|
|
|
Congress Should
Reject the "Access" Provisions in the
Fletcher Bill and Enact the FamilyCare Act of 2001
Increasing access
to health care coverage must be our number one priority.
-- Congressman John Boehner (OH), June 28, 2001
[W]ith all this talk
about a patients' bill of rights, the most important thing we should talk about,
I think, is the working uninsured, those who have gone without.
-- Congressman Sam Johnson (TX), July 20, 2001
If we are concerned
about quality care being provided to everyone, then we have to address the issue
of the uninsured.
-- Senator Rick Santorum (PA), June 29, 2001
I would like very
much for us to do more about uninsured in this country.
-- Senator Trent Lott (MS), July 16, 2001.
Throughout the congressional debate over managed care reform, Members of Congress
from both parties have repeatedly stated a commitment to reducing the number
of uninsured Americans. Indeed, the leading House leadership-backed proposal,
introduced by Congressman Ernie Fletcher, includes provisions which supporters
claim will increase access to insurance. In reality, however, these measures
in the Fletcher bill are unlikely to increase the affordability of comprehensive
health coverage and are likely to have harmful side-effects.
Consumers Union urges Members of Congress instead to support the Kennedy-Snowe FamilyCare Act, which will be introduced in the Senate on July 25, and in the House in the near future. Unlike the Fletcher bill, the FamilyCare Act would make real progress in making comprehensive health coverage affordable to the nation's most vulnerable consumers. Consumers Union also urges Congress to enact a strong Bipartisan Patient Protection Act, introduced in the House by Congressmen Ganske, Dingell, Norwood and Berry (H.R. 2563) and passed by the Senate (S.1052).
The table below contrasts the "access"
provisions in the Fletcher bill with the FamilyCare Act.
| Impact on Consumers: | Fletcher Patients' Bill of Rights Act (H.R. 2315) | Kennedy-Snowe
FamilyCare Act |
| Key
provisions relating to access to health insurance: |
·
Full expansion of Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs), including expanded tax
deductions · Federally certified association health plans (AHPs) |
·
Expands Medicaid and SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program) to
cover parents of enrolled children · Expands coverage to include children who are legal immigrants · Allows states to expand Medicaid and SCHIP to cover 19 and 20 year-olds · Simplifies administrative hurdles for Medicaid and SCHIP; creates uniform application procedures; eliminates assets test in Medicaid and SCHIP for parents and children |
| Will the bill expand health insurance coverage? | UNLIKELY · Unlikely to lead to significant increase in coverage, because does not make coverage affordable to those presently uninsured. |
YES · Makes coverage affordable for several new categories of uninsured, including parents of children enrolled in Medicaid and SCHIP, 19- and 20 year-olds, and certain immigrants. Likely to lead to significant decrease in the uninsured, including children currently eligible but not yet enrolled in Medicaid and SCHIP. |
| Will the bill provide comprehensive health care coverage? | NO · MSA provisions likely to lead to limited coverage for many families, with deductibles as high as $4,500. · Likely to lead to skimpy coverage for many since AHPs are exempt from state benefit mandates such as mammography screening, cervical cancer screening and bone marrow transplants, to name just a few examples. |
YES · Families newly covered by this bill will have comprehensive benefits available through both Medicaid and SCHIP. |
| Impact on Consumers: | Fletcher Patients' Bill of Rights Act (H.R. 2315) | Kennedy-Snowe
FamilyCare Act |
| Is the expansion of coverage cost-effective, and consistent with the congressional budget resolution? | NO · Tax expenditures from MSAs are not cost-effective, since a large portion of the new tax expenditure is spent on people who were previously insured (but shift from comprehensive coverage to high deductible coverage). · The bill does not include a means of paying for the MSA tax expenditure, which is likely to cost several billion dollars over the next ten years. |
YES · New expenditures are targeted to a low-income population that was largely previously uninsured, underinsured, or bearing an unreasonably high financial burden for paying for coverage. · The congressional budget resolution for FY2002 includes $28 billion (for 2002-2004), to provide health insurance for the uninsured. This is the projected cost of the FamilyCare bill. |
| Does the bill have detrimental side-effects such as higher premiums for the sick? | YES · Expanded MSAs likely to increase premiums for those who remain in traditional low-deductible coverage, typically less-healthy people. · Selection of the healthy into AHPs likely to result in increased premiums for those in non-AHP coverage. |
NO · No negative side-effects are anticipated. |
| Does the bill undermine state health policy? | YES · AHP expansion opposed by National Association of Insurance Commissioners and the National Governors Association because AHPs undermine state insurance regulation. · Most serious undermining of state regulation (by AHPs) occurs in the states that have done the most to spread the cost of health care coverage broadly across the healthy and sick. |
NO · Builds on state-administered Medicaid and SCHIP programs, with increased federal revenues. |
For
more information, contact Gail Shearer, Consumers
Union Washington, DC Office,
at (202) 462-6262.
See also http://www.consumersunion.org/health/health.htm.
July 25, 2001
[ Health
] [ Finance
] [ Food
] [ Product
] [ Telecom
] [ Other
]
[ About
CU ] [ News
] [ Resources
] [ Tips
] [ Search
]
[ Home
]
Please contact us at: http://www.consumersunion.org/contact.htm
All information ©2001 Consumers Union