximum contribution cannot exceed 5% of family income for families earning less than 300% FPL.
* MRMIB would set premiums for those earning less than 300% FPL to meet the 5% requirement.
Cost Containment:

* Establishes a new Health Care Cost and Quality Transparency Commission to establish a cost, quality, and transparency plan.
* Cap on health plan administrative costs and profits (must spend 85% of premiums on patient care).
* Makes a variety of changes aimed at increasing health care quality and efficiency and reducing costs, including changes to professional scope of practice, promotion of PHRs in CalPERS, and requirements on pharmacies for e-prescribing.

These are cosmetic. Private insurance companies have never and will never contain overall healthcare costs.

Enforcement Plan envisions uninsured individuals would be automatically enrolled in the state pool.
 
Find Your City Team | Donate | Sign Petition | About Us |Senate Bill 840 | Tell story | Our Coalition | Press | Materials | Contact Us | Volunteer | Tell a Friend | Privacy | Home