Healthcare
Healthcare "Reform" Hurts AZ Pt. II
November 25 2009 09:50
By Representative Nancy Barto (R-Legislative District 7)
Far from achieving the objectives of providing healthcare to all Americans and lowering costs, Arizona citizens can count on these outcomes instead if healthcare “reform” passes as is:
Increased unemployment
The imposition of $135 billion in new taxes on businesses who cannot afford to finance their workers’ health coverage will increase unemployment.
Even the Congressional Budget Office confirmed that this tax on jobs, called a “pay-or-play” mandate, “could reduce the hiring of low-wage workers,” and that as many as 5.5 million jobs could be lost as a result of the new taxes.
The employer mandate isn’t the only new tax targeting businesses.
The bill includes nearly half a trillion dollars in other taxes – including a surtax on the so-called “wealthy” that actually hit more than half of small businesses right where they live.
This will greatly stifle job creation and hinder expansion at a time when unemployment is at a 26 year high. Together this equals new taxes totaling $729.5 billion just on businesses.
Unfunded mandate on states
Arizona is $2 billion in the red this year and the 2011 budget is looking almost twice as bad - yet Washington’s plan forces states to increase eligibility in their Medicaid programs, costing Arizona as much as $5.9 billion more over five years.
Governor Brewer expressed these concerns in the Arizona Republic, saying, “We can’t afford it. We can’t afford the AHCCCS program we have currently.”
Which is why Congress included a $90 billion Medicaid bailout in the “Stimulus” package and another $23.5 billion bailout in this bill.
Higher insurance costs
Contrary to Congress’ goal to lower healthcare costs, this plan will raise the cost of insurance significantly - for everyone. Here’s why:
First, new Federal rules mandate all plans, whether private, employer or government-run, will have to meet minimum benefits standards and comply with community rating and guaranteed issue mandates. We would basically model the nation’s plan after what the state of New York put in place in the early 1990’s. Their average premiums in the individual market are more than twice the national average and still 14% of the population remains uninsured.
Second, the bill does not allow for lower cost plans, such as high deductible health plans and consumer-directed accounts like HSAs, to exist going forward, removing this option for 5% of Americans under 65.
Third, young and healthy persons, whose insurance premiums now cost about ¼ the average premium paid by individuals aged 60-64, will subsidize the premiums of more disease-prone and older adults under the new plan - and it will cost them. As a result, many will choose or be forced to pay the 2.5% of their income in penalties rather than the high cost of insurance. Mandates don’t work. Hawaii has had an individual insurance mandate since 1973 and a 10% uninsured rate.
Healthcare freedom threatened
Nowhere does the United States Constitution provide Congress the right to force its citizens to purchase health insurance.
This bill usurps fundamental freedoms Arizonans enjoy - to be able to purchase health care privately and whether or not to participate in a health plan.
The Arizona Legislature referred the Arizona Healthcare Freedom Act to the ballot next year so Arizona citizens have the opportunity to preserve these fundamental rights in our state constitution.
Real and substantive health care reforms are critical to Arizona, but only with freedom as a foundation.
Far from achieving the objectives of providing healthcare to all Americans and lowering costs, Arizona citizens can count on these outcomes instead if healthcare “reform” passes as is:
Increased unemployment
The imposition of $135 billion in new taxes on businesses who cannot afford to finance their workers’ health coverage will increase unemployment.
Even the Congressional Budget Office confirmed that this tax on jobs, called a “pay-or-play” mandate, “could reduce the hiring of low-wage workers,” and that as many as 5.5 million jobs could be lost as a result of the new taxes.
The employer mandate isn’t the only new tax targeting businesses.
The bill includes nearly half a trillion dollars in other taxes – including a surtax on the so-called “wealthy” that actually hit more than half of small businesses right where they live.
This will greatly stifle job creation and hinder expansion at a time when unemployment is at a 26 year high. Together this equals new taxes totaling $729.5 billion just on businesses.
Unfunded mandate on states
Arizona is $2 billion in the red this year and the 2011 budget is looking almost twice as bad - yet Washington’s plan forces states to increase eligibility in their Medicaid programs, costing Arizona as much as $5.9 billion more over five years.
Governor Brewer expressed these concerns in the Arizona Republic, saying, “We can’t afford it. We can’t afford the AHCCCS program we have currently.”
Which is why Congress included a $90 billion Medicaid bailout in the “Stimulus” package and another $23.5 billion bailout in this bill.
Higher insurance costs
Contrary to Congress’ goal to lower healthcare costs, this plan will raise the cost of insurance significantly - for everyone. Here’s why:
First, new Federal rules mandate all plans, whether private, employer or government-run, will have to meet minimum benefits standards and comply with community rating and guaranteed issue mandates. We would basically model the nation’s plan after what the state of New York put in place in the early 1990’s. Their average premiums in the individual market are more than twice the national average and still 14% of the population remains uninsured.
Second, the bill does not allow for lower cost plans, such as high deductible health plans and consumer-directed accounts like HSAs, to exist going forward, removing this option for 5% of Americans under 65.
Third, young and healthy persons, whose insurance premiums now cost about ¼ the average premium paid by individuals aged 60-64, will subsidize the premiums of more disease-prone and older adults under the new plan - and it will cost them. As a result, many will choose or be forced to pay the 2.5% of their income in penalties rather than the high cost of insurance. Mandates don’t work. Hawaii has had an individual insurance mandate since 1973 and a 10% uninsured rate.
Healthcare freedom threatened
Nowhere does the United States Constitution provide Congress the right to force its citizens to purchase health insurance.
This bill usurps fundamental freedoms Arizonans enjoy - to be able to purchase health care privately and whether or not to participate in a health plan.
The Arizona Legislature referred the Arizona Healthcare Freedom Act to the ballot next year so Arizona citizens have the opportunity to preserve these fundamental rights in our state constitution.
Real and substantive health care reforms are critical to Arizona, but only with freedom as a foundation.
Healthcare "Reform" Hurts AZ Pt. I
November 23 2009 13:16
By Rep. Nancy Barto (R-Legislative District 7)
Congress’ Healthcare “Reform” bill is a mere handful of votes shy of passage.
Far from achieving the objectives of providing healthcare to all Americans and lowering costs, Arizona citizens can count on these outcomes instead:
Fundamental change in the standard of care. While more people may technically be “covered,” over-utilization of services will lead to longer waits for health care and inevitable rationing of care.
Not to worry, though. The bill plans for this.
A 15-member health commission, much like those in countries with similar nationalized healthcare, will have extraordinary powers to dictate what is covered, for whom and how it will be paid for.
This change will bring a fundamental shift to our system - from doctors providing medical treatment based upon whether it is safe and effective to a cost-effectiveness standard.
Trust between the doctor and patient will be compromised as patients question in whose best interest their doctor may be acting. Reducing medical care to a commodity-driven business model places every patient’s life at the mercy of a panel’s worthiness criteria.
Being denied care or waiting to see your primary care physician, or obtain diagnostic tests results in inferior medical outcomes and higher mortality rates, such as are evidenced in Canada and the U.K. Why these outcomes are not an integral part of the healthcare debate is troubling.
There is a reason medical tourism is booming business in the U.S. We have the best medical care in the world.
Most other nations, especially those with nationalized healthcare, lack what it takes to be the best – a system that rewards the best – the best hospitals, the best surgeons, the best drug therapies available.
Is it a coincidence that the incentives in medicine drive medical innovation? Changing the incentives will also drive physicians out of the profession as they will no longer be caring for patients, but delivering treatment according to formula.
Practicing physicians will be further negatively affected by this bill as it does not address a major cause of rising costs of health care: medical malpractice lawsuits.
An AMA survey reported 93% of physicians report practicing defensive medicine, costing the U.S. $865 billion in indirect costs. Instead, the plan rewards states that ignore this issue and withholds funding from those that cap non-economic damages and pass other tort reforms.
Under the current system people are divorced from health care cost considerations since a third party – either an employer or insurance – is managing them. Fixing this disconnect is key to promoting an economically and physically fit citizenry.
In other words, people taking responsibility for their health, staying well and spending their healthcare dollars wisely. Instead, Congress’ plan emulates failing government programs that do just the opposite. The result is an unsustainable Medicare system with a $38 trillion liability...
Congress’ Healthcare “Reform” bill is a mere handful of votes shy of passage.
Far from achieving the objectives of providing healthcare to all Americans and lowering costs, Arizona citizens can count on these outcomes instead:
Fundamental change in the standard of care. While more people may technically be “covered,” over-utilization of services will lead to longer waits for health care and inevitable rationing of care.
Not to worry, though. The bill plans for this.
A 15-member health commission, much like those in countries with similar nationalized healthcare, will have extraordinary powers to dictate what is covered, for whom and how it will be paid for.
This change will bring a fundamental shift to our system - from doctors providing medical treatment based upon whether it is safe and effective to a cost-effectiveness standard.
Trust between the doctor and patient will be compromised as patients question in whose best interest their doctor may be acting. Reducing medical care to a commodity-driven business model places every patient’s life at the mercy of a panel’s worthiness criteria.
Being denied care or waiting to see your primary care physician, or obtain diagnostic tests results in inferior medical outcomes and higher mortality rates, such as are evidenced in Canada and the U.K. Why these outcomes are not an integral part of the healthcare debate is troubling.
There is a reason medical tourism is booming business in the U.S. We have the best medical care in the world.
Most other nations, especially those with nationalized healthcare, lack what it takes to be the best – a system that rewards the best – the best hospitals, the best surgeons, the best drug therapies available.
Is it a coincidence that the incentives in medicine drive medical innovation? Changing the incentives will also drive physicians out of the profession as they will no longer be caring for patients, but delivering treatment according to formula.
Practicing physicians will be further negatively affected by this bill as it does not address a major cause of rising costs of health care: medical malpractice lawsuits.
An AMA survey reported 93% of physicians report practicing defensive medicine, costing the U.S. $865 billion in indirect costs. Instead, the plan rewards states that ignore this issue and withholds funding from those that cap non-economic damages and pass other tort reforms.
Under the current system people are divorced from health care cost considerations since a third party – either an employer or insurance – is managing them. Fixing this disconnect is key to promoting an economically and physically fit citizenry.
In other words, people taking responsibility for their health, staying well and spending their healthcare dollars wisely. Instead, Congress’ plan emulates failing government programs that do just the opposite. The result is an unsustainable Medicare system with a $38 trillion liability...
Rep. Andy Tobin Receives Award from Arizona Hospital & Healthcare Association
October 27 2009 15:03
Last week House Majority Whip Andy Tobin (R-Paulden) was honored by the Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association (AzHHA) with a Legislative Appreciation Award for going above and beyond the call of duty this past legislative session in support of Arizona’s hospital community.
“I feel extremely fortunate to be recognized by the Arizona Hospital Association. The importance of access to adequate healthcare in rural Arizona is an extremely important issue for the citizens I represent,” Rep. Tobin said. “I’m glad to know my support helped my community,” he added.
This is the third recognition award Rep. Tobin received this year for his legislative leadership on a myriad of political issues in 2009, including the Legislator of the Year by the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
In addressing relationships with Rep. Tobin and other supportive members of the legislature, AzHHA President John Rivers said, “Working together, these lawmakers championed a fiscal year 2010 budget that protected hospitals and the patients they serve. They are dedicated public servants who deserve the hospital community’s recognition.”
For more information about the presentation of this award, please contact Rep. Andy Tobin at 602-926-5172 or via email at atobin@azleg.gov.
About Rep. Andy Tobin:
Rep. Andy Tobin was elected to the Arizona House of Representatives in 2006, where he served as Vice-Chairman of the House K-12 Education Committee. In 2008, he was re-elected to the House and was also elected by his peers to serve as the Majority Whip. In addition to his leadership duties, he also serves on the Banking and Insurance Committee and Rules Committee.
He is the past national president of the U.S. Junior Chamber of Commerce and during his tenure worked hand-in-hand with the Reagan and Bush administrations on passage of the Line Item Veto and Balanced Budget Amendment. Locally, Rep. Tobin has served as a member of the Sharlot Hall Museum Executive Board of Directors; Prescott Good Gun; Arizona Rifle and Pistol Associations; the National Rifle Association; the Phoenix and Prescott Area Jaycees; and the Prescott, Chino Valley and Prescott Valley Chambers of Commerce.
AHCCCS NOT A Model for The Nation
September 25 2009 09:54
Rep. Matt Heinz recently wrote an op/ed for The Arizona Republic titled, “AHCCCS a model for nation.” Although on many levels AHCCCS is a very well-managed program, without continual cash infusions from the taxpayers, AHCCCS is a model for financial instability and care rationing down the road.
AHCCCS is Arizona’s Medicaid program that provides free healthcare for Arizona’s poor. The state’s program has doubled in size over the past 10 years and just in the past four months, enrollment has increased by another 100,000. AHCCCS is one of Arizona’s largest programs and eats up 16 percent of the state’s entire budget at a cost of $1.5 billion to the General Fund.
The state deficit and the growing need is straining the program to the point where it may be necessary to re-evaluate which medical services may need to be eliminated to control costs. The program may need to cut reimbursement rates to providers even further.
AHCCCS already underpays physicians and hospitals at rates 20 to 30 percent below the actual cost of care, shifting costs onto private insurance. In true trickle down fashion, those costs are passed onto businesses and employees who must pay higher costs to receive the same type of health coverage.
AHCCCS is currently an unsustainable model and from various bills floating around in the U.S. Senate, the program’s costs will likely increase again by $1.2 billion to $5.9 billion depending upon how many people are eligible for the program.
Clearly Arizona’s Medicaid system cannot sustain itself. It is expanding rapidly, and has a detrimental affect on the private sector. Based on these factors it is unclear how AHCCCS can be a national model for the healthcare reform debate.
Some better ideas for healthcare reform may include incentives for wellness and prevention care and perhaps allow individuals to purchase health care plans across state lines, which would drive down costs and provide a wider menu of options.
AHCCCS is Arizona’s Medicaid program that provides free healthcare for Arizona’s poor. The state’s program has doubled in size over the past 10 years and just in the past four months, enrollment has increased by another 100,000. AHCCCS is one of Arizona’s largest programs and eats up 16 percent of the state’s entire budget at a cost of $1.5 billion to the General Fund.
The state deficit and the growing need is straining the program to the point where it may be necessary to re-evaluate which medical services may need to be eliminated to control costs. The program may need to cut reimbursement rates to providers even further.
AHCCCS already underpays physicians and hospitals at rates 20 to 30 percent below the actual cost of care, shifting costs onto private insurance. In true trickle down fashion, those costs are passed onto businesses and employees who must pay higher costs to receive the same type of health coverage.
AHCCCS is currently an unsustainable model and from various bills floating around in the U.S. Senate, the program’s costs will likely increase again by $1.2 billion to $5.9 billion depending upon how many people are eligible for the program.
Clearly Arizona’s Medicaid system cannot sustain itself. It is expanding rapidly, and has a detrimental affect on the private sector. Based on these factors it is unclear how AHCCCS can be a national model for the healthcare reform debate.
Some better ideas for healthcare reform may include incentives for wellness and prevention care and perhaps allow individuals to purchase health care plans across state lines, which would drive down costs and provide a wider menu of options.
Affordable Coverage W/O More Government
September 21 2009 10:17
By Representative Nancy Barto (R-Legislative District 7)
We all want the same thing – protection from catastrophic illness and the security of affordable health coverage in the future. To their credit, Americans have read the bills working their way through Congress and are objecting to the health care rationing and control over their health care quality and decisions. Can we achieve health care solutions without Obamacare? Absolutely!
The 5 percent of Americans under 65 owning Health Savings Accounts (just since 2003) signals a marked shift toward patients rather than insurance companies directing their health care – and with positive results. Forty-one percent of these were previously uninsured and nearly half have incomes of $50,000 or less. Studies show they are offered more wellness incentives and are more likely to use preventive care. Congress’ plans for insurance standardization and mandates will stop this progress.
Plus, Arizonans will have lower cost insurance options since our reform-minded Legislature changed the law this session. Why should everyone be forced to buy the same “Cadillac” coverage – including such benefits as maternity for adopted children or drug treatment – when one without meets their needs? “Government-approved” mandate-laden insurance, as proposed by Congress and that Massachusetts passed, greatly increases premiums, causes over-utilization of services, under-compliance and fewer choices – especially for the young and healthy who would rather pay penalties than high priced premiums.
Arizona also passed significant medical liability reform this session which will bring doctors to the state and discourage defensive medicine practices to avoid frivolous malpractice lawsuits. Ninety-three percent of U.S. physicians admit to practicing defensive medicine at a cost of $210 billion in 2008 and another $865 billion in indirect costs annually. These are reforms the President and Congress have rejected completely.
Nearly one in five Arizonans lacks health coverage largely due to government’s failure, not market failure, to correct the perverse incentives and over-regulation that drive up costs in both.
Before selling yet another government panacea to the American people – Congress should stop the billions of dollars of waste in the Medicaid and Medicare systems – moving them towards solvency. To increase competition it should enable cross-state purchasing and stop the tax discrimination preventing affordable and portable insurance for individuals.
If, in the end, heavy-handed policies are forced upon the states, Arizona will have Constitutional protection – the Arizona Health Care Freedom Act – as a defense if passed next year at the ballot. At last count 13 other states are taking similar stands against government intrusion into their health care decisions and mandates.
Critics of the vocal opposition to Congress’ plans, such as E.J. Montini (“Uninsured Lost Amid the Shouting”), consistently claim opponents support the status quo and are fine leaving the uninsured problem unresolved. But thorough reporting of the patient-centered reform proposals in Congress – such as individual tax credits – and policies transforming health care in Arizona and other states – like risk pools – would add balance to the discussion.
We are witnessing engaged Americans who stand ready for an honest debate on health care reform. Choosing which direction it takes is not above their pay grade and may even give real hope to those whose only hope, we’re told, lies in more government control and loss of their own.
We all want the same thing – protection from catastrophic illness and the security of affordable health coverage in the future. To their credit, Americans have read the bills working their way through Congress and are objecting to the health care rationing and control over their health care quality and decisions. Can we achieve health care solutions without Obamacare? Absolutely!
The 5 percent of Americans under 65 owning Health Savings Accounts (just since 2003) signals a marked shift toward patients rather than insurance companies directing their health care – and with positive results. Forty-one percent of these were previously uninsured and nearly half have incomes of $50,000 or less. Studies show they are offered more wellness incentives and are more likely to use preventive care. Congress’ plans for insurance standardization and mandates will stop this progress.
Plus, Arizonans will have lower cost insurance options since our reform-minded Legislature changed the law this session. Why should everyone be forced to buy the same “Cadillac” coverage – including such benefits as maternity for adopted children or drug treatment – when one without meets their needs? “Government-approved” mandate-laden insurance, as proposed by Congress and that Massachusetts passed, greatly increases premiums, causes over-utilization of services, under-compliance and fewer choices – especially for the young and healthy who would rather pay penalties than high priced premiums.
Arizona also passed significant medical liability reform this session which will bring doctors to the state and discourage defensive medicine practices to avoid frivolous malpractice lawsuits. Ninety-three percent of U.S. physicians admit to practicing defensive medicine at a cost of $210 billion in 2008 and another $865 billion in indirect costs annually. These are reforms the President and Congress have rejected completely.
Nearly one in five Arizonans lacks health coverage largely due to government’s failure, not market failure, to correct the perverse incentives and over-regulation that drive up costs in both.
Before selling yet another government panacea to the American people – Congress should stop the billions of dollars of waste in the Medicaid and Medicare systems – moving them towards solvency. To increase competition it should enable cross-state purchasing and stop the tax discrimination preventing affordable and portable insurance for individuals.
If, in the end, heavy-handed policies are forced upon the states, Arizona will have Constitutional protection – the Arizona Health Care Freedom Act – as a defense if passed next year at the ballot. At last count 13 other states are taking similar stands against government intrusion into their health care decisions and mandates.
Critics of the vocal opposition to Congress’ plans, such as E.J. Montini (“Uninsured Lost Amid the Shouting”), consistently claim opponents support the status quo and are fine leaving the uninsured problem unresolved. But thorough reporting of the patient-centered reform proposals in Congress – such as individual tax credits – and policies transforming health care in Arizona and other states – like risk pools – would add balance to the discussion.
We are witnessing engaged Americans who stand ready for an honest debate on health care reform. Choosing which direction it takes is not above their pay grade and may even give real hope to those whose only hope, we’re told, lies in more government control and loss of their own.
Nancy Barto is the Chair of the House Health and Human Services Committee and represents District 7. She can be reached at 602-926-5766 or via email at nbarto@azleg.gov
Legislators To Discuss H1N1 Flu
September 16 2009 09:21
Tomorrow a joint meeting between the House and Senate health committees will hear from state and county officials about the novel H1N1 flu virus, commonly referred to as “swine flu,” and vaccine safety, vaccine supplies and mass vaccination planning.
According to Rep. Nancy Barto, House Health and Humans Services Committee chair, this meeting is timely, important and designed to answer Legislators’ questions about vaccinations.
“Legislators want the opportunity to talk with state and county public officials about the swine flu to address specific questions and concerns they are hearing from their constituents,” Rep. Barto said.
Addressing the joint health meeting will be Interim Director of the Arizona Department of Health Services Will Humble and Dr. Bob England from the Maricopa County Department of Public Health. In addition to discussing vaccine safety, each will also talk about the state and county H1N1 response plans, school readiness and public outreach efforts.
“Arizona needs to be ready to handle this upcoming flu season and this joint meeting will help us see how ready we really are,” Rep. Barto explained. “Federal officials are saying that up to 40 percent of the U.S. population could develop H1N1 symptoms this flu season and thousands could die. Reports are breaking about the fact there is a problem with vaccine production,” she said. “We need to know what this means for the state of Arizona and how we plan to respond.”
This joint meeting will answer that and many other questions about the H1N1 flu season. The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, September 17, 2009 at 2:00 p.m. in Senate Hearing Room 1. All members on both committees are expected to attend.
To review the agenda for the meeting, click here.
Robb: "Dems Should Come Clean On Health Care"
July 22 2009 10:59
Arizona Republic columnist Bob Robb says Democrats need to be honest when it comes to the actual health care proposals that are being considered. He says:
“On health care, Democrats would do the country a big favor if they could muster the courage of their convictions.
Everyone knows that, in their heart of hearts, Democrats believe that health care should be a public good for which government is responsible.
And everyone knows that, in their heart of hearts, Democrats believe that the best and most effective and efficient way for government to discharge this responsibility is through a government health service such as exists in Western Europe and
Canada.
Politically, however, Democrats fear that is a step too far for the American people. Most people feel that health care can be improved but are generally satisfied with the employer-based coverage they currently have. The Clinton administration's health care reforms are widely believed to have failed because they put the health care coverage people already had at risk...”
To read the rest of the article, click on this link.
“On health care, Democrats would do the country a big favor if they could muster the courage of their convictions.
Everyone knows that, in their heart of hearts, Democrats believe that health care should be a public good for which government is responsible.
And everyone knows that, in their heart of hearts, Democrats believe that the best and most effective and efficient way for government to discharge this responsibility is through a government health service such as exists in Western Europe and
Canada.
Politically, however, Democrats fear that is a step too far for the American people. Most people feel that health care can be improved but are generally satisfied with the employer-based coverage they currently have. The Clinton administration's health care reforms are widely believed to have failed because they put the health care coverage people already had at risk...”
To read the rest of the article, click on this link.
Rep. Barto Corrects Misinformation On Healthcare Referral
July 02 2009 13:31
There is much confusion about Arizona’s “Freedom of Choice in Healthcare Act” in both process and substance.
It’s not a bill in the normal sense, but a referral that will go to the voters to decide in the next General election, which will take place in November 2010.
Regarding the substance of the referral, some people were misled by an interview on MSNBC with Ed Schultz in which he made several quips that said the bill will limit their options for healthcare.
It actually does the opposite.
Instead of being forced to pay for a one size fits all government plan that will limit the quality and care of coverage, this plan does two things:
- Ensures government cannot restrict an individual’s choice of health care
- Ensures government cannot force businesses or individuals to purchase a particular plan
Proponents of the Obama healthcare plan say nationalized healthcare is merely another option people will have and that private insurers shouldn’t be scared of competition.
As Rep. Barto has rightly said “government cannot be the regulator and the competitor at the same time.”
Please see the FOX interview for more information.
House To Hear Health Care Freedom Act
May 22 2009 16:51
Health and Human Services Committee Chairwoman Nancy Barto is holding a hearing on Tuesday, May 26th on HCR2014, “The Arizona Health Care Freedom Act,” which is designed to secure the rights of Arizonans by allowing them to spend their money on the health care of their choice.
The resolution, if passed by the Legislature, will go to the ballot in 2010. While a similar measure, Prop. 101, was narrowly defeated in 2008, HCR2014 has been specifically re-worked to address concerns the Arizona Health Care Freedom Act (AHCFA) might interfere with government programs for low-income residents.
“It is not the intent of the legislation to risk publicly-funded programs but to prevent the state from forcing residents to be subject to the practice of medicine by government,” Rep. Barto says.
According to John Graham of the Pacific Research Institute, “the plain language of the AHCFA makes clear the state cannot forbid any Arizonan from buying private health insurance, but neither can it compel him to do so. It protects Arizonans from either a government-monopoly system (like Canada’s), or mandatory private health insurance (imposed in Massachusetts in 2006).”
Citing examples from the British government imposed National Health Service (NHS) and Canada’s taxpayer-funded “universal” healthcare, Mr. Graham describes how other single-payer health care systems have prevented citizens from ‘topping up’ government-rationed health care with their own funds.
“A recent NHS scandal involves breast-cancer patients taking the new drug, Avastin, for which the NHS would not pay. The NHS told some patients that the bureaucracy would give them no breast-cancer care at all if they paid for Avastin with their own money, although their doctors had prescribed it. Supporters of government monopoly argued that it was unfair that some citizens were able to pay for Avastin and others not - even though the state would not provide it at all.”
HCR2014 supporters are concerned that new federal legislation will mandate similar laws and regulations in the U.S., making it illegal for medical providers to deliver certain kinds of health care at a price that both the patient and provider agree upon. And an Arizona constitutional provision protecting patients’ rights will provide stronger protection against such mandates, if enacted, than a regular statute.
The resolution, if passed by the Legislature, will go to the ballot in 2010. While a similar measure, Prop. 101, was narrowly defeated in 2008, HCR2014 has been specifically re-worked to address concerns the Arizona Health Care Freedom Act (AHCFA) might interfere with government programs for low-income residents.
“It is not the intent of the legislation to risk publicly-funded programs but to prevent the state from forcing residents to be subject to the practice of medicine by government,” Rep. Barto says.
According to John Graham of the Pacific Research Institute, “the plain language of the AHCFA makes clear the state cannot forbid any Arizonan from buying private health insurance, but neither can it compel him to do so. It protects Arizonans from either a government-monopoly system (like Canada’s), or mandatory private health insurance (imposed in Massachusetts in 2006).”
Citing examples from the British government imposed National Health Service (NHS) and Canada’s taxpayer-funded “universal” healthcare, Mr. Graham describes how other single-payer health care systems have prevented citizens from ‘topping up’ government-rationed health care with their own funds.
“A recent NHS scandal involves breast-cancer patients taking the new drug, Avastin, for which the NHS would not pay. The NHS told some patients that the bureaucracy would give them no breast-cancer care at all if they paid for Avastin with their own money, although their doctors had prescribed it. Supporters of government monopoly argued that it was unfair that some citizens were able to pay for Avastin and others not - even though the state would not provide it at all.”
HCR2014 supporters are concerned that new federal legislation will mandate similar laws and regulations in the U.S., making it illegal for medical providers to deliver certain kinds of health care at a price that both the patient and provider agree upon. And an Arizona constitutional provision protecting patients’ rights will provide stronger protection against such mandates, if enacted, than a regular statute.
Federal Stimulus To Aid Arizonans Now
April 23 2009 15:48
Today the House of Representatives passed two emergency measures with overwhelming bipartisan support designed to immediately tackle obstacles related to accepting $93 million available in federal stimulus funding for out-of-work Arizonans and another $1.6 billion in stimulus for the state’s Arizona Healthcare Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) program; the bills will be enacted without delay upon the Governor’s signature.
Rep. Russ Jones (R-Yuma) sponsored the bill that will utilize 100 percent of federal stimulus funding to extend unemployment benefits by 13 weeks for the state’s out-of-work citizens for this year. A sunset clause for the measure has been included and pursuant to the federal stimulus legislation the federal funding will begin to be phased out January 1 and will cease by June 30, 2010.
“Arizona’s unemployment rate jumped from 7.4 percent in February to 7.8 percent by March, which is the state’s highest unemployment rate since 1983,” Rep. Jones said. “Rural Arizona has been hit particularly hard by the poor economy, posting double digit unemployment rates. In Yuma, the unemployment rate is at 22 percent. I believe this legislation will bring immediate aide for many families struggling to make ends meet as they look for work,” he added.
According to Rep. Frank Pratt (R-Casa Grande), the primary sponsor on the bill that changes the eligibility re-application requirement for AHCCCS from every six-months to a year, this bill makes a technical change and clears the way for Arizona to receive $1.6 billion in federal stimulus.
“The bipartisan actions of lawmakers today demonstrates our willingness to work together to implement solutions that immediately help the citizens in this state,” Rep. Pratt said. “We have been criticized for not getting these funds out sooner, but people need to remember the federal stimulus package wasn’t even voted on by Congress until mid-February. I believe the state and this Legislature did an excellent and responsible job of accepting these funds as quickly as possible,” he explained.
Rep. Russ Jones (R-Yuma) sponsored the bill that will utilize 100 percent of federal stimulus funding to extend unemployment benefits by 13 weeks for the state’s out-of-work citizens for this year. A sunset clause for the measure has been included and pursuant to the federal stimulus legislation the federal funding will begin to be phased out January 1 and will cease by June 30, 2010.
“Arizona’s unemployment rate jumped from 7.4 percent in February to 7.8 percent by March, which is the state’s highest unemployment rate since 1983,” Rep. Jones said. “Rural Arizona has been hit particularly hard by the poor economy, posting double digit unemployment rates. In Yuma, the unemployment rate is at 22 percent. I believe this legislation will bring immediate aide for many families struggling to make ends meet as they look for work,” he added.
According to Rep. Frank Pratt (R-Casa Grande), the primary sponsor on the bill that changes the eligibility re-application requirement for AHCCCS from every six-months to a year, this bill makes a technical change and clears the way for Arizona to receive $1.6 billion in federal stimulus.
“The bipartisan actions of lawmakers today demonstrates our willingness to work together to implement solutions that immediately help the citizens in this state,” Rep. Pratt said. “We have been criticized for not getting these funds out sooner, but people need to remember the federal stimulus package wasn’t even voted on by Congress until mid-February. I believe the state and this Legislature did an excellent and responsible job of accepting these funds as quickly as possible,” he explained.
Legislature To Hear AHCCCS & Unemployment Insurance Bills Today
April 21 2009 10:36
The House and Senate are hearing identical bills today in their respective Commerce Committees dealing with AHCCCS eligibility and Unemployment Insurance.
HB2631 (eligibility determination; AHCCCS) fixes a problem with last year’s Democratic budget that changed the AHCCCS requirement of re-applying every six months instead of the annual application requirement.
Federal stimulus dollars are contingent upon compliance with a prohibition of reducing the maintenance of effort. The “stimulus” legislation required all modifications to have been made by July 1, 2008. Since the modification did not take affect until September 26, 2008 the Legislature is now required to fix it.
HB2632 (unemployment insurance; benefits) extends the length of unemployment benefits with no programmatic changes. When the federal money is no longer available, the state will not have to continue the extension.
If the bills pass out of Commerce Committee, they will go to Caucus tomorrow and more than likely onto the Committee of the Whole (COW) and Third Read on Thursday. This means both bills could go up to Governor Brewer’s desk as early as Thursday.
Both bills have an emergency clause meaning they have to pass with a two-thirds majority so the bills need 41 votes in the House and 21 votes in the Senate.
HB2631 (eligibility determination; AHCCCS) fixes a problem with last year’s Democratic budget that changed the AHCCCS requirement of re-applying every six months instead of the annual application requirement.
Federal stimulus dollars are contingent upon compliance with a prohibition of reducing the maintenance of effort. The “stimulus” legislation required all modifications to have been made by July 1, 2008. Since the modification did not take affect until September 26, 2008 the Legislature is now required to fix it.
HB2632 (unemployment insurance; benefits) extends the length of unemployment benefits with no programmatic changes. When the federal money is no longer available, the state will not have to continue the extension.
If the bills pass out of Commerce Committee, they will go to Caucus tomorrow and more than likely onto the Committee of the Whole (COW) and Third Read on Thursday. This means both bills could go up to Governor Brewer’s desk as early as Thursday.
Both bills have an emergency clause meaning they have to pass with a two-thirds majority so the bills need 41 votes in the House and 21 votes in the Senate.
Abortion Consent Act Defies Argument
April 06 2009 15:27
By Representative Nancy Barto
HB 2564-the Abortion Consent Act-passed out of the House Health and Human Services committee 5-0 with hardly a dissent. Several committee members decided to leave the scene during deliberations of the bill.
Even Planned Parenthood and NARAL, predictably opposed to the bill, did not speak against it in committee even while facilitating hundreds of stock e-mails to Legislators’ inboxes - spreading all manner of misinformation. Interestingly, not one of the e-mail senders testified in committee.
Perhaps they simply could not refute the fact that the legislation would not prohibit one abortion.It may be a number of other reasons, though. Perhaps they did not want to admit that current parental consent laws, supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans, are meaningless without the legislation.
Perhaps they didn’t want to go on record opposing women seeking an abortion should receive the complete and accurate information she needs before making her decision. After all, specific informed consent protocols are required for a number of medical circumstances including HIV-related testing, admission of a minor to a hospital, genetic testing and immunizations, to name a few. And it is standard practice for virtually every other medical surgical procedure that a physician communicate to their patients a raft of information, including the available alternatives, before they consent.
Except for abortion.
Maybe it is the fact that the bill’s provisions, including the 24 hour reflection period in which to process the information, are already law in 30 other states. Even a woman deciding whether to give a baby up for adoption must be given a full 72 hours within which she has the right to change her mind.
Perhaps they couldn’t make the argument that the availabililty of emergency contraception would not be affected even while protecting a pharmacist’s right not to fill an abortion-inducing prescription. After all, emergency contraception (Plan B) is now available over the counter and on the internet for $29.99!
Whatever the reasons the opposition chose not to make their case in committee, testimony in favor of the bill was powerful. And 37 Arizona physicians, many of whom are OB/GYNs, signed onto a letter recommending these changes to our abortion laws. If legislators had any doubt as to the need for the legislation, by the end of the hearing, they were erased.
To access committee testimony, click here. Then click on 2/25/09 House Health and Human Services meeting.
With the passage of the Abortion Consent Act, chances are excellent vulnerable minors will be less at risk of being taken advantage of, the doctor-patient relationship will be strengthened and the quality of care for women seeking abortions will improve. These are common sense provisions that are hard to argue with.
HB 2564-the Abortion Consent Act-passed out of the House Health and Human Services committee 5-0 with hardly a dissent. Several committee members decided to leave the scene during deliberations of the bill.
Even Planned Parenthood and NARAL, predictably opposed to the bill, did not speak against it in committee even while facilitating hundreds of stock e-mails to Legislators’ inboxes - spreading all manner of misinformation. Interestingly, not one of the e-mail senders testified in committee.
Perhaps they simply could not refute the fact that the legislation would not prohibit one abortion.It may be a number of other reasons, though. Perhaps they did not want to admit that current parental consent laws, supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans, are meaningless without the legislation.
Perhaps they didn’t want to go on record opposing women seeking an abortion should receive the complete and accurate information she needs before making her decision. After all, specific informed consent protocols are required for a number of medical circumstances including HIV-related testing, admission of a minor to a hospital, genetic testing and immunizations, to name a few. And it is standard practice for virtually every other medical surgical procedure that a physician communicate to their patients a raft of information, including the available alternatives, before they consent.
Except for abortion.
Maybe it is the fact that the bill’s provisions, including the 24 hour reflection period in which to process the information, are already law in 30 other states. Even a woman deciding whether to give a baby up for adoption must be given a full 72 hours within which she has the right to change her mind.
Perhaps they couldn’t make the argument that the availabililty of emergency contraception would not be affected even while protecting a pharmacist’s right not to fill an abortion-inducing prescription. After all, emergency contraception (Plan B) is now available over the counter and on the internet for $29.99!
Whatever the reasons the opposition chose not to make their case in committee, testimony in favor of the bill was powerful. And 37 Arizona physicians, many of whom are OB/GYNs, signed onto a letter recommending these changes to our abortion laws. If legislators had any doubt as to the need for the legislation, by the end of the hearing, they were erased.
To access committee testimony, click here. Then click on 2/25/09 House Health and Human Services meeting.
With the passage of the Abortion Consent Act, chances are excellent vulnerable minors will be less at risk of being taken advantage of, the doctor-patient relationship will be strengthened and the quality of care for women seeking abortions will improve. These are common sense provisions that are hard to argue with.