New Massachusetts Plan Already Starting to Crumble
Group calls for delay in part of universal health insurance law
By Alice Dembner
Boston Globe
1/25/2007
An advocacy group urged the state Wednesday to delay a key part of the new universal health insurance law, saying that a survey shows that many families cannot afford even subsidized insurance.
The Greater Boston Interfaith Organization, which pressed for passage of the law, said the state should not impose penalties for at least a year on low- and moderate-income people who fail to obtain insurance by the July 1 deadline.
Governor Deval Patrick declined to take a position on the proposed change, but he met with the group Wednesday, signaling growing concern among state leaders about the affordability of health insurance plans being established under the new law.
“We are committed to doing anything we can, working with providers, to deliver affordable options,” Patrick said in a statement after the meeting.
Administration and Finance Secretary Leslie Kirwan, who is overseeing implementation, said, “It’s very premature to talk about changing the law.”
Leaders of the interfaith group want the change to ease pressure on about 300,000 individuals earning up to $49,000 a year, who the advocates said face the greatest challenge in paying for insurance. The one-year delay would allow time to negotiate better, less-expensive insurance and could ultimately help ensure the success of the law, the group’s leaders said.
“You only get to do this once with the public, and if you get it wrong it’s going to blow up,” said the Rev. Hurmon Hamilton, pastor of Roxbury Presbyterian Church and president of the Greater Boston Interfaith Organization, a coalition of 65 religious congregations, labor unions, and community groups. “People will not permit the Commonwealth to force them into deeper debt.”
Senator Richard T. Moore, cochairman of the Legislature’s Committee on Health Care Financing, and Richard Lord, president of Associated Industries of Massachusetts, said the penalty delay is worth considering, particularly if insurers do not cut prices and if many people decline to sign up for subsidized plans.
“Assuming we validate … [the interfaith organization’s] numbers, we might want to ease the penalties for a year or two to see how the market shakes out,” said Moore.
But Representative Patricia A. Walrath, Moore’s counterpart in the House, said she doesn’t think the answer is eliminating the penalty for a majority of people.
The interfaith organization made its case with data from a survey it conducted of 367 people with low and moderate incomes who attended the group’s workshops and shared details of their income and expenses. The information is the first on what state residents can afford, but it’s unclear whether the results are representative of the Commonwealth. Most of the people had insurance, but many were at risk of losing it because of unstable job situations.
Nearly one-half of those with incomes low enough to qualify for state-subsidized insurance did not have enough discretionary income to afford the monthly premiums, which range from $18 to $106 for an individual, the survey found.
Nearly 40 percent of those with incomes between 300 and 500 percent of the poverty level could not afford the $380 per month premium plus out-of-pocket costs discussed by state officials last week. Several state officials said they hoped to bring that cost closer to $250 per month, but the survey found that 28 percent of those eligible could not afford that lower cost either.