Wednesday, April 06, 2005
States continue love affair with mandates
["Pressure Building at State Level to Compel Employers to Provide Health Insurance Coverage," Policy Brief, HR Policy Association, 25 March 2005.]
In sharp contrast with Consumer-Driven Health Care's emphasis on de-coupling insurance coverage from employers, many states are focusing on ways to encourage/force employers to provide coverage as their answer to the uninsured. Zeroing in on symptoms rather than the disease is a common problem for legislators, and this is no exception.
The good news is that while Colorado and especially Missouri make appearances in this new report, Kansas and its surrounding states are largely choosing to avoid additional mandates. Unfortunately, far too many mandates remain on the books, and instead of allowing for mandate-free policies or offering tax credits to uninsured individuals, Kansas legislators remain stuck in an old employer-based model. Substitute Senate Bill 257, for instance, extends tax credits to employers for offering HSAs, but provides no assistance to individuals.
To solve the problem of the uninsured, most federal policymakers are looking at the underlying problems in the system rather than requiring employers to provide health insurance. However, bills currently pending in 30 states demonstrate less patience at that level, where many state public assistance programs are facing severe budget constraints.
[T]he measures fall within three broad categories: 1) direct mandates; 2) indirect mandates conditioning state contracts and other benefits on health insurance coverage; and 3) public listings of employers who fail to provide health insurance coverage. As an example of the latter, the State of Massachusetts publishes the number of employees each employer has on Medicaid or SCHIP and the cost to the state.
This plethora of pending legislation—which does not offer workable, long-term solutions—underscores the importance of employers taking the offensive in developing workable solutions to the uninsured.
["Kansas Health Insurance Mandates Exceed National Average," The Flint Hills Center, 2005.
Matthew Hisrich, "State Mandates reduce insurance affordability," The Flint Hills Center, May 2004.]
["Pressure Building at State Level to Compel Employers to Provide Health Insurance Coverage," Policy Brief, HR Policy Association, 25 March 2005.]
In sharp contrast with Consumer-Driven Health Care's emphasis on de-coupling insurance coverage from employers, many states are focusing on ways to encourage/force employers to provide coverage as their answer to the uninsured. Zeroing in on symptoms rather than the disease is a common problem for legislators, and this is no exception.
The good news is that while Colorado and especially Missouri make appearances in this new report, Kansas and its surrounding states are largely choosing to avoid additional mandates. Unfortunately, far too many mandates remain on the books, and instead of allowing for mandate-free policies or offering tax credits to uninsured individuals, Kansas legislators remain stuck in an old employer-based model. Substitute Senate Bill 257, for instance, extends tax credits to employers for offering HSAs, but provides no assistance to individuals.
To solve the problem of the uninsured, most federal policymakers are looking at the underlying problems in the system rather than requiring employers to provide health insurance. However, bills currently pending in 30 states demonstrate less patience at that level, where many state public assistance programs are facing severe budget constraints.
[T]he measures fall within three broad categories: 1) direct mandates; 2) indirect mandates conditioning state contracts and other benefits on health insurance coverage; and 3) public listings of employers who fail to provide health insurance coverage. As an example of the latter, the State of Massachusetts publishes the number of employees each employer has on Medicaid or SCHIP and the cost to the state.
This plethora of pending legislation—which does not offer workable, long-term solutions—underscores the importance of employers taking the offensive in developing workable solutions to the uninsured.
["Kansas Health Insurance Mandates Exceed National Average," The Flint Hills Center, 2005.
Matthew Hisrich, "State Mandates reduce insurance affordability," The Flint Hills Center, May 2004.]
Comments:
Post a Comment
