Latest news with #InsuranceandFinancialServicesCommittee
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Amid rising costs, lawmaker wants to restart conversation about universal health care
Mainers spend more than $18.5 billion annually on health care, nearly 20% of the state's Gross Domestic Product, according to a 2024 report from the Maine Center for Economic Policy. (Photo:) One legislator is pushing to explore the possibility of a publicly funded universal health care system for Maine, which would expand coverage to more than 59,000 currently uninsured residents. During a public hearing on Wednesday, proponents stressed the urgent need for a better health care system, though the state's affordable health care office said there is 'no path forward' for establishing such a program right now. One bill, LD 1269, proposes a comprehensive study to analyze the costs and feasibility of a universal health care plan. Another, LD 1883, offers a detailed blueprint for a state-wide system called the All Maine Health Program that would provide comprehensive coverage to all Maine residents. If passed, Maine would be the only state in the country to shift to a universal health care system. During the hearing before the Health Coverage, Insurance and Financial Services Committee, Rep. AnnMarie Mastraccio (D-Sanford), who introduced both bills, said a state-wide system has not been studied comprehensively since 2002, and that 'it's time to update those numbers and evaluate our options.' She is aiming to address rising health care challenges including the closure of hospitals in rural Maine, the uncertainty around Medicaid funding, and overall health care costs increasing. Mainers spend more than $18.5 billion annually on health care, nearly 20% of the state's Gross Domestic Product, she said. 'Maine's current health care system is fragmented, inefficient and economically unsustainable,' Mastraccio said.'As legislators, we have a responsibility to make data-driven decisions that promote a sustainable, equitable health care infrastructure that begins with understanding the true costs and potential savings of a universal, publicly funded system.' Dozens of health care providers, advocates and Mainers who have struggled with medical costs testified in support of the bills, highlighting the urgent need for reform. They pointed to the lack of access to providers in rural areas, racial disparities in health care access in the state and the financial strain on both patients and providers because of the patchwork system of insurance coverage. 'The burden of this poor health infrastructure falls disproportionately on women of color, Black and Indigenous women and low income and rurally located women,' said Lily James, advocacy coordinator for the Maine Women's Lobby. For example, 65% of pregnant Black Mainers receive adequate prenatal care in 2022, compared to 87% of white Mainers, according to Maine Department of Health and Human Services data. And 22% of pregnant Mainers have to travel more than 45 minutes to access a birthing hospital, according to a 2023 report that James cited. 'The All Maine Health Program would be life changing, and in many cases, life saving for so many Mainers and will pave the way for the desperately needed changes to Maine's health care infrastructure,' James said. A November 2024 report from the Maine Center for Economic Policy found that, based on current demographics and insurance coverage, the cost of such a program would roughly equal the amount Mainers spend now, between $17.8 and $19.3 billion. Testifying on behalf of the plan, James Myall, a policy analyst for MECEP who authored the report, said that, unlike the current system, the cost of a universal system could be offset by other revenue streams, such as federal grants or increasing taxes on the wealthiest Mainers. 'This means that most Mainers will pay less under the proposed plan than under the status quo, while also being free of the stresses that come from being unable to afford copays and deductibles, worrying about in-network coverage, or switching insurance providers,' he told lawmakers. Meg Garratt-Reed, director of Maine's Office of Affordable Health Care, which was established by the Legislature in 2021, testified against both bills, saying the state isn't in a position to implement them with the current financial constraints and the amount of change that would be required to implement the program. While she acknowledged that Maine's health system is flawed and praised the intent behind the bills, she said a single-payer program would be too costly and complex to set up right now. The All Maine Health Program aims to save money by removing insurance companies from the system, which would reduce administrative costs like billing as well as shareholder profits. But Garratt-Reed said those savings wouldn't be enough to offset the added expenses in the plan. The bills would expand what's covered, increase payments to providers, and do less to limit unnecessary or overly costly treatments — all of which would drive up overall spending. She also said the bills would move away from the current cost-control system used by Medicare and MaineCare, Maine's Medicaid system, which set fixed prices for services. Instead, the state would have to negotiate rates with each provider — a more complex and less efficient process that could lead to even higher costs. The proposal also relies on using federal money (such as Medicaid and Medicare funds) to pay for the new system — but federal law doesn't let states reallocate money designated for specific programs without special permission, she said. And the federal government is very unlikely to give that permission, Garratt-Reed said, especially under the current political situation, pointing to congressional Republicans' proposal to drastically cut Medicaid funding. 'I think we can all agree that our current health care system is flawed, and that many people suffer because of those flaws. However much we may wish that we could recreate our nation's health care system from the ground up, we have a responsibility to those people to pursue solutions that have real potential to ease their suffering,' she said. 'The reality is there is no path forward for implementing such a program in Maine now or in the immediate future.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
20-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Maine bill would allow doctors to keep their names off prescription labels for abortion pill
Mar. 19—Maine is considering allowing doctors who prescribe medications used to perform abortions to keep their names off prescription labels in a change that advocates say would help protect them from legal risks and attacks. Lawmakers held a public hearing Wednesday on a bill that would permit doctors who prescribe mifepristone, misoprostol and their generic alternatives to use the name of the health care facility they work for on the prescription label rather than their own name, as is currently required by state law. Mifepristone and misoprostol are medications used to manage miscarriages and abortions within the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. Rep. Sally Cluchey, D-Bowdoinham, the bill's sponsor, told the Health Coverage, Insurance and Financial Services Committee that the change would offer additional protection for abortion providers amid increasing threats of violence and attacks after the 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade. It follows legislation that Maine passed last year to provide legal protections for doctors who provide abortions and gender-affirming care that has been banned in a patient's home state. "This bill, LD 538, builds on those protections, ensuring that health care providers can continue to serve patients without fear of harassment or harm," Cluchey said. "Without this additional protection, medical professionals in Maine, who are already being targeted by states seeking to criminalize care, remain vulnerable to legal intimidation." Maine is not the only state to consider changes to its requirements around prescription labeling to protect abortion providers. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed legislation last month allowing prescribers of medical abortion to request that pharmacies print the name of their practice rather than their personal name on prescription labels. Washington state passed a similar law last year, and a proposal is also being considered in Illinois. The New York legislation came after a doctor there was criminally charged in Louisiana for prescribing an abortion pill that was taken by a Louisiana teenager. The same doctor is also facing a civil lawsuit in Texas for allegedly providing a Texas woman with abortion pills via telemedicine. In the aftermath of the fall of Roe v. Wade in 2022, some states, like Maine, have taken steps to ensure abortion remains legal while others have rolled back protections or enacted abortion bans. Twelve states currently ban abortion, according to the health policy organization KFF. "In this tumultuous national landscape, Maine has remained a safe harbor for those seeking access to vitally needed sexual and reproductive health care," said Lisa Margulies, vice president of public affairs Maine for Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. Margulies said the bill would protect the privacy and safety of Maine clinicians who might be targeted for their work. "This would deter abortion opponents from out of state from weaponizing a discarded or otherwise obtained pill bottle," she said. According to the National Abortion Federation's 2022 Violence & Disruption Statistics report, stalking incidents targeting abortion clinic staff and patients rose 229% from 2021 to 2022 while threats of harm and death threats to abortion providers rose 20%. Cluchey cited that report as well as examples of harassment and acts of intimidation at abortion clinics in Maine Wednesday. In one case last year, two men followed a patient into Maine Family Planning's Lewiston clinic and tried to gain access to the patient waiting room, she said. And in another case, protestors blockaded a clinic entrance in Waterville. "These are only a fraction of the harassment providers are experiencing," Cluchey said. Most of the testimony the committee heard Wednesday was in support, although the Retail Association of Maine testified against the proposal on behalf of pharmacies. President and CEO Curtis Picard told the committee that pharmacies are concerned the bill would conflict with labeling requirements in federal law. In response to a committee member's question about how New York and Washington have been able to enact similar laws, Picard said the retail association has received conflicting information and he is still looking into the issue. "(Our pharmacies) had an attorney say they think it can be done and Washington has done it, but then I've had my pharmacy corporate counsel say, 'No, we still think it violates federal rules,'" Picard said. Picard also told the committee it would be difficult for pharmacies to "delete" the prescriber's name in the technological systems they use. "Each system is different technology-wise, and the ability to modify that system would be costly and very difficult," he said. Picard said in an interview after the hearing that the association has no problems with the intent of the bill. "We're happy to keep talking with the committee and see if there's a way forward," he said. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland also submitted testimony against the bill. "This prescription should not be treated any differently than other prescribed drugs," the diocese said in written testimony. "The proponents of abortion consider it healthcare so it should be treated as such and held to the same standards." Copy the Story Link We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others. We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion. You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs. Show less
