The $34 trillion problem
Medicare is poised to wreak havoc on the economy. And our presidential candidates are avoiding the issue.
By Geoff Colvin, senior editor at large
Twice I have asked Alan Greenspan what he considers the greatest threat to the U.S. economy, and both times he has answered immediately with a single word: Medicare. He isn't so worried about the trade deficit and the housing crash; he figures market forces will sort them out. But Medicare is something else - a multitrillion-dollar problem that's about to get dramatically worse, and one that nobody wants to talk about. You'd think that the greatest threat to America's economy would be Topic A for the presidential candidates. But it's actually a topic they hate to touch.
Especially now. An analysis of their speeches shows that last year Senators Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Barack Obama would occasionally mention the Medicare mess. But recently, with the economy slowing and voters feeling insecure, all three candidates have turned more populist: Their economic talking points are about feel-good reassurances, not about facing hard realities.
Unfortunately the day of reckoning is imminent. Sometime in the next President's first term, Medicare Part A (hospital insurance) will go cash-flow-negative, and it's all downhill from there. Medicare provides a wide range of services and subsidies to more than 40 million old and disabled Americans. As the country ages, Medicare and Medicaid (for those of any age with low incomes) will devour growing chunks of U.S. economic output. So will Social Security, but its cut of GDP should stop increasing around 2030. The federal budget has averaged about 18% of GDP over the past several decades. If that average holds and if the rules of our social insurance programs don't change, then by 2070, when today's kids are retiring, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will consume the entire federal budget, with Medicare taking by far the largest share. No Army, no Navy, no Education Department - just those three programs.
But wait - the situation is actually much worse. Those estimates, reported in the latest Financial Report of the U.S. Government, assume that Medicare payments to doctors will be slashed drastically, by some 41% over the next nine years, as required by current law. It won't happen. Every year for the past five years, Congress has overridden the mandatory cuts. As for future cuts, the Financial Report says drily, "Reductions of this magnitude are not feasible and are very unlikely to occur fully in practice." So in reality, Medicare will go into the hole even faster than official projections reflect. And they show that if Medicare had to be accounted for like a company pension fund, it would be underfunded by $34 trillion.
Obviously those long-term scenarios won't happen, because they can't happen - we won't be shutting down the Army, Navy, and so on. But it's easy to see why the candidates don't want to discuss it. As you listen to them, keep three points in mind:
Pain-free remedies won't do the job. All three major candidates, on those rare occasions when they mention Medicare's finances, stress how they'll make the system more efficient, eliminate errors, and improve incentives. That's all wonderful, but it won't be nearly enough. Only John McCain has hinted at what else will be required, including means-testing and limits on benefits. Give him major points, but it's unlikely we'll hear much more on that theme.
Any mention of trust funds is bogus. They're too complicated to explain here, but the bottom line is that no piles of money are socked away to cover future Medicare expenses. Any money the government needs to pay out this year, it needs to take in this year, and every year.
Tax and spending plans must Include Medicare. We'll hear plenty of budget proposals over the next eight months. But without changes to Medicare, they're meaningless. Medicare will eventually overwhelm everything else in the budget, except for the interest on the mushrooming debt to pay for it.
If this is the greatest threat to the U.S. economy and the candidates haven't told us what they'd do about it, they haven't told us a thing.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Good For Your Health
Shadegg Introduces Health Care Choice Act
Washington, Dec 12, 2007 -
Shadegg Introduces Health Care Choice Act
Legislation will lower cost, make insurance more affordable for the uninsured
WASHINGTON, DC – In the era of eBay and Amazon.com, there should be a better way to shop for health insurance. Today, Congressman John Shadegg (R, AZ-3) introduced an innovative bill that empowers consumers to use the Internet and other means to find affordable health insurance policies.
The Health Care Choice Act, which has forty co-sponsors, harnesses the power of the marketplace to allow Americans to compare insurance policies from across the country and pick one that best meets their needs. It would provide every American with more and better health insurance choices. The legislation would also reduce the number of Americans who have been unable to find affordable coverage.
“People should be able to get the health insurance that best suits their needs,” Shadegg said. “Offering people choices in a nation-wide market will reduce the cost of health insurance for Americans, including the roughly 47 million uninsured.”
According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, a 25-year-old male in good health could purchase a policy for $960 a year in Kentucky. A similar policy would cost about $5,880 in New Jersey.
Shadegg concluded, “Rather than going through fifty different regulatory processes, this bill will allow an insurance company to go through one process and sell to people in all fifty states. We can help people, not by setting up a massive new government bureaucracy, but by empowering individuals to make the best choice for themselves and their families.” The following members are original co-sponsors of the Health Care Choice Act: Dan Burton (IN-5), Wally Herger (CA-2), Ron Paul (TX-14), Roscoe Bartlett (MD-6), Pete Hoekstra (MI-2), Jack Kingston (GA-1), Barbara Cubin (WY), Dan Lungren (CA-3), Mark Souder (IN-3), Zach Wamp (TN-3), Dave Weldon (FL-15), Chris Cannon (UT-3), Joe Pitts (PA-16), Pete Sessions (TX-32), Paul Ryan (WI-1), Todd Akin (MO-2), Henry Brown (SC-1), Jeff Flake (AZ-6), Darrell Issa (CA-49), Jeff Miller (FL-1), Mike Pence (IN-6), Todd Platts (PA-19), Adam Putnam (FL-12), Joe Wilson (SC-2), Marsha Blackburn (TN-7), Tom Feeney (FL-24), Trent Franks (AZ-2), Phil Gingrey (GA-11), Jeb Hensarling (TX-5), Marilyn Musgrave (CO-4), Rick Renzi (AZ-1), Charles Boustany (LA-7), John Campbell (CA-48), Virginia Foxx (NC-5), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA-5), Kenny Marchant (TX-24), Tom Price (NC-4), Michele Bachman (MN-6), David Davis (TN-1), Mary Fallin (OK-5), Luis Fortuno (PR), and Adrian Smith (NE-3).
Washington, Dec 12, 2007 -
Shadegg Introduces Health Care Choice Act
Legislation will lower cost, make insurance more affordable for the uninsured
WASHINGTON, DC – In the era of eBay and Amazon.com, there should be a better way to shop for health insurance. Today, Congressman John Shadegg (R, AZ-3) introduced an innovative bill that empowers consumers to use the Internet and other means to find affordable health insurance policies.
The Health Care Choice Act, which has forty co-sponsors, harnesses the power of the marketplace to allow Americans to compare insurance policies from across the country and pick one that best meets their needs. It would provide every American with more and better health insurance choices. The legislation would also reduce the number of Americans who have been unable to find affordable coverage.
“People should be able to get the health insurance that best suits their needs,” Shadegg said. “Offering people choices in a nation-wide market will reduce the cost of health insurance for Americans, including the roughly 47 million uninsured.”
According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, a 25-year-old male in good health could purchase a policy for $960 a year in Kentucky. A similar policy would cost about $5,880 in New Jersey.
Shadegg concluded, “Rather than going through fifty different regulatory processes, this bill will allow an insurance company to go through one process and sell to people in all fifty states. We can help people, not by setting up a massive new government bureaucracy, but by empowering individuals to make the best choice for themselves and their families.” The following members are original co-sponsors of the Health Care Choice Act: Dan Burton (IN-5), Wally Herger (CA-2), Ron Paul (TX-14), Roscoe Bartlett (MD-6), Pete Hoekstra (MI-2), Jack Kingston (GA-1), Barbara Cubin (WY), Dan Lungren (CA-3), Mark Souder (IN-3), Zach Wamp (TN-3), Dave Weldon (FL-15), Chris Cannon (UT-3), Joe Pitts (PA-16), Pete Sessions (TX-32), Paul Ryan (WI-1), Todd Akin (MO-2), Henry Brown (SC-1), Jeff Flake (AZ-6), Darrell Issa (CA-49), Jeff Miller (FL-1), Mike Pence (IN-6), Todd Platts (PA-19), Adam Putnam (FL-12), Joe Wilson (SC-2), Marsha Blackburn (TN-7), Tom Feeney (FL-24), Trent Franks (AZ-2), Phil Gingrey (GA-11), Jeb Hensarling (TX-5), Marilyn Musgrave (CO-4), Rick Renzi (AZ-1), Charles Boustany (LA-7), John Campbell (CA-48), Virginia Foxx (NC-5), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA-5), Kenny Marchant (TX-24), Tom Price (NC-4), Michele Bachman (MN-6), David Davis (TN-1), Mary Fallin (OK-5), Luis Fortuno (PR), and Adrian Smith (NE-3).
Market Based Health Care
Congress can redeem itself with a simple and cost-free cure rather than an elaborate and expensive complication. The Health Care Choice Act, sponsored by Rep. John Shadegg (R., Ariz.) and Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.), would let American consumers purchase health insurance across state lines, just as they now may shop coast to coast for mortgages.
Shadegg-DeMint would let insurers licensed in one state sell to individuals in the other 49. As such, Congress would use its constitutionally enumerated powers to liberate interstate commerce and transform 50 separate, closed markets for medical coverage into one open, national market for health insurance.
“Two-thirds of the uninsured have incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level, and most cite unaffordability as the top reason for why they are uninsured,” said Shadegg, who hopes to succeed Rep. Tom DeLay as House majority leader. “Until consumers can purchase their health care like their auto, homeowners, or life insurance, we won’t reform health care; we will only re-regulate it.”
“Just as Delaware became a magnet for banking, some states will become magnets for health insurance,” predicts Dr. David Gratzer, a physician and Manhattan Institute senior fellow, and one of this idea’s earliest proponents. “People seem to understand intuitively that it doesn’t matter whether their checks come from Delaware or New York or California. Likewise, the issues around health insurance are cost and availability rather than state of origin.”
Location matters. A health policy for a single Pennsylvanian costs roughly $1,500 annually. Cross the Delaware into New Jersey, as George Washington did in 1776, and a similar health plan costs about $4,000, thanks to government regulations.
“When doctors worsen a patient’s condition, we call it an iatrogenic ailment,” Dr. Gratzer notes. “We lack an equivalent term for when politicians aggravate a problem.”
By mandating benefits, legislators have swelled the standing army of the uninsured. As Victoria Craig Bunce and J. P. Wieske explained in their January 2005 report for the Council for Affordable Health Insurance: “Mandating benefits is like saying to someone in the market for a new car, if you can’t afford a Lexus loaded with options, you have to walk.” Making every health policy cover acupuncturists, marriage therapists, or in vitro fertilization, as some states do, looks less compassionate when such adornments drive the humble from the market. CAHI estimates that state mandates can hike insurance prices 20 to 45 percent.
“Guaranteed issue” rules, which let people wait until they ail to purchase coverage, also boost prices. Ditto “community rating.” It slaps the same government-controlled price on insurance for everyone — young or old, fit or fat — in a given jurisdiction. This is as idiotic as charging 16-year-old boys and 60-year-old widows the same amount for auto insurance.
Economics aside, Dr. Gratzer praises Shadegg-DeMint’s clinical potential. “The more people who are covered the better,” he says. “That means fewer people hesitate to get tests or follow up with physicians. Eventually, that will lead to a healthier population.”
Critics argue that letting consumers shop for health insurance will launch a dreaded “race to the bottom” as Americans buy inexpensive plans from unscrupulous insurers in unregulated states. But which states, precisely, let health insurers operate like numbers rackets? Of course, consumers could avoid questionable plans in clueless jurisdictions by patronizing reputable, sensibly supervised providers.
So, what will this cost? Nothing. Unlike nearly every action by this Republican Congress, this legislation expends no tax dollars. Your wallet is safe. For now.
Democrats routinely complain that 45 million Americans lack health insurance. Many are between jobs, young, or more prosperous, and decide to forgo insurance. Still, Democrats correctly call this a serious concern for many Americans. The Shadegg-DeMint proposal could be a key solution to this problem. Democrats should embrace this Republican idea. If they rather would deny the uninsured an expanding array of lower-cost health-coverage options, let them stand up this election year and say so.
— Deroy Murdock is a columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a senior fellow with the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in Arlington, Va.
Shadegg-DeMint would let insurers licensed in one state sell to individuals in the other 49. As such, Congress would use its constitutionally enumerated powers to liberate interstate commerce and transform 50 separate, closed markets for medical coverage into one open, national market for health insurance.
“Two-thirds of the uninsured have incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level, and most cite unaffordability as the top reason for why they are uninsured,” said Shadegg, who hopes to succeed Rep. Tom DeLay as House majority leader. “Until consumers can purchase their health care like their auto, homeowners, or life insurance, we won’t reform health care; we will only re-regulate it.”
“Just as Delaware became a magnet for banking, some states will become magnets for health insurance,” predicts Dr. David Gratzer, a physician and Manhattan Institute senior fellow, and one of this idea’s earliest proponents. “People seem to understand intuitively that it doesn’t matter whether their checks come from Delaware or New York or California. Likewise, the issues around health insurance are cost and availability rather than state of origin.”
Location matters. A health policy for a single Pennsylvanian costs roughly $1,500 annually. Cross the Delaware into New Jersey, as George Washington did in 1776, and a similar health plan costs about $4,000, thanks to government regulations.
“When doctors worsen a patient’s condition, we call it an iatrogenic ailment,” Dr. Gratzer notes. “We lack an equivalent term for when politicians aggravate a problem.”
By mandating benefits, legislators have swelled the standing army of the uninsured. As Victoria Craig Bunce and J. P. Wieske explained in their January 2005 report for the Council for Affordable Health Insurance: “Mandating benefits is like saying to someone in the market for a new car, if you can’t afford a Lexus loaded with options, you have to walk.” Making every health policy cover acupuncturists, marriage therapists, or in vitro fertilization, as some states do, looks less compassionate when such adornments drive the humble from the market. CAHI estimates that state mandates can hike insurance prices 20 to 45 percent.
“Guaranteed issue” rules, which let people wait until they ail to purchase coverage, also boost prices. Ditto “community rating.” It slaps the same government-controlled price on insurance for everyone — young or old, fit or fat — in a given jurisdiction. This is as idiotic as charging 16-year-old boys and 60-year-old widows the same amount for auto insurance.
Economics aside, Dr. Gratzer praises Shadegg-DeMint’s clinical potential. “The more people who are covered the better,” he says. “That means fewer people hesitate to get tests or follow up with physicians. Eventually, that will lead to a healthier population.”
Critics argue that letting consumers shop for health insurance will launch a dreaded “race to the bottom” as Americans buy inexpensive plans from unscrupulous insurers in unregulated states. But which states, precisely, let health insurers operate like numbers rackets? Of course, consumers could avoid questionable plans in clueless jurisdictions by patronizing reputable, sensibly supervised providers.
So, what will this cost? Nothing. Unlike nearly every action by this Republican Congress, this legislation expends no tax dollars. Your wallet is safe. For now.
Democrats routinely complain that 45 million Americans lack health insurance. Many are between jobs, young, or more prosperous, and decide to forgo insurance. Still, Democrats correctly call this a serious concern for many Americans. The Shadegg-DeMint proposal could be a key solution to this problem. Democrats should embrace this Republican idea. If they rather would deny the uninsured an expanding array of lower-cost health-coverage options, let them stand up this election year and say so.
— Deroy Murdock is a columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a senior fellow with the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in Arlington, Va.
Small Business Health Care Solution
More than 44 million Americans are uninsured, with nearly 60% of those employed by small businesses. As health care costs continue to rise, fewer employers and working families will be able to afford coverage, and the number of uninsured Americans will inevitably rise.
To make health care more affordable and accessible for small businesses, the Chamber promotes passage of legislation that would create federally regulated small business heath plans (SBHPs), also known as association health plans (AHPs). Allowing small businesses to arrange their health benefits through associations will make coverage more affordable by spreading risk among a much larger group, strengthening negotiating power with plans and providers, offering insurance across state lines, and reducing administrative costs. To appeal to their broad membership bases, associations will need to offer comprehensive benefit packages that meet a broad array of health needs and preferences.
Small Business Health Plan legislation (previously known as Association Health Plans) - has been introduced again this Congress. The House has once again passed its version of the bill. The focus is now on the Senate.
109th Congressional Action
Small business health plans (SBHPs) would make health care more affordable and accessible for small businesses. The House of Representatives has passed this legislation seven times, and President Bush has made the enactment of SBHPs a central feature of his second term health care agenda. This legislation has remained stalled in the United States Senate, for over a decade. However, the Senate did bring the legislation up for debate in May 2006.
Sen. Michael B. Enzi (R.-WY), chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, introduced new legislation, S. 1955, the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act, in November 2005, to address the concerns of SBHP opponents and to reach compromise on the issue. The Senate HELP committee passed this legislation on March 15. During Health Week (May 9-12), the Senate brought S. 1955 up for debate.
Unfortunately, May 11, we did not have enough votes to overcome a filibuster on Small Business Health Plan (SBHP) legislation (S. 1955, the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act). While it is uncertain whether the Senate will consider this legislation again this year, the response from the business community was overwhelming and you are to thank for getting the bill this far. A vote on the Senate floor is unprecedented! But SBHP legislation does not end here. Senator Enzi (WY), who proposed the legislation, will attempt to re-work the bill to attract the support necessary to win a future vote.
It is imperative to note that this is the first time in 11 years that small business health plan legislation was debated on the U.S. Senate floor. That is tremendous progress and it would not have happened without the support of small business like yours. The vote to end debate and avoid filibuster was 55 - 43. We were only five votes short of the 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster and move to a final vote.
The outcome is disappointing, but support like yours got this issue to the floor with a majority supporting it. This is the highest member response we have ever seen and you should be proud of the work you did. The stage is set for Small Business Health Plans to come up again and fare even better!
To make health care more affordable and accessible for small businesses, the Chamber promotes passage of legislation that would create federally regulated small business heath plans (SBHPs), also known as association health plans (AHPs). Allowing small businesses to arrange their health benefits through associations will make coverage more affordable by spreading risk among a much larger group, strengthening negotiating power with plans and providers, offering insurance across state lines, and reducing administrative costs. To appeal to their broad membership bases, associations will need to offer comprehensive benefit packages that meet a broad array of health needs and preferences.
Small Business Health Plan legislation (previously known as Association Health Plans) - has been introduced again this Congress. The House has once again passed its version of the bill. The focus is now on the Senate.
109th Congressional Action
Small business health plans (SBHPs) would make health care more affordable and accessible for small businesses. The House of Representatives has passed this legislation seven times, and President Bush has made the enactment of SBHPs a central feature of his second term health care agenda. This legislation has remained stalled in the United States Senate, for over a decade. However, the Senate did bring the legislation up for debate in May 2006.
Sen. Michael B. Enzi (R.-WY), chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, introduced new legislation, S. 1955, the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act, in November 2005, to address the concerns of SBHP opponents and to reach compromise on the issue. The Senate HELP committee passed this legislation on March 15. During Health Week (May 9-12), the Senate brought S. 1955 up for debate.
Unfortunately, May 11, we did not have enough votes to overcome a filibuster on Small Business Health Plan (SBHP) legislation (S. 1955, the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act). While it is uncertain whether the Senate will consider this legislation again this year, the response from the business community was overwhelming and you are to thank for getting the bill this far. A vote on the Senate floor is unprecedented! But SBHP legislation does not end here. Senator Enzi (WY), who proposed the legislation, will attempt to re-work the bill to attract the support necessary to win a future vote.
It is imperative to note that this is the first time in 11 years that small business health plan legislation was debated on the U.S. Senate floor. That is tremendous progress and it would not have happened without the support of small business like yours. The vote to end debate and avoid filibuster was 55 - 43. We were only five votes short of the 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster and move to a final vote.
The outcome is disappointing, but support like yours got this issue to the floor with a majority supporting it. This is the highest member response we have ever seen and you should be proud of the work you did. The stage is set for Small Business Health Plans to come up again and fare even better!
Health Coverage For All
No matter who becomes our next president, health care will be a major. If you're in favor of some kind of universal coverage maybe the Oregon Health Plan (OHP) is one of the options the next president should consider. It's intent was to cover those that made too much money to qualify for Medicaid but made too little to afford health insurance. The plan does not cover everything, it's a basic plan. See the following link to see the details. http://dhsforms.hr.state.or.us/Forms/Served/HE9035.pdf
One of the problems with the OHP is there are not enough funds to fully fund it, Therefore, a lottery is held when openings exist. But it might be a viable solution if we decide upon universal coverage for those who can't afford health care. For those of us who can afford it or are covered by an employer plan, well let's look at improving health insurance through reductions in cost and market based plans.
One of the problems with the OHP is there are not enough funds to fully fund it, Therefore, a lottery is held when openings exist. But it might be a viable solution if we decide upon universal coverage for those who can't afford health care. For those of us who can afford it or are covered by an employer plan, well let's look at improving health insurance through reductions in cost and market based plans.
What Is The OHP?
Beginning in 1987, a group of Oregonians, appointed by Gov. Neil Goldschmidt, including health care providers and consumers, business, labor, insurers and lawmakers, agreed on a common objective — keep Oregonians healthy. They developed a political strategy to attain their objective, answering three main questions about Oregon's health plan: who is covered, what is covered, how is it financed and delivered. They agreed that:
• All citizens should have universal access to a basic level of care• Society is responsible for financing care for poor people• There must be a process to define a “basic” level of care• The process must be based on criteria that are publicly debated, reflect a consensus of social values, and consider the good of society as a whole• The health care delivery system must encourage use of services and procedures which are effective and appropriate, and discourage over-treatment• Health care is one important factor affecting health; funding for health care must be balanced with other programs which also affect health• Funding must be explicit and economically sustainable• There must be clear accountability for allocating resources and for the human consequences of funding decisionsThe result of this debate: From 1989-1993, the Oregon Legislature passed a series of laws known collectively as the Oregon Health Plan.Senate Bill 27 (1989) extended Medicaid coverage to Oregonians with income below the federal poverty level and established a set of benefits based on a prioritized list of health services. This expansion required waivers of federal law from the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), now known as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).SB27 also created the Oregon Health Services Commission to rank medical services from most to least important to the entire population. The Legislature defines the OHP Standard and OHP Plus benefit packages from this list. The prioritized list is maintained by the Health Services Commission.The Health Services Commission, following many hours of public hearings around the state, established a prioritized list of more than 700 physical health, dental, chemical dependency and mental health services. The Legislature sets the funding level to cover a certain number of services on the list, but cannot rearrange the list.
• All citizens should have universal access to a basic level of care• Society is responsible for financing care for poor people• There must be a process to define a “basic” level of care• The process must be based on criteria that are publicly debated, reflect a consensus of social values, and consider the good of society as a whole• The health care delivery system must encourage use of services and procedures which are effective and appropriate, and discourage over-treatment• Health care is one important factor affecting health; funding for health care must be balanced with other programs which also affect health• Funding must be explicit and economically sustainable• There must be clear accountability for allocating resources and for the human consequences of funding decisionsThe result of this debate: From 1989-1993, the Oregon Legislature passed a series of laws known collectively as the Oregon Health Plan.Senate Bill 27 (1989) extended Medicaid coverage to Oregonians with income below the federal poverty level and established a set of benefits based on a prioritized list of health services. This expansion required waivers of federal law from the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), now known as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).SB27 also created the Oregon Health Services Commission to rank medical services from most to least important to the entire population. The Legislature defines the OHP Standard and OHP Plus benefit packages from this list. The prioritized list is maintained by the Health Services Commission.The Health Services Commission, following many hours of public hearings around the state, established a prioritized list of more than 700 physical health, dental, chemical dependency and mental health services. The Legislature sets the funding level to cover a certain number of services on the list, but cannot rearrange the list.
The Oregon Health Plan
Oregon holds health insurance lottery
By SARAH SKIDMORE
Oregon is conducting a one-of-a-kind lottery, and the prize is health insurance.
The state will start drawing names this week for the chance to enroll in a health care program designed for people not poor enough for Medicaid but too cash-strapped to buy their own insurance.
More than 80,000 people have signed up since registration for the lottery opened in January. Only a few thousand will be chosen for the program.
"It's better than nothing, it's at least a hope," said Shirley Krueger, 61, who signed up the first day.
It's been more than six months since she could afford to take insulin regularly for her diabetes. That puts her at higher risk for a number of complications, such as kidney failure, heart disease and blindness.
Her part-time job leaves her ineligible for her employer's insurance plan and with too little income to buy her own.
"I'm worried about it. I know it's a death sentence," Krueger said.
An estimated 600,000 people in Oregon are uninsured, according to the Oregon Department of Human Services.
Those selected in the lottery will be eligible for a standard benefit program, which was once a heralded highlight of the Oregon Health Plan.
At its peak in 1995, the program covered 132,000 Oregonians. State budget cuts forced the program to close to newcomers by 2004, but it now has several thousand openings.
The program covers their most basic health services, medications and limited dental, hospital and vision services at little or no cost.
The health insurance lottery winners will be chosen in a series of drawings that could take a few months.
"This is such a wonderful opportunity," said Ellen Pinney, director of the Oregon Health Action Campaign. "We've heard absolutely no complaints, just a lot of hope that they are the ones who will be selected."
Advocates for the uninsured say the demand for the program underscores the state's need for health coverage.
"We have pretty much returned as a state, in terms the percentage of uninsured, to where we were in the late '80s when we created (the Oregon Health Plan standard benefit)," said Barney Speight, director of the Oregon Health Fund Board.
The board is supposed to come up with a plan to address health care access and coverage for Oregonians for consideration in the 2009 legislative session.
Gov. Ted Kulongoski considers the Oregon Health Plan a basis to build on, said Anna Richter Taylor, a spokeswoman for his office. The plan has been able to maintain its benefit package for people who are aged, blind, disabled, under 19, pregnant or receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits.
But providing coverage for a larger population is a goal that could take much longer to reach.
"It's a huge challenge for one session -- it's probably going to be a sequential process," Richter Taylor said.
By SARAH SKIDMORE
Oregon is conducting a one-of-a-kind lottery, and the prize is health insurance.
The state will start drawing names this week for the chance to enroll in a health care program designed for people not poor enough for Medicaid but too cash-strapped to buy their own insurance.
More than 80,000 people have signed up since registration for the lottery opened in January. Only a few thousand will be chosen for the program.
"It's better than nothing, it's at least a hope," said Shirley Krueger, 61, who signed up the first day.
It's been more than six months since she could afford to take insulin regularly for her diabetes. That puts her at higher risk for a number of complications, such as kidney failure, heart disease and blindness.
Her part-time job leaves her ineligible for her employer's insurance plan and with too little income to buy her own.
"I'm worried about it. I know it's a death sentence," Krueger said.
An estimated 600,000 people in Oregon are uninsured, according to the Oregon Department of Human Services.
Those selected in the lottery will be eligible for a standard benefit program, which was once a heralded highlight of the Oregon Health Plan.
At its peak in 1995, the program covered 132,000 Oregonians. State budget cuts forced the program to close to newcomers by 2004, but it now has several thousand openings.
The program covers their most basic health services, medications and limited dental, hospital and vision services at little or no cost.
The health insurance lottery winners will be chosen in a series of drawings that could take a few months.
"This is such a wonderful opportunity," said Ellen Pinney, director of the Oregon Health Action Campaign. "We've heard absolutely no complaints, just a lot of hope that they are the ones who will be selected."
Advocates for the uninsured say the demand for the program underscores the state's need for health coverage.
"We have pretty much returned as a state, in terms the percentage of uninsured, to where we were in the late '80s when we created (the Oregon Health Plan standard benefit)," said Barney Speight, director of the Oregon Health Fund Board.
The board is supposed to come up with a plan to address health care access and coverage for Oregonians for consideration in the 2009 legislative session.
Gov. Ted Kulongoski considers the Oregon Health Plan a basis to build on, said Anna Richter Taylor, a spokeswoman for his office. The plan has been able to maintain its benefit package for people who are aged, blind, disabled, under 19, pregnant or receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits.
But providing coverage for a larger population is a goal that could take much longer to reach.
"It's a huge challenge for one session -- it's probably going to be a sequential process," Richter Taylor said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
