Co-pays, deductibles targeted by health care reform bill
BOSTON (SHNS) – Doctors last week prescribed an insurance reform designed to save primary care practices and ensure patients get timely care. Insurers, though, say another mandate is the last thing Massachusetts needs when health care costs are already a big problem and are asking lawmakers to seek a second opinion.
Massachusetts has consistently struggled to rein in high and growing health care costs. The great expense of care and a dearth of primary care providers means that many people put off preventative care. That often means they eventually end up in more serious and more expensive situations that also further stress a strained hospital system.
Rep. Lindsay Sabadosa's bill (H 1309) heard by the Financial Services Committee would require that so-called evaluation and management services be included as part of an insurer's basic benefits package, making those services exempt from patient deductibles, according to a bill summary. The Northampton Democrat said it meant that 'several critical conditions' would be included 'without co-pay or deductible, so that constituents can go in and get the health care that they need and not end up consistently in emergency rooms.'
Doctors whom Sabadosa introduced to testify Tuesday said high deductibles play a big part in keeping many people away from primary care that can decrease the cost of care over the long run.
'Every time there's a cost-saving measure that doesn't think about how it affects primary care, it ultimately costs the health care system more,' Dr. Kate Atkinson told the committee.
Doctors also said high deductibles end up hampering the very primary care practices that are already stressed by other factors.
'What people don't understand is that many patients actually do not pay their bills and their deductibles, and in so doing, that shifts the cost to medical practices as well,' Dr. Wayne Altman, who has a practice in Arlington and is chair of the Department of Family Medicine at Tufts Medical School, said, describing deductibles as a massive administrative burden for doctor's offices. 'When people have primary care practices, what they really want to do is take care of their patients. They don't want to bill patients for deductibles. We just want to take care of our patients. And this gets in the way.'
Atkinson was clearly frustrated as she told lawmakers that she recently laid off 11 employees from her Western Mass. family medicine practice and is no longer offering Saturday hours. The Mass. Medical Society trustee said the legislation Sabadosa filed 'came from' the organization and that this year was the seventh time she's testified on the issue.
'It is really frustrating to come year after year and testify, and nothing has changed for primary care doctors in this state, nothing,' she said. 'In all of the past decade that I've been testifying, it's become harder and harder to keep my practice afloat, I'm on the edge of bankruptcy, and measures like this are minor measures for the insurance company, but would be a big effort to keep patients healthier and to keep my practice going, and not just mine.'
Lora Pellegrini, president and CEO of the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans, said insurers are worried that Sabadosa's bill and others the committee heard last week would drive up health care premiums for small businesses and individuals at a time when affordability is an urgent health care challenge for the state.
'Each of these bills would impose new requirements solely on the fully-insured market—made up primarily of small businesses and individuals—exacerbating affordability challenges without reducing overall system costs,' Pellegrini said.
Pellegrini said that federal law, including the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, is such that the additional costs would not be required to be covered by self-insured companies, which account for almost 60% of the insurance market. Federal regulations also prohibit eliminating cost-sharing for many services through high-deductible health plans, the choice of nearly 43% of commercially-insured Bay Staters, she said.
MAHP said plans already cover medically necessary outpatient care consistent with state and federal laws, and that eliminating cost-sharing entirely 'would significantly drive up premiums.' The group urged lawmakers to defer action on the idea until the Center for Health Information and Analysis could complete a full cost impact analysis.
'Massachusetts is at a critical crossroads on health care affordability. With premiums continuing to rise, adding new mandates that increase costs for working families and small businesses takes us in the wrong direction,' the insurers' group leader said. 'MAHP urges the Legislature to protect affordability and oppose House Bill 1309, Senate Bill 764, House Bill 1227, and Senate Bill 809.'
The other legislation that Pellegrini and MAHP opposed last week (H 1227 / S 809) would require the Group Insurance Commission, MassHealth and commercial health insurers to provide coverage for biomarker testing, which can be used to personalize treatment for cancer.
'With biomarker testing, this allows care providers and doctors to pinpoint exactly what kind of treatment is going to be the most effective for a patient going through this battle. It can eliminate treatments that are devastating, from causing a patient to suffer through that. And it can lead to better outcomes, better quality of life, and it can give us that precious gifts of time,' bill sponsor Rep. Meghan Kilcoyne said. 'And we're also seeing that this can have huge implications on other diseases beyond cancer, such as Alzheimer's.'
MAHP said that CHIA has estimated the biomarker testing mandate could increase health care costs by up to $35 million annually, with a five-year total expenditure surpassing $168 million. The group said the bill would impose the coverage 'without sufficient standards for clinical efficacy or value.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to WWLP.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
New York set to allow physician-assisted death for terminally ill patients
New York lawmakers on Monday passed a bill that would allow terminally ill adults to end their lives with doctor-prescribed lethal medication. The State Senate approved the measure with a 35-27 vote, following the state Assembly's approval in April. If signed into law by Gov. Kathy Hochul, New York would join 11 other states that permit 'medical assistance in dying' (MAiD) or 'assisted suicide' for terminally ill patients, joining Oregon, Colorado, California, Vermont and other jurisdictions where MAiD has been legalized. New York is the second state to approve such legislation in 2025, following Delaware, which did so in May. The bill permits people diagnosed with a terminal illness and a prognosis of six months or less to request a prescription for life-ending medication. To qualify, patients must be at least 18 years old, mentally competent, and have their diagnosis and prognosis confirmed by two physicians. A psychiatric evaluation is required only if deemed necessary by one of the physicians. Supporters of the bill argue that it provides terminally ill individuals with autonomy and a dignified end-of-life option. 'Since the first day that I began advocating for the MAiD Act, I have made it clear that this legislation is about honoring a terminally ill person's choice to make their own end-of-life decisions,' Staten Island Sen. Jessica Scarcella-Spanton told the Advance/ 'This is about giving people the compassion and dignity that they deserve, the importance of which I have witnessed firsthand while meeting with many of the advocates for this legislation, many of whom were or are suffering from a terminal illness.' State Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal, a Democrat and the bill's sponsor, echoed that sentiment: 'It's not about hastening death, but ending suffering,' he said, per ABC News. Opponents of the bill, which include the American Medical Association, express concerns about potential abuse, the adequacy of safeguards, and the potential impact on people who lack access to adequate care. 'This is not compassionate care. It is a policy that exploits fear, undermines trust in the medical profession, and opens the door to abuse and neglect,' members of The New York Alliance Against Assisted Suicide said in a statement after the vote. Efforts to legalize medical aid in dying in New York date back more than a decade, but previous attempts through the courts were unsuccessful. The state's Supreme Court rejected a challenge in the 1990s, and in 2017, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that there is no constitutional right to physician-assisted death, leaving the matter to the legislature. Faith groups speak up Since the passage of the bill by the New York Senate, faith groups and religious leaders spoke up condemning the vote. Rabbi Moshe Hauer, executive vice president of the Orthodox Union, the largest umbrella organization of Orthodox Jews, called the vote a 'tragic development for all New Yorkers and a radical departure from the ethical assumptions shared by all faiths.' 'New Yorkers do not need assisted suicide; they need a whole-of society effort to provide 'Medical and Social Aid in Living,' to build hope and enhance care and treatment for the terminally ill and for the physically, emotionally and economically vulnerable, young and old,' Hauer said in a statement. The government must improve care and treatment for the terminally ill, he said. 'Instead, the government is leading the way in validating, accepting, and accelerating despair.' A Catholic group representing bishops of the state also criticized the vote. 'This is a dark day for New York state,' said a statement from Dennis Proust and The New York State Catholic Conference posted on X. The group called on the state to strengthen palliative care, health care and counseling services. 'Passage of the legislation also would send the message — perhaps unintentionally — that suicide is an acceptable solution to a problem," said Robert Bellafiore, the group's spokesman, per National Catholic Reporter. Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the archbishop of New York, had described the proposal as 'a disaster waiting to happen" after the Assembly vote last month. Opponents argue that the legislation would hurt the vulnerable populations, especially those with disabilities and mental illness. The American Medical Association also expressed its opposition to MAiD. 'Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician's role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks,' according to American Medical Association's website. Dr. Lydia Dugdale, a physician and ethicist at Columbia University, argued that MAiD fails to protect people living with depression, a condition that can distort thinking and lead to suicidal decisions that don't reflect a person's true will. Modeled after the Oregon bill, the New York bill, if enacted, will not require patients to be screened for depression. 'This is a major oversight that fails to protect depressed people from making flawed decisions,' Dugdale wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed. 'Depression is not just a mood; it distorts perception, often convincing people that their lives are worthless, their loved ones are better off without them and death is their only option.' Groups opposing MAiD are calling on Hochul to refuse to sign bill. 'We strongly urge her to veto this legislation,' said a statement by The New York Alliance Against Assisted Suicide. 'The governor still has the opportunity to uphold New York's commitment to suicide prevention, protect vulnerable communities, and affirm that every life — regardless of disability, age, or diagnosis — is worthy of care, dignity, and protection." Hochul, a Democrat and a Catholic, has not yet said whether she will sign the bill. The New York Times reported that a spokesperson only said she would review it.
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
McKee signs four pairs of bills into law
Automatic external defibrillators will now be required on golf courses as a result of a new law named for a Johnston golfer who died after having a heart attack on the 18th hole at the Cranston Country Club in 2023. (Getty image) Four new laws signed on June 6 by Gov. Dan McKee aim to improve emergency care for heart attacks on golf courses, train lifeguards and park rangers to administer Narcan, extend the trial period for the state's safe injection site in Providence, and formalize the waiting period before adults with drivers permits can take their road test. Here's a look at the legislation behind the four new laws: 1. Automatic external defibrillators will now be required on golf courses as a result of the David Casey Act. Its namesake is a Johnston golfer who died after having a heart attack on the 18th hole at the Cranston Country Club. Casey was 58 years old. Companion bills, sponsored by Rep. Deborah Fellela and Sen. Andrew Dimitiri, both Johnston Democrats, amended the state's rules on locations where defibrillators are mandatory. State law had required defibrillators in enclosed spaces capable of holding 300 or more people. Spaces include bars, self-service laundry, shopping malls, arenas, government offices, and waiting rooms. 'David's death was tragic, and has mobilized his widow, Betsy, to become an advocate for AEDs on all golf courses,' Felella said in a statement issued by the State House Tuesday. 'She wants to make sure that David's death makes a difference, and if we save even one life, we reach that goal.' Rhode Island Department of Health Director Jerome 'Jerry' Larkin voiced support for the legislation in a Feb. 6 letter to the House Committee on Health and Human Services. He stated that using defibrillators and performing CPR within minutes of cardiac arrest can significantly boost survival rates. 2. The nation's first state-regulated safe injection site will continue for another two years. Project Weber/RENEW, the nonprofit that operates the South Providence site at 45 Willard Ave., was supposed to end its pilot overdose prevention program in 2026. Legislation sponsored by Rep. Jay Edwards, a Tiverton Democrat, extends the program through 2028. The law also mandates new reporting requirements on the number of people connected to other specialists for addiction treatment, and total overdoses prevented. McKee, Providence Mayor Brett Smiley and the Mental Health Association of Rhode Island each wrote to lawmakers to back the extension bill. 'Even one more life lost to substance use disorder and the opioid epidemic is one too many and HRCs are a critical preventative resource,' McKee wrote to the committee in February. Companion legislation was sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Melissa Murray, a Woonsocket Democrat. 3. Rhode Island's lifeguards and park rangers will now be required to be trained in administering opioid reversal drugs such as Narcan. This mandate comes from companion bills sponsored by Rep. William O'Brien, a North Providence Democrat, and Senate Majority Whip David Tikoian, a Smithfield Democrat. The bill also requires public beaches and parks to have at least four doses of this medicine available at all times. 'The sad reality we find ourselves in today is that opioid overdoses can happen anytime and anywhere,' O'Brien said in a statement. 'While we continue to combat the opioid crisis, this bill will save many lives.' The legislation originated from North Providence High School student Brennan O'Connor's senior project, according to a State House news release. 4. Rhode Island residents age 18 or older will have to wait at least 30 days after receiving a learner's permit before taking the road test. The law signed by McKee stems from matching bills sponsored by Democrats Rep. Robert Phillips of Woonsocket and Sen. Lou DiPalma of Middletown. It requires adults to wait at least 30 days after receiving a learner's permit before taking the road test for a full license. Rhode Island's Division of Motor Vehicles already mandates a 30-day waiting period, agency spokesperson Paul Grimaldi said via email Tuesday. It just was never codified under state law. 'A way to make certain things clear and succinct — you put it into Rhode Island General Law' DiPalma said in an interview. Under the new law, adult drivers' permits would expire one year after being issued. Permits can be renewed, but just once. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Yahoo
In memo, Trump targets health care payments that 'game the system'
BOSTON (SHNS) – As the U.S. Senate prepares to take its own crack at legislation that includes hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts to Medicaid, the president late last week made his thoughts on one provision clear and it could impact how Massachusetts and other states finance public health care. Late on Friday, President Donald Trump issued a memo ordering U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert Kennedy Jr. to 'eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicaid, including by ensuring Medicaid payments rates are not higher than Medicare.' The move targeted state directed payments, a Medicaid financing mechanism that gives states flexibility to require managed care organizations to pay providers specific rates or to implement rate increases to advance delivery system or state policy objectives, most commonly improving access to care. State directed payments came about as a result of a 2016 Medicaid reform, but they have grown significantly in popularity since then. There were 250 unique directed payment arrangements approved between July 1, 2021 and Feb. 1, 2023, according to the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission (MACPAC). The commission said the number increased by almost 21% to 302 unique arrangements approved between Feb. 1, 2023 and Aug. 1, 2024. The arrangements approved as of Aug. 1, 2024 were projected to spend a total of $110.2 billion a year, a 59% increase over the $69.3 billion in projected spending identified by the commission's analysis of arrangements approved as of Feb. 1, 2023. 'This trajectory threatens the Federal Treasury and Medicaid's long-term stability, and the imbalance between Medicaid and Medicare patients threatens to jeopardize access to care for our seniors,' Trump wrote in the memo. Trump said states and health care providers have used state directed payments 'to game the system,' echoing concerns previously raised by experts. The president outlined the scheme: states charge assessments on health care providers in order to nudge up reported state spending to score higher federal reimbursements, but then send 'the same money back to them in the form of a 'Medicaid payment,' which automatically unlocked for healthcare providers an additional 'burden-sharing' payment from the Federal Government.' 'Instead of paying Medicare rates, many States that utilize these arrangements now pay the same healthcare providers almost three times the Medicare amount,' the president said. The U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service has approved 63 such arrangements for Massachusetts since March 2023, according to CMS data. The budget reconciliation bill passed last month by the U.S. House and expected to be taken up this month by the U.S. Senate would, among many other things, extend Trump's first-term tax cuts and reduce Medicaid spending by nearly $700 billion to help pay for it. Officials at MassHealth, which combines Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, have said the Bay State could be in jeopardy of losing more than $1 billion annually, with hundreds of thousands of residents at risk of losing coverage. Health policy nonprofit KFF said the bill directs U.S. Health and Human Services to revise state directed payment regulations so that the total payment rate for inpatient hospital and nursing facility services is capped at 100% of the total published Medicare payment rate. The 100% limit would apply to Massachusetts and other states that have adopted the Medicaid expansion, and the limit would be 110% for the 10 states that have not adopted the expansion. But the U.S. House version of the bill would grandfather in any state directed payments submitted for approval and approved prior to the legislation's enactment. MassHealth has previously said that so-called safety net providers could sustain cuts of hundreds of millions of dollars annually if Congress or the president blocks renewal of Massachusetts's existing state directed payments. MassHealth and the Mass. Executive Office of Health and Human Services did not respond over the weekend or Monday to a request for comment on the president's memo on state directed payments. Manatt Health Senior Managing Director Patricia Boozang said in March that Massachusetts uses state directed payments 'extensively' and that the Trump administration was likely to act on its own to address them if the president's favored policies don't advance as part of the reconciliation package. The Congressional Budget Office said last month that the bill as passed by the U.S. House will mean $698 billion less in federal subsidies for Medicaid, $267 billion less in federal spending for SNAP, $64 billion less in net spending for all other purposes, and a $3.8 trillion increase in the federal deficit all over the next decade. The CBO also said it expects the reductions in federal spending to lead to about $78 billion in additional spending among the 50 states 'accounting for changes in state contributions to SNAP and Medicaid and for state tax and spending policies necessary to finance additional spending.' The office said it was still analyzing 'expectations of the states' responses to changes in federal funding.' The budget plans that House and Senate negotiators are attempting to reconcile into a final fiscal 2026 state budget assume about $15.76 billion in federal revenues, an increase over the $14.3 billion in the current budget, including $14.2 billion in federal MassHealth reimbursements alone. Most of the cuts in the U.S. House bill would hit in federal fiscal year 2027, which begins Oct. 1, 2026 (three months into Massachusetts' fiscal year 2027). Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
