Son-of-a-glitch: Abercrombie defends turning state’s disabled population into second class citizens

Share |

On August 22, Governor Neil Abercrombie admitted that the purpose of SB 1274 was to save the state’s Medicaid contractors money on legal fees. He never explained how that would benefit patients.

SB 1274 deleted part of the state’s Patients Bill of Rights, depriving Hawaii’s entire Medicaid population (270,000) of access to the protections of federal law.

The Governor suggested numerous creative alternatives to legal counsel: “civilian public defenders,” “ombudspeople”, a new commission, even getting federal money to hire a patient advocate. It was clear that no work has been done on any of the ideas to replace the lawyers who have the expertise to interpret coverage contracts and to apply the law to a patient’s individual circumstances.

Just no lawyers. Unless of course the family has the money to spend on hiring one themselves.

The meeting was ostensibly to “reassure” families and advocates for the state’s disability population, in the aftermath of his signing of SB 1274. Abercrombie stated “I am failing” if anybody in Hawaii needs a lawyer to enforce their civil and legal healthcare rights.

On August 24, a Circuit Court decision was handed down against Evercare (Unitedhealth), proving even children in Hawaii need a lawyer in order to enforce civil rights under the ADA.

This is the second time since June the Circuit Court has ruled against Evercare. Both cases revolved around Unitedhealth’s cuts in benefits to medically fragile children, where percentage savings translate into thousands of dollars per month each.

Both children were fighting for the right to live at home with their families and not be put in institutions. But for their right to have a lawyer, neither child would have won.

But all this, according to Abercrombie, is just a “glitch.” No need for lawyers.

Also on August 22, Dr. Kenneth Fink, Hawaii state Medicaid Director, acknowledged in writing to the parent of one of these children that Evercare had violated federal confidentiality laws. This is the fourth such letter parents have received from Dr. Fink in less than a year.

Meanwhile the state has been unable to produce proof of Abercrombie’s statement that it was made “explicitly clear to [him] by the United States Department of Health and Human Services that the external review process we had in place did not meet the Affordable Care Act requirements.” This was a crucial ground for signing the Bill instead of vetoing it.

Supporters of the bill had tried to argue it was necessary in order to comply with an Affordable Care Act deadline of July 1. On June 21, the Governor’s office admitting to having had no contact with federal authorities on the issue, and later that week the deadline was extended to the end of the year. Nonetheless, now the Governor says there is a letter from DHHS.

Rafael del Castillo, healthcare rights attorney, asked the governor’s office following the meeting for a “copy of the DHHS correspondence explicitly stating that our existing external review is unacceptable.”

The meeting was two weeks ago, and he has received nothing to date. A recording of the meeting can be found here.

The impact of SB 1274 has been eerily similar to that of the White House-backed amicus brief submitted to the Supreme Court in May.

There is something called “Federal Sovereignty.” This means that federal law is the “supreme law of the land”, and states cannot limit legal rights allowed under federal law.

In his analysis of the amicus brief, Simon Lazarus of the National Senior Citizens Law Center explained that “the rule endorsed by the DOJ brief, [carves]… safety net laws and beneficiaries out from the protection of [the] Supremacy Clause."

That is pretty much what SB 1274 has accomplished: carving out Hawaii’s Medicaid population from the protections of federal law.

Abercrombie painted the concept of turning everyone on Medicaid into second class citizens in rosey terms. He had to sign SB 1274, he said, in order to prevent federal regulators from reducing the state’s “flexibility” and “opportunity to experiment” with people’s lives.

Why the state suddenly needs to experiment with a healthcare appeals system that has functioned appropriately for more than a decade, was not explained.

The crux of SB 1274 was to repeal a state law enabling patients to challenge health insurers’ denials of care, and to be represented by an attorney in the process. The law required health insurers to pay the legal costs of the patient’s appeal when the company refuses to approve medical treatments ordered by a doctor. Back in April, Unitedhealth’s attorney openly told a TV reporter that SB 1274 needed to be passed because this "existing process is expensive, time-consuming and burdensome... just adds to the cost of healthcare when we [Unitedhealth] can ill-afford it."

What she failed to add was that her client, Unitedhealth had over a dozen cases pending against it. As of this writing, she and Unitedhealth have lost every case ever filed against it under the patient rights law she said needed to be repealed.

By April, information surfaced that the bill was actually a way to change the federally approved contract between Hawaii and two specific Medicaid contractors, Unitedhealth and Wellcare. The current contract mandates the two companies follow state law, something they knew when the signed the contracts.

The problem with privatizing Medicaid is that, once these companies get control of the system, they can start demanding modifications in their contracts. The State is in a weak position to resist because it has gutted its social service infrastructure, essentially disabling itself. Unitedhealth and Wellcare decided they do not like being told what to do by successful patients and their attorneys, so they insist on the state finding a way to get rid of the law. That way, their Medicaid premium profits are safe from needy patients who have the power to enforce their rights because their legal fees are paid.

My daughter Hannah is another medically fragile child who has needed a lawyer to protect her from the harm caused by Unitedhealth. During the meeting on August 22, the Governor promised someone would call me about the “glitches” and “logistical problems” plaguing Hannah’s medical care.

There have been no calls. Just another glitch?

Medicare already 45% privatized, Medicaid could reach 30% by year's end

Share |

The privatization of Medicaid could hit 30% by the end of 2011. Medicare's privatization has already reached 45%.

The so-called Republican war on Medicare and Medicaid was already won a couple of years ago, and the battles waged so publicly now are, in large part, a public relations diversion.

What the Republicans, and apparently the President, don't want us to see is is the amount of government health care funds - between $2 billion and $5 billion every month - that this privatization has diverted to shareholder profits.

That money could be used instead to fund anywhere between 400,000 and 1 million full time jobs in local communities across the country. Every time one of these publicly-traded companies cuts the benefits it pays out, it means jobs have been lost as nurses, home attendants, adult day care, and a host of other local companies that provide equipment and services to the disability community. Meanwhile states have been able to cut their accounting, social work, quality control, regulation monitoring and other positions when the HMO takes over these jobs as part of its contract.

Figures published by the Commonwealth Fund, combined with Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) filings, show the percentage of people receiving Medicaid who are signed up through publicly traded HMOs has gone from 19.6% in 2009 to 27.1% as of June 30, 2011.

New contracts coming into play this year will add at least 1.7 million new people, bringing privatization to 29.8%. The Affordable Care Act is expected to raise Medicaid enrollment by 16 million by 2019, and the Commonwealth Fund concluded that "given recent patterns in state contract awards to managed care plans, it is reasonable to anticipate that plans operated by publicly traded companies will enroll the majority of the expanded Medicaid population."

Of the 47 million signed up for Medicare, 21 million are enrolled in publicly traded HMOs. When compared against the total population of just Medicare's managed care and stand-alone drug benefit, that 21 million becomes 71% of the total number of enrollees in those programs.

We obviously cannot count on our elected officials to stop this insidious process by themselves. They aren't even telling us about it. Please sign our petition demanding legislation to take private profits out of Medicaid and Medicare.

Stopping the privatization of Medicaid and Medicare: Create jobs not profits

Share |

This country is in desperate need of legislation to halt the privatization of Medicaid and Medicare.

It is already costing taxpayers $11 billion a month in a subsidy or bailout or whatever you want to call it, that no one has voted on, and is the driving force behind a civil rights war going on right beneath our noses.

Throughout American history, every minority has won its equality through speaking up on is own behalf. The reason nobody knows about this particular civil rights war, is this time the minority cannot speak for itself.

They are our medically vulnerable of any age, those who because of time or disability would be living in institutions if not for Medicaid. Eighty-six percent of the national Medicaid budget is allocated for their care, to pay for the treatments and services to keep our loved ones at home with their families, or in the communities of their choice.

It may be budgeted for their care, but if it's paid to one of ten major for-profit HMOs, anywhere between twenty and fifty (or more) percent is taken out as a sort of middleman fee.

For our families, these cuts translate into reductions of sterile medical equipment, denials of anything from diapers to wheelchairs to communications devices, and reductions in those very services we need in order to keep our loved ones out of institutions. We sacrifice sleep, jobs, friends and the ability to multitask to try to compensate for cuts that were made to raise company profits.

Legislation imposing a 95% health benefits ratio (the percentage of the per person per month premium the HMO receives that is spent on actual health benefits) will do no good. The Administration effectively acknowledged the power of the criminal culture grown up around these HMOs when they gave Wellcare a "get out of jail free" card in April. No expenses they report themselves could ever be trusted.

The best legislation may be to outlaw capitation payments. Go back to a simple fee-for-service program; after all, it worked fine for forty years. All the county and state workers who lost their jobs when the HMO took over can be hired back. These are the people who are best capable of managing the care of someone who is medically vulnerable anyway, not employees of a for-profit HMO.

If the state goes back to writing the checks (more jobs), we eliminate the profit motive, while pumping $11 billion a month into local communities. That could translate into between 400,000 and 1 million jobs across the country. Every time a nurse is hired, a child or grandparent with disabilities is given forty hours a week of home nursing services, something that literally can mean the difference between life and death.

That could also be seen as a million jobs across the country that have been sacrificed in the past three years to keep profits up.

On my other website, I started a survey in January looking for information on how well states were adhering to federal Medicaid regulations. Not adhering means violating, right? While the sample remains small, every state represented so far is violating one federal regulation or another.

Yet the Supreme Court will soon be considering whether anyone signing up for Medicaid should forfeit the right to "federal Supremacy", turning about 50 million people immediately into second class citizens. The White House has also backed a series of proposed Medicaid regulations that implement this anti-regulation of the human and civil rights of our elderly, our adults and our children with disabilities.

Why isn't it child abuse to steal money intended to be spent on keeping children home with their families? Since when can the government abdicate regulatory control over the recipients of federal funds?

Millions like my daughter who have no ability to speak out in support of their own civil rights, are watching control over their life-and-death decisions being sold off to for-profit HMOs.

The first step to stop this insidious destruction of the human rights of the weakest members of our society is to let Congress and the President know that we know what they have been doing without the voters' permission. It is not over-dramatizing to say people have already died, and will continue to do so, until legislation takes the profit out of Medicaid and Medicare.

Please sign our petition here. With the pending Supreme Court decision, and final versions of those proposed new regulations coming up this fall, we need your voice now to help speak up for our children, those who will always be our children and those to whom we were children.

New Administration policy tells states how to auction off local Medicaid programs to for-profit HMOs without violating regulations

Share |

ADAPT, a national grassroots disability advocacy group, announced today its outrage over the Administration's latest attack against the human rights of America's medically vulnerable children, adults and senior citizens.

The policy was outlined in a letter sent to State Medicaid Directors by CMS (the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the federal regulatory agency for both Medicaid and Medicare) on Friday, August 5.

Reading between the lines, one purpose of the letter is to outline how states can sell off their Medicaid contracts to for-profit HMOs without violating any pesky federal regulations. Specifically, the letter addresses Medicaid issues only as they relate to the infamous "maintenance of effort" (MOE) regulation imposed under the Affordable Care Act.

At one point, the policy instructions are very explicit:

As detailed in our May 20, 2010 State Medicaid Director Letter, there are a variety of mechanisms available to States to rebalance their long-term support systems for persons with disabilities to achieve compliance with the ADA.

One of the points in the May 20 letter was to laud the "service delivery model" of managed care. These are the managed care contracts auctioned off to the growing for-profit HMO industry. The link to CMS' technical manual for running an honest managed care program does not appear to work any longer.

Government revenue for Medicaid and Medicare is already boosting some of these companies 23% higher for the year than the S&P 500. Unitedhealth, for instance, has successfully mislead both the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times into writing that their specular profits are related to performance in their commercial (employer) division.

Over the past three years, Unitedhealth's monthly income from commercial accounts increased by $300,000,000 while their monthly revenue from the government for Medicaid and Medicare increased by $1 billion. Which sector seems more likely to have produced a 313% increase in net earnings?

Last week's Medicaid policy statement is only the latest in a series of events evident of the Obama Administration's extreme pandering to big business HMOs.

Please help us stop this terrible mis-use of public funds.

Poll: Should Medicaid and Medicare be auctioned off to for-profit HMOs?

Share |

The disability rights, civil rights, womens rights, family rights, senior rights and healthcare rights advocates need to unite to stop Medicaid and Medicare being sold off to for-profit HMOs. Please take our poll: should Medicaid and Medicare be sold to for-profit HMOs?

Unfortunately, the process has already been underway since the Bush days, reaching almost $11 billion a month in government revenues paid to for-profit HMOS. That amount is growing, for some companies as fast as twenty percent within six months.

I'm the mother of a beautiful and loving soon-to-be 12 year old who is at 24/7 risk of death from epilepsy. Hannah's life was auctioned off to one of these companies (Unitedhealth) in February 2009 so I see every day the impact of its spectacular earnings growth on her daily life. There is a huge disability community on the internet, and I see the impacts there as well. They are intensifying as more and more states are requiring Medicaid recipients with disabilities to join these for-profit HMOs.

They have taken away from us the right of choice.

The companies aren't cutting services to our children because "the budget" has been cut. In fact, if you live in Hawaii, New York, Florida, Georgia and a few other states, your for-profit Medicaid HMO got a premium raise from your state. That's an increase to the budget, not a decrease.

What's getting cut is how much of the premium your Medicaid HMO is being paid for your child that is actually being spent on medical care. The health insurance industry calls it the "Medical loss ratio," I think of it as the "Patient loss ratio", some companies are reasonably straightforward and call it the "health benefits ratio."

If you google "medical loss ratio", you will see that this little number is playing a large role in Washington politicking. I've uploaded a number of articles about it here. The point is, it represents the amount of the premium spent on actual medical costs as a percentage of the premium. If a company reports an 80% MLR to federal regulators, it means they spent only eighty percent of the money allocated for the care of our children (for example), and saved the rest by denying medically necessary services and treatments.

A twenty percent "patient loss ratio" is what these companies brazenly report to the SEC. Federal investigations have revealed companies fraudulently inflating costs by up to 299%, and so a 50% PLR estimate could be conservative.

These companies are stealing from our children, our grandparents, and our communities' most vulnerable populations.

We can't change something we don't know about, so please help us spread the word.