American Nurses Association opposes Enzi bill(s1955 which could come up this month or in May on the Senate floor)It passed in the HELP committee 11-9 on party lines. "ANA has deep reservations about the impact of S. 1955 on access to primary and preventative care and on the cost of insurance, particularly for those most in need of care. There is no evidence that this legislation would ensure any real expansion of health insurance coverage, and ANA is a member of a broad coalition actively working to oppose the bill as it moves toward consideration in the full Senate. A Senate vote could take place as soon as the week of April 3, but it is more likely that it will be taken up in late April, after the Senate's spring recess."
Original thread on s1955
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2519183&mesg_id=2519183http://vocusgr.vocus.com/grconvert1/webpub/ana/ProfileBill.asp?BillID=6750&XSL=ProfileBillBackground:
On November 2, 2005, Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) introduced the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act of 2005 (S. 1955), legislation intended to help workers in small businesses get health insurance through arrangements similar to Association Health Plans (AHPs) . While the sponsors of S. 1955 have made a sincere effort to address shortcomings of the AHP legislation, their solution makes things worse by endangering the quality of health care for the 68 million Americans in state-regulated group health plans and 16.5 million with individual coverage.
S. 1955 would take away the states' autonomy to regulate health insurance.
S. 1955 would preempt state insurance laws, not just in the small group market (as is done by Association Health Plan legislation), but also in the individual and large group markets. S. 1955 would thwart years of state efforts to make sure that consumers have adequate health coverage. S. 1955 would take away the states' autonomy to regulate health insurance.
The bill preempts state benefit, service, and provider laws that states have enacted to ensure that consumers have adequate health coverage. Key primary and preventative care services such as cancer screenings and treatment, diabetes supplies and education, mental health, preventive care, rehabilitation, well-child care and immunizations, maternity care, and other vital benefits and protections would be lost.
****Impact on APRN Practice:****
In addition to the loss of these benefit mandates, S 1955 would preempt state mandates that guarantee access to Nurse Practitioners (32 states) Nurse Midwives (30 states) Nurse Anesthetists (17 states) and Psychiatric Nurses (18 states).
:redbox:
Provision designed to ensure comprehensive" benefit option fails to provide protections.
*******In order to bypass a state's protections , a n insurer would only need to meet one requirement: offer a second plan that resembles one offered to state employees in one of the five most populous states (CA, NY, TX, FL and IL). These states offer their employees a variety of plans, some of which are high-deductible ( Florida , for example, offers its state employees a plan that includes a $5000 deductible for families). Thus this requirement could allow an insurer to choose a high deductible/HSA plan that can require a family to pay as much as $5,000 out-of-pocket (after paying premiums), before coverage kicks in. The fact that the insurer can choose any one of the plans available to employees of these states means that there is no requirement or guarantee that the required enhanced option" be affordable or comprehensive. Again, a state has no recourse if the plan does not meet the needs of its residents.***********
Although the bill is advertised by proponents as offering small businesses flexibility and choice, the reality is that insurance companies will control the plans available, not small businesses or their employees. Insurance companies will have the ability to offer plans that meet some, few, or none of the state's mandated benefits, and they will choose which of the state-employee models they would like to offer.
:redbox:
Allows insurers to raise premiums based on health status, age, gender and geography.
In addition, S. 1955 also would preempt stronger state laws that limit the ability of insurers to vary premiums based on health status, age, gender and geography. For many older, sicker Americans and those with complex health needs and disabilities, this would price them out of the health insurance market, undermining the stated purpose of the legislation. The bill imposes on all the states an outdated model law created by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), rather than using the NAIC's current model standard that is more protective.
:redbox:
For many older, sicker Americans and those with complex health needs and disabilities, this would price them out of the health insurance market, undermining the stated purpose of the legislation. Under this new system, many small businesses with workers who are older and sicker, women of child-bearing age, or who have fewer employees, will immediately see their premiums rise.
After careful consideration and review, ANA opposes S. 1955 due to strong reservations about the bill's impact on the practice of APRNs, consumer's access to primary and preventative health care, and the cost of insurance for those who are higher risk or in need of significant health care services.
For more information on S. 1955 and to "Write a Message" to your Senators, please click here .
ANA Letter of Opposition to S. 1955 - The Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act of 2005
Sponsors
Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT-S2)
Senator Richard Burr (R-NC-S2)
Senator Michael Enzi (R-WY-S2)
Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE-S2)
Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS-S2)
To see a list of the business interests pushing this junk health plan legislation go here
http://diabetesadvocacy.blogspot.com/and scroll down.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
