Kansas Panel Advances Health Reimbursement Measure

A legislative committee in Kansas has taken a step to make it easier for people to purchase health insurance–without requiring a massive set of regulations on everyone else’s insurance arrangements.

From KansasReporter.org:

Panel members voted 11-9 to recommend passage of House Bill 2680, which would allow Kansas employers to set up health reimbursement plans to help pay insurance premiums for workers who buy their own privately underwritten health insurance rather than participate in a group plan at work.

Opponents say it will undermine group insurance–which is already on the way out.

Promoting Health Care Freedom in Kansas

I’ve been following the attempts to pass versions of the Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act in the states. But I’ve never heard of anyone putting together a website to gather popular support for the amendment, until now.

Witness KansasHealthCareFreedom.com, which seeks to draw attention to a Kansas version of the act. The act has two major provisions:

1) protects a person’s right to participate or not participate in any health care system, and prohibits the government from imposing fines or penalties on that person’s decision. 2) it protects the right of individuals to purchase—and the right of doctors to provide—lawful medical services without government fine or penalty

The site is supported by seven organizations and members of the Kansas Legislature.

A Kansas Health Care Bill That’s Good for Consumers

As a proponent of consumer-driven health care reform there has not been much legislation to cheer about lately, especially at the federal level. The common sense solutions are best left to the states and one of these solutions is currently making its way through the Kansas House of Representatives. Let’s hope it passes.

Kansas House Bill 2862, proposed by Rep. Richard Carlson (R-St. Marys) allows small businesses which do not currently offer group health insurance to employees to contribute to the premium of an employee’s individual insurance plan through a Section 125 cafeteria health care plan.

This would allow the employer to contribute a benefit to the employee even if the employer is too small to afford group health coverage or cannot afford to offer a group plan. Best yet, if the employee is happy with their individual coverage they can still receive premium assistance from their employer and keep their own plan even if the employer offers group coverage.

One of the best parts of the legislation is the section which authorizes the carrier to offer Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and high-deductible health care plans; it also authorizes any insurer who offers small group coverage to offer such plans.

This is a statute which should be speedily passed through the legislature and signed into law. The evidence shows that HSAs and high-deductible health care plans work to reduce costs for small businesses that have moved their employees into such. They have reduced costs by making employees more concerned about their health outcomes. Since the employee pays for their own individual health coverage, rather than an insurance company or government health plan, they are better able to keep track of costs and assure that they are using health care wisely. In case of accident or injury, the high-deductible plan provides catastrophic coverage. It is the best way to reduce health care costs for small business and reduce the number of uninsured.

HB 2862 goes a long way towards reducing the costs of health care by providing employers and their employees with the correct incentives. Through pre-tax purchasing of health care via Section 125 plans, employers who are not able to afford group coverage can still find a way to contribute to their employee’s health care without bankrupting the firm. In an era of moribund economic growth and stagnant wages in most industries in Kansas, this legislation can go a long way toward reducing the costs to small business. It will also spare taxpayer from the continued growth of government insurance if small businesses are forced to suspend or lay off workers due to health care costs.

If Congress had enacted such simple reforms in the fall, we would have been a long way down the road towards improved health care for all Americans. Let’s hope Kansas shows Congress how to do health care reform.

Kansas Lawmakers Say “Protect Health Care Freedom”

Legislators in yet another state plan to file bill intended to protect health care freedom. Here’s the announcement from the American Legislative Exchange Council:

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)—the nation’s largest nonpartisan individual membership association of state legislators—congratulates Kansas State Senator Mary Pilcher Cook and Representatives Peggy Mast and Brenda Landwehr for filing the Kansas Health Care Freedom Amendment, which would protect the right of individuals to make their own health care choices. Sen. Pilcher Cook, Rep. Mast, and Rep. Landwehr will hold a press conference today at 4:00 p.m. at the state house in Topeka to discuss their efforts.

Arizona’s measure, which passed the legislature last June, will be put before voters there on the November ballot.

A Note to Rep. Dennis Moore (D-Kan.)

Rep Moore,
I am disappointed that your vote is based on what you believe and you support rather than on what your constituents support. The voters in your district overwhelmingly disapprove of

1) A government option for health care. We already have Medicaid which is draining the state budget. Let’s reform Medicaid and SCHIP by giving those folks vouchers to purchase private policies or to buy into their employer’s plan

2) Health information technology. Yes, many tests are given needlessly but few can be blamed on duplication, but rather can be attributed to fee for service, fear of malpractice suits, and third party insurance in which the patient has no concept of the cost of the service. There is no indication that moving to electronic health records will save money. Ask St. Luke’s in Lee’s Summit if going to total paperless records has saved them any money and they will tell you it has not.

3) More government regulation. Adding mandates and premium taxes only adds to the cost of insurance and gives us fewer choices.

4) Individual mandates to buy health insurance. The government dictates which plans meet the mandate. Never in American history has the federal government demanded that every citizen must buy a product. Is this constitutional? I think not. Analysts say the plans will be so expensive that most people will pay the fine and opt out of the insurance anyway.

5) Federal tax credits to small businesses to pay for health insurance. This is just moving money around. Most small businesses want out of the health insurance business. Let them compete for employees based on wages. We have an active individual health insurance marketplace from which individuals can purchase a policy.

Rep. Moore, we urge you to do the right thing. This is a republic and you represent us. You are not up for re-election so you don’t need the campaign funds of your party. You can stand for what the people of Johnson and Douglas Counties want which is common sense reform as I have outlined to you in the past. Live up to your campaign commercials and vote against your party and show us that you indeed represent your constituents and not your political leaders.

Malpractice Caps Challenged in Kansas Court

The Kansas Supreme Court is hearing a constitutional challenge to the state’s cap on damages. The case involves a woman whose doctors removed the wrong ovary.

Here’s the nub of the argument, as summarized by the Lawrence Journal-World:

“Miltenberg argued that establishment of such a cap violates a person’s constitutional right to trial by jury, and infringes on the constitutional authority of the judiciary.

But Keplinger said the cap was put in place to promote a public good — keeping health care and insurance available — and didn’t infringe on constitutional rights.”

Are Tenth-Amendment Politicians Hypocrites?

We’ve noted many times in this space the trend of legislators across the country calling for state constitutional amendments to preserve choice in health care.

Kansas is the latest state in which legislators for such an amendment, as I mentioned yesterday. Today, the state’s largest newspaper, the Wichita Eagle, publishes an article on the declaration by Rep. Peggy Mast, R- Emporia, that she and other legislators will file legislation next session to advance the Health Care Freedom Amendment.

Among the legislators speaking out in favor of the idea is Rep. Brenda Landwher R-Wichita), who chairs the House Health and Human Services Committee.

The article includes a few people dismissing the idea, of course. A representative of the state chapter of AARP says that health care is “too important to become a turf war between the state and the federal government.”

A few Democrats, meanwhile, sought to accuse the amendment’s sponsors, all Republicans to this point, of hypocrisy: “‘State Democrats fired back that lawmakers are themselves covered by government-paid insurance. Party executive director Kenny Johnston called the proposition “a stunningly eager act of partisanship and hypocrisy.” He also called it “the Freedom from Health Care Amendment.”

Sure. Let’s review what such an amendment would actually say. Here’s the nut of the proposal (PDF) that will be on the Arizona ballot will say at the next general election (the Kansas language will probably resemble the Arizona language):

Section 2.

a. To preserve the freedom of Arizonans to provide for their health care:

1. A law or rule shall not compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer or health care provider to participate in any health care system.

2. A person or employer may pay directly for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties fines for paying directly for lawful health care services. A health care provider may accept direct payment for lawful health services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for accepting direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services.

b. subject to reasonable and necessary rules that do not substantially limit a person’s options, the purchase or sale of health insurance in private health care systems shall not be prohibited by law or rule.

The hypocrisy charge is simply baffling, as the language does nothing to deny any person who has private health insurance the right to keep it. It also does nothing to deny the right of a person qualified to receive public benefits from doing so.

Kansas Lawmakers Act to Protect Health Care Choices

Add Kansas to the list of states which have taken up the cause to use the tenth amendment to protect your right to choice in health care.

Here’s a press release from the American Legislative Exchange Council:

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the nation’s largest individual membership association of state legislators, congratulates Kansas Representatives Peggy Mast and Brenda Landwehr and Kansas Senator Mary Pilcher Cook for announcing their intent to introduce a constitutional amendment to protect the right of individuals to make their own health care choices. Kansas now becomes the 19th state where legislators have introduced, or will introduce, legislation modeled after ALEC’s Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act.

“Federal health care reform efforts may include a requirement that individuals purchase health insurance, and a so called ‘public option’ which will result in less choices for consumers and new government mandates,” said Iowa Representative Linda Upmeyer, minority whip, family nurse practitioner, and chair of ALEC’s Health and Human Services Task Force. “Americans don’t need more government mandates, we need real consumer choice. ALEC’s Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act is designed to protect individual rights and our freedom to purchase health insurance of our choice, or not,” she added.

The Kansas constitutional amendment preserves the rights of individuals to pay directly for medical care—something not allowed in single-payer countries like Canada—and prohibits any individual from being penalized for not purchasing government-defined insurance. Any state attempt to require an individual to purchase health insurance—or forbid an individual from purchasing services outside of the required health care system—would be rendered unconstitutional. The measure may also cause a federalism clash if Congress passes a law with either of these provisions.

Kansas now joins legislators in seven states (AK, GA, LA, MO, MS, NH, and UT) that have already publicly announced their intention to file legislation to protect their citizens from any health care mandates. Another 11 states have already filed or pre-filed similar legislation (AZ, FL, IN, MN, ND, NM, MI, OH, PA, WV, WY). Arizona’s measure, which passed the legislature in June, will be put before voters on the 2010 ballot.

“ALEC members in the states are also working to enact real health care reform solutions that can—as President Obama has called for—increase competition, reduce costs and expand coverage. These include allowing consumers to purchase health insurance across state lines, providing tax relief for individuals to purchase health insurance, and a cost-benefit review of any government mandated insurance benefits,” said Christie Herrera, director of ALEC’s Health and Human Services Task Force.

Kansas Agencies Stops Helping Pro-ObamaCare Union

Kansas is a deep-red, Republican state that would have nothing to do with a government takeover of health care, right?

Not quite. Start with the fact that Kathleen Sebelius, President Obama's secretary of health and human services, is a Democrat and former governor. Now, two agencies in the state government headed by her hand-picked successor have been helping a union that's at the forefront of ObamaCare, until recently.

I'll let the Kansas City Star pick up the story:

The state’s Department of Aging and Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services sent more than 1,000 letters last month to the payroll agents of in-home health workers seeking workers’ names, addresses and phone numbers. The workers are not state employees, but they receive state funds to provide in-home care to the elderly and disabled.

The agencies were responding to an open records request by the SEIU, a union that represents health care and government workers. Agency officials said they had no choice but to comply.

But after receiving few responses and several complaints, the agencies sent a second letter this week saying they wouldn’t be collecting the information after all.

Just over 3 percent of the letters got a response, which suggests a fair amount of skepticism towards the SEIU, which has given Sebelius and her PAC over $130,000. The union says that it's asking for public records. The law appears to be murky, but the Star notes Republican leaders say "the state is not required to provide information it doesn’t already have."

The Lawrence-Journal World said "The agencies had sought the information for the Service Employees International Union, which never said specifically why it wanted to the information." (Hey, LJW. I like your coverage generally, but do I need to sell you a clue?)

Americans for Tax Reform, no friend of the SEIU, says follow the money. See also Bob Weeks, blogger at Wichita Liberty.

SEIU Requests Contact Info for Kansas HCBS Providers

Current Medicaid law lets some people in Medicaid get home and community-based services (HCBS) rather than having to go to a hospital, clinic or other institution. Understandably, it's more attractive to patients, though not necessarily cheaper for taxpayers.

The SEIU, a union of government employees is a big fan of ever-greater government involvement in health care, and understandably so: It gives them more opportunities to snag members and their dues.

The SEIU in Kansas has asked the state for the names and addresses of health care professionals who provide care under the state's HCBS program. A state representative and Kansas Watchdog have some questions about the request, as well as the union's relationship with former governor and now HHS Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius.