House Passes Sentate Health Bill

Last evening the House passed the Senate's health bill, H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Over 38 states are now stating they are in process and will file suit regarding the procedures and processes, as well as substance and constitutionality issues once the bill is signed into law. This law, along with H.R. 4872, the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act which follows, will greatly expand Medicaid. Unlike Medicare, Medicaid requires states to chip in a percentage of the costs as well as administer the program. As mentioned in the January 4th posting, 43 states are facing financial deficits. Not every state was fortunate enough to get the nearly $600 million each in supplemental Medicaid deals to which Vermont and Massachusetts were privy, let alone the cornhusker kickback that Nebraska did which covered the state's required Medicaid contributions in perpetuity. (This provision for Nebraska will supposedly be eliminated in the yet to be passed by the Senate reconciliation bill.)

Last Thursday, Arizona's new budget signed by the governor dropped coverage for childless adults and the child health insurance program (CHIP) instate, leaving 357,000 Arizonans without coverage. The governor stated the "budget is a vivid reflection of how the fiscal crisis affecting state governments is cutting deeply into healthcare."

Politicians may choose to ignore the will of the people and pass legislation, but ultimately someone must pay for it. Given the present economic crisis, tax revenues are falling for both state and federal governments. It seems Washington has forgotten the fiscal realities of those outside of the Beltway. If the checks and balances built into our Constitution do not cause this legislation to be rethought, the financial realities will.

HR3962: Duty or Charity - Covering Congenital or Developmental Deformities

HR 3962 assures that children with congenital or developmental deformities be covered under group health plans. But children born to a "covered" parent already have these benefits. The question is - who will benefit from this rule change?

It is quite popular for those who would like to adopt children to go abroad to do so. Many choose to adopt a child with special needs, such as a cleft palate, who would be less likely to be adopted by a local couple. These children may require one or several surgeries as they grow. No doubt, this is a noble and charitable deed. This is not an unknown risk, the parents had full disclosure of the condition when they adopted the child. Often employer health plans willingly choose to extend coverage for such conditions under their plan in these circumstances. Understanding that such generous coverage necessitates higher premiums to pay for it, the question is should an employer-provided health plan be forced to participate in the employee's charity? Health plans do not typically cover adoption as part of their reproductive health options coverage. Parents pay tens of thousands of dollars of their own savings to adopt. Is it unreasonable for them to bear the full
expense of their decisions, rather than mandate it be cost-shifted to their employers, particularly in these difficult economic times?

This does not need to preclude parents from adopting a child with congenital or developmental deformities. Today, many developing countries have first-world internationally accredited hospitals where these children can have the necessary procedures at a tiny fraction of what it would cost for the same care here. It may be easier for the child and parents, given the staff speak the child's native language, as well as English.