Public health is for the public: Rafael Del Castillo for Congress

Share |

Rafael Del Castillo is a lawyer who follows his conscience.  The Honolulu attorney has been working as much as fifty hours a week for free since January 1.

 

His clients are twelve families appealing health insurance company denials of services for their children with disabilities.  Many of the denials are life-threatening, as the children, ranging in age from 4 to 19, are medically fragile.

He is working for free because a new law went into effect that destroyed appeal rights patients had had for a dozen years which reimbursed them for any legal fees in their appeals. 

Del Castillo is running for Congress, for the seat in the U.S. House of Representatives being vacated by Mazie Horono.  His web site details his positions better than I can here, but I am writing this because I believe actions can speak as eloquently as words.

I can think of no higher recommendation for a politician than someone who will follow his conscience as Del Castillo has been doing.

My medically fragile daughter Hannah is one of Del Castillo’s clients.  Over the past couple of years, I’ve come to know some of the other families who rely on Del Castillo to keep our children safe, at home, and as healthy as possible.

The law depriving our children of a level playing field against a $110 billion a year Wall Street giant actually covers all 270,000 or so people in Hawaii enrolled in Medicaid.

The law was intended to be the final step in the effective block-granting of Hawaii’s Medicaid program.   Cutting off access to lawyers was a simple way to deny 270,000 people access to the protections of federal law.   It gave the state ultimate power over how federal Medicaid funds are spent, accomplishing overnight what the US Congress has blocked for the past thirty years.

What neither the state nor the health insurance companies planned on was Del Castillo continuing to represent his clients, whether he would be paid or not.

The law was introduced by Hawaii’s first Democratic Governor in eight years, and passed within his first seven months in office.  In a meeting with the families last August, the Governor admitted the law was intended to save the insurance companies money on legal fees.

The company saving the most from the law immediately was Unitedhealth.  At the time, Del Castillo had over a dozen cases just against that company, and a record of winning 90% of all cases.  By May 2011, Del Castillo was estimating Unitedhealth’s legal costs defending its unreasonable denials of care at around half a million dollars for the year to date.

Ironically, Unitedhealth’s Medicaid and Medicare operations in Hawaii had been under some form of federal or state oversight since April 2010 for violating the legal rights of these same children. Federal Medicaid and Medicare laws were broken every time Unitedhealth denied services to the children that their doctors had prescribed as “medically necessary.”

So the Governor knew Unitedhealth was violating federal regulations by cutting services for our kids when he told us point blank that he was “a failure” if any of us needed a lawyer.

The Governor was also aware the services are not being denied because the state lacks the money to pay for them.  They are being denied so Hawaii’s two for-profit Medicaid managed care companies can sustain twenty percent operating profits.

After all, what does a $9.4 billion “savings” from its federal Medicaid and Medicare contracts mean to Unitedhealth compared to a few hours of nursing care here, or a speech therapy session there?

Del Castillo has been so busy working for our children for free that he has done little fundraising for his Congressional campaign.  That was one of the reasons cited by Hawaii’s biggest media outlet in their refusal on Friday to include Del Castillo in their upcoming Congressional debate.

For years, the media has blackballed Del Castillo.  Over a decade ago he was told the health insurance companies had linked pulling their advertising with news coverage of Del Castillo’s work on behalf of patient healthcare rights.  Unlike, apparently, the Governor, he is not willing to play ball with one of the state’s biggest federal contractors.

Government needs to be taken away from the corporations and given back to the people.  Public health funds need to go to the public, not Wall Street.

This is why I support Rafael Del Castillo for Congress.

Hawaii leads in national attack against people with disabilities

Share |

The first argument the Supreme Court will hear when it begins its new term on October 3 could determine if this country’s entire disability population will be denied the protections of federal law.

We have until then to let our government know we do not support selling off "the 'social contract' that provides a decent, functioning society" to Wall Street so shareholders can make bigger profits.

Families like mine stand to lose the right to stay together, even when a child’s disabilities are so extensive the only alternative is a cage crib in a hospital somewhere. It was the Bush Administration that supported extending the social contract to children with disabilities by granting them legal rights to medical care in 1989.

Giving Wall Street corporations already caught embezzling hundreds of millions of federal dollars the ability to embezzle hundreds of billions more is insanity. But removing federal oversight now gives states the ability to restrict rights granted under federal law. The state can then legislate away the ability to appeal these corporation’s decisions, for instance, saving the companies money on legal fees while supporting increasing corporate earnings.

That is what has been happening in Hawaii, where Unitedhealth and Wellcare control two-thirds of the state’s Medicaid budget.

Last month Governor Neil Abercrombie admitted the purpose of Act 230 (formerly SB 1274) was to save Hawaii's private Medicaid contractors money on legal fees.

Act 230 goes into effect on January 1, 2012. At that time everyone enrolled in Medicaid loses the right to legal help in fighting life-threatening denials of medical services.

Last month he admitted the purpose of Act 230 (formerly SB 1274) was to save Hawaii's private Medicaid contractors money on legal fees.

Act 230 goes into effect on January 1, 2012. At that time everyone enrolled in Medicaid loses the right to legal help in fighting life-threatening denials of medical services.

With legal decisions coming down against the state only two days after the governor's "I am failing" speech, Unitedhealth continues until then to wrack up significant legal bills.

Now Abercrombie has found a way to save Unitedhealth money before January 1: by denying reimbursement for expert witnesses that testified on that child's behalf. The state has abruptly reversed a ten year old policy upheld by two previous administrations.

Honolulu attorney Rafael del Castillo represents my daughter Hannah, and five other families of my personal acquaintance. We are all fighting Unitedhealth's on-going denials of medically necessary services on behalf of our children with disabilities, services the state is paying them to provide.

The company is refusing to provide these services because they would cost too much money and that would have a negative impact on shareholder earnings. The services in all cases have been prescribed by our children's doctors.

Del Castillo asks for no money from his clients, even to pay advance costs for expert witnesses. H.R.S. 432E-6 is the state law that makes health insurance companies in Hawaii responsible for the fees incurred by the patient in appealing medical care denials, regardless of who wins the case. Del Castillo takes the chance he he will win in order to get paid. He is up to over 90% wins the last I heard.

Act 230 repeals H.R.S. 432E-6. Del Castillo says last week's move to prohibit reimbursement for expert witnesses goes "as far as the Administration could possibly go to repeal the law before the repeal takes effect on January 1."

When sister legislation to SB 1274 was introduced earlier this year, it turned out to have been drafted by attorneys for Wellcare, the other contractor for the state's disability services program. Interestingly, it would have made enrollees responsible for the legal fees of the insurance company, even when the insurance company lost.

Later the state legislature tried to make SB 1274 retroactive to January 1. Since there were twelve appeals cases pending, it was estimated at the time the measure would save Unitedhealth alone about $500,000.

Del Castillo is representing the person with disabilities in all twelve of these cases.

According to Del Castillo, "the Abercrombie Administration knows that it is making pending patient rights cases ... virtually impossible to win unless one of two things happens: The patient pays for any experts who cannot afford to work for free, or I pay for them. The Abercrombie Administration knows ... that I will have to pay for the experts out of my own pocket or lose the cases. "

It is more than beginning to look a lot like retaliation and harassment, both of which are prohibited by the Americans with Disabilities Act.

One of the questions that has to be asked now is whether Abercrombie's anti-Medicaid actions have become sufficiently blatant that our major Honolulu media will break their years-old black-out on news concerning Rafael.

Years ago he was told the insurance companies threatened to pull their media advertising if any story involving Rafael was run. When Rafael ran for Congress in 2010, neither major newspaper nor any of the TV stations mentioned it when he came in third.

The Honolulu media ran a single story in seven months concerning SB 1274. It was a television piece that aired late at night, and was a major embarrassment for Unitedhealth (their attorney told the reporter Unitedhealth was spending too much money on legal fees).

As a result, more than a quarter million people are unaware they are losing major civil rights on January 1.

What is happening now in Hawaii is symptomatic of the political power wielded by these publicly traded Medicaid contractors. The state first "disables itself", in del Castillo's words, by decimating the employment infrastructure that supported the previous fee-for-service Medicaid program. The contractors are being paid public funds to provide "managed care", so state employees become redundant.

The Medicaid contractors eventually become "too big" to fail; or more accurately, "too big to take down for criminal activity." That can be the only explanation for why companies caught stealing children's Medicaid money not only get new contracts, but get premium raises in the states from which they have embezzled funds.

State contracts to provide Medicaid services to the local disability community are extremely lucrative. They are calculated on a monthly per person basis, depending on the "risk" of the company incurring significant charges for that individual. Unitedhealth is likely receiving somewhere between $12,000 and $27,000 per month for each of Rafael's clients.

These so called "abd" contracts ("aged, blind and disabled") have an enormous impact on shareholder profits. In just under three years, Unitedhealth's Medicaid membership increased about 50%, while Medicaid revenues were up 135%, and net quarterly earnings up 318% (that is not a typo).

At least six Federal civil rights investigations have been opened in Hawaii since February 2010. The four children represented were all facing cuts in home nursing services. Between the ages of four and ten, all are medically fragile, to varying degrees technology dependent, none can eat by mouth, one is completely immobile, none of the others can walk by themselves, and three are too medically fragile to attend school with other children.

You see, our nation has a most enlightened policy towards children with disabilities. Medicaid law gives children (under 21) a legal right to services prescribed as "medically necessary" by their doctor or other provider. These become civil rights when those services involve ensuring that children can live at home with their families.

These legal and civil rights are a mandated part of any state's Medicaid program. They are expensive and they are comprehensive. The disability population may only represent twenty-eight percent of all Medicaid beneficiaries, but are allocated two-thirds of the national budget. Less than fourteen percent of the budget is spent on healthy, working age adults.

It is called the Early Periodic Screening, Detection & Treatment program, or EPSDT. While federal Medicaid regulations also mandate family education about EPSDT, the unfortunate truth is that most states are violating those regulations. Few families know what is available to them.

It is relatively easy to embezzle public money intended to provide services for children with disabilities. The kids themselves are frequently not in a position to speak up on their own behalf, and parents are often in a state of "shell shock" from caring for a child in danger of dying 24/7.

Unitedhealth, Wellcare and the state of Hawaii Department of Human Services Medicaid division have been under some sort of federal scrutiny for violating the rights of people with disabilities almost continuously since September 2009. That is less than six months after they started their $100 million per month contract with the state. In March 2010, legislative leaders were caught on tape reacting to sworn testimony that the death rate among enrollees jumped 36% in the first twelve months.

The public in Hawaii has heard nothing of any investigation into that horrendous assertion. Far more interesting, the relatively unknown governor of Hawaii is accomplishing "a de facto move toward the block-granting of Medicaid", exactly as predicted by Simon Lazarus of the National Senior Citizen Law enter three months ago.

Block-granting Medicaid, according to the Kaiser Foundation, means "that the federal government
gives states a fixed amount of money and each state decides who to cover and what services to pay for."
Sixty percent of respondents to a Kaiser poll rejected block-granting in favor of leaving the current system unchanged, whereby it is the "federal government guaranteeing coverage and setting minimum standards for benefits and eligibility."

Reagan tried to block-grant Medicaid in 1981 and failed. Clinton vetoed similar legislation that Congress had passed in 1995. Nobody has had to vote on anything to accomplish block-granting of Medicaid in Hawaii.

Even now, Hawaii is accepting bids for new state Medicaid contracts, and Wellcare and Unitedhealth are expected to be bidding. The Governor acknowledged last month knowing of the mounting list of complaints filed with federal regulators (CMS, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) against the State as well as Unitedhealth. He blamed the contract, which he inherited (true), while turning the entire Medicaid appeals process over to the same state bureaucrats already caught lying to federal regulators.

This is not over-dramatizing. CMS has caught DHS lying to them about my daughter at least twice. Rumors have it that Unitedhealth even lied to the state about losing a circuit court appeal that was actually won by one of the medically fragile children.

At the beginning of the year, CMS investigated DHS and Unitedhealth for Medicare fraud in Hawaii. The company was targeting what are called "dual eligibles", adults with disabilities who qualify for both Medicaid and Medicare. Every time the company signs up a new individual for Medicare, they are paid a bonus. A company employee made an appointment to see a severely disabled young man on Kauai, as a representative of Unitedhealth Medicaid. He was actually from Unitedhealth Medicare, and never explained to the family the purpose of the paperwork he had them sign. They only discovered it when prescriptions and services began to be denied, leading to such a severe deterioration in his condition he now requires dialysis three times a week.

It is not just Hawaii. Florida has passed legislation mandating the state's entire Medicaid population enroll into the same publicly traded companies already found embezzling from the state. Texas is also on the verge of mandating everyone on Medicaid join a managed care organization, among which will be the top publicly traded corporations.

Parents of children with disabilities in New Jersey recently received letters requiring them to sign up for Medicaid from one of four companies. Two of them were Unitedhealth (they also do business as Health Net of New Jersey), and a third was Amerigroup, another publicly traded company caught stealing from children.

The companies themselves make it difficult to track membership and revenues. Several companies do business under different names, with Unitedhealth needing thirteen pages in their year end SEC filing to list all the company aliases. I found the same publicly traded companies reporting themselves to CMS under two different categories (commercial or non-commercial), making official Medicaid statistics somewhat unreliable.

In last week's $150 million Medicaid fraud settlement, Tony West, assistant attorney general of the civil division of the U.S. Department of Justice, stated “This type of fraud uses patients as pawns in a game of corporate greed that puts cash over care, running up the bills on the very people our public health care programs are supposed to benefit."

Wellcare's $137 million Medicaid fraud settlement announced in May has not yet warranted a DOJ press release, let alone such passionate rhetoric.

In June, 29 Republican governors signed a letter to Congress asking for increased control over Medicaid budgets, supposedly to help balance local state spending.

An August letter from CMS to State Medicaid Directors contained the White House response. The governors had demanded a way to get out from under Medicaid access and participation ("maintenance of effort") requirements established first under the Recovery Act and then under the Affordable Care Act. The CMS response provided detailed instructions in how states could ignore these inconvenient regulations, removing one of the last obstacles to block-granting Medicaid out to publicly traded corporations.

Should these companies be considered "too big to fail"? How do you weigh shareholder profits against how I felt after waiting ten years for Hannah to give me my first hug?

Please sign our petition, take our poll, send a letter to your newspaper and congressional representatives. This enslaving of our country's most medically vulnerable people to corporate profits needs to end.

When Medicaid is big business, people suffer

Share |

Hawaii’s governor, the first Democrat elected in eight years, has publicly defended his decision to segregate the state’s Medicaid population as second class citizens.

Like Obama, Neil Abercrombie rode to victory last November on a great tide of hope for the future. And like Obama, he has apparently decided to side with Big Business against the civil rights of his voters.

There is something called “Federal Supremacy.” Federal law is the “supreme law of the land”, and states cannot limit legal rights defined by federal law.

One practical result is that children as well as adults with disabilities have the ability to appeal life-threatening denials of medically necessary services by their Medicaid plan. The majority of cases that reach this level involve children of all ages with disabilities, fighting for the right to live at home rather than in institutions. These home medical services are expensive, although less than what the state would pay for institutionalization.

In May, the White House unexpectedly pushed through an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief with the Supreme Court, taking the position that the protections of Federal law do not extend to Medicaid beneficiaries.

Disability law experts like Sara Rosenbaum and Simon Lazarus immediately warned of the potential “spill-over effect” if beneficiaries of the country’s “safety net programs” like Medicaid were suddenly denied the protections of the court.

Governor Abercrombie’s comments were made during an August 22 meeting called to explain why he signed a piece of legislation eerily similar to that amicus brief.

Hawaii’s S.B. 1274, signed by the Governor in July, accomplishes exactly what Lazarus warned of: it carves out the state’s entire Medicaid population (270,000) and denies them access to the protections of federal law.

The Governor openly admitted the purpose of SB 1274 was saving the state’s Medicaid contractors money on legal fees. Patterns of Medicaid providers violating federal regulations (and civil rights) he dismissed as mere “glitches”. (More information about SB 1274 as well as a link to a recording of the Governor's comments can be found here.)

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 refused to approve medical treatments ordered by a doctor.

Seventy percent of Hawaii’s Medicaid budget is paid out to two publicly traded contractors, Unitedhealth and Wellcare. The two share a lucrative $1.2 billion a year contract to provide services to 40,000 children and adults with disabilities. Premiums are calculated individually, and because these contracts are specifically to cover home services for people with disabilities, monthly premiums can range as high as $27,000 for, say, a medically fragile child.

Publicly traded Medicaid (and Medicare) HMOs make shareholder profits by not spending premium money on medical expenses. Since the size of the Medicaid pie is the same it was before they bought the contract, services have to be cut twenty to fifty percent to support corporate profits.

State contracts with Medicaid providers like Unitedhealth and Wellcare must be approved federally (through CMS, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, part of DHHS). They mandate compliance with all state laws. Unitedhealth and Wellcare knew about Hawaii’s healthcare laws when they signed the contract, but apparently did not realize what they would cost them.

Only one thing is accomplished by deleting a state law requiring insurance companies to reimburse patients’ legal bills in disputes over medical care. It allows the company to slash services in order to increase profits, without worrying that patients have the ability to challenge them effectively.

In Hawaii, it got the publicly traded companies out from under the mounting legal bills incurred defending against life-threatening cuts in services, most of them victimizing children and seniors.

In April, Unitedhealth’s Hawaii attorney openly told a TV reporter that SB 1274 needed to be passed because the state’s "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 at the time. As of this writing, she and Unitedhealth have lost every case ever filed against it under the same patient rights law she said needed to be repealed.

What is happening here in Hawaii is only the tip of the iceburg.

By the end of this year, publicly traded companies will own about 30% of Medicaid, up from 19.6% two years earlier.

Remember when Congress had to approve TARP giving the banks $700 billion back in 2008? In the end the price tag was $245 billion, almost all of which has been paid back by now.

The privatization of Medicaid and Medicare has gone from $105.3 billion in 2009, to $113.7 billion in 2010, and already stands at $65 billion for the first half of 2011. Not a penny of that $284 billion needs to be repaid.

The political hot potato neither Republicans nor Democrats are talking about is who determines how much of that money actually needs to be spent. Or even if any of this nice federal and state funding has actually been spent on real medical care for people who need it.

The amicus brief and state laws like SB 1274 clear the way for these publicly traded companies to increase profits without worrying about federal regulatory interference. Unitedhealth and Wellcare are only two of about ten publicly traded health companies together splitting about $11 billion every month in federal and state revenues for Medicaid and Medicare.

The morning after last November’s elections, Public Citizen published a study of the link between “party-shifting contests” and “unregulated third-party spending.” Twenty-two of fifty-eight new Republicans were in seven of the eight states that just settled with Wellcare for criminal Medicaid fraud claims. Unregulated third party spending in those seven states came to $11 million, of the $54 million tracked.

Eighty-five percent of the total was spent in states where six publicly traded corporations (Unitedhealth, Wellcare, Wellpoint, Centene, Amerigroup and Molina) own Medicaid contracts. Unitedhealth alone operated either Medicaid or Medicare HMOs in 28 of the 33 states where Republicans beat Democrats, and was bidding on new contracts with a 29th state at the time.

On August 5, the White House took another swipe at federal protections for people on Medicaid, and particularly those with disabilities. CMS sent a letter out telling states how to auction off their Medicaid contracts without worrying about inconvenient federal safeguards. The legal work-arounds that CMS proposes specifically target what is called “maintenance of effort.” New Medicaid contracts/programs cannot restrict existing access to program benefits.

Now they can.

The politics of Medicaid/Medicare corruption override party membership. Greed trumps ideology, apparently.

You see it as far back as 2002. That’s the year a group of Wall Street financiers bought Florida’s biggest Medicaid HMO, a little known company named Wellcare. George Soros, head of the group, was known for donating to Democrats. The financiers’ hand-picked CEO was a Bush fundraiser.
Between taking the company public in 2004 and selling out before the very public FBI raid in October 2007 (the last shares were sold only weeks earlier), the original investors turned $70 million into almost $900 million.

The whistleblower complaint that led to a dawn raid by 200 FBI agents was not unsealed until last summer, almost three years later. Reading it, however, makes it very clear that the criminally fraudulent practices that generated such excessive profits traced back to the change of ownership in 2002.

Wellcare almost appears to have been structured from the get-go as a financial experiment in how to get rich from Medicaid and Medicare.

One of the last Board Members whose involvement could be traced back to 2002 only stepped down in early 2010. It took until the fall for the company to finish getting around to suing former executives whom, it claimed, had hid their criminal actions from the Board.

In October, it was learned the company had become one of Florida’s largest political contributors between 2004 and 2007, reporting a total of $2.6 million to the state Republican Party as well as individual Republican candidates. According to a report in Health News Florida, “Tampa attorney Barry Cohen …said today the contributions were pennies on the dollar compared to the money the HMO saved in Medicaid fines -- and the profits it made.”

In November, industry analysts were predicting that “WellCare’s strong Medicaid HMO position in multiple states will enable it to grow the upcoming Medicaid expansion that is part of the new health law.”

In late April, the White House apparently backed a federal settlement with Wellcare letting the company off the hook forever. The final settlement was for about $137 million, of up to $600 million estimated embezzled from federal and state funds.

Since January, Wellcare has been outperforming the S&P 500 by up to 35%. Quarterly net earnings reported in June are 7.64% of gross premium revenue, up from 1.62% in June 2008. Quarterly gross premiums are down $160 million (from $1.64 billion to $1.49 billion) while net earnings have grown from $26.6 to $113.5 million.

There’s an old saying that you can’t know where you’re going unless you know where you’ve been. Wellcare’s first financial success was defeated because they got caught stealing. The emerging federal “hands-off” policy towards Medicaid means they, and all the other publicly traded companies feeding off the backs of our most vulnerable citizens, will no longer have to worry about getting caught. Nobody will be looking.

Families to Hawaii's governor: Yes, you have failed

Share |

Families of children with disabilities have reacted strongly to the August 22 meeting with Governor Abercrombie. The letter below was written the day following the meeting.

Dear Governor Abercrombie:

We are families whose lives have benefited from Hawaii’s Insurance Commission external review system.
The format of yesterday’s conference did not enable all of us to speak. Many of us made the extraordinary effort to meet you in June, but you did not attend.

You said yesterday that:

“I think it’s fair to say that people felt that the review panel process in place kept the insurance companies in check, and on the whole they were able to get services that they wanted to have.

The two avenues available, the Department of Human Services hearing process or the 3-person panel, and I think most people went for the 3-person panel, and felt that was satisfactory. Nobody was arguing with that, least of all Suzie or Roz or myself or for that matter the professionals at DHS, that is to say those that were left after the ranks had been decimated over the last years.”

Please explain to us: if this is so, why did you sign a bill that deprives everyone on Medicaid of this process? The U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services did not disapprove our existing process for Medicaid members, which is not an issue with the ACA. In fact, it expressly approved the inclusion of the 3-member panel option in the RFPs for QUEST and QExA (and we have not seen anything showing that DHHS approved revoking this option).

You said the denials of services that threaten the lives of our families are just “glitches.” You said the on-going regulatory violations we are experiencing are to do with the contractor. You said that if we needed a lawyer to dispute a denial, that means you are failing.

I regret to inform you that you are failing. Based on Insurance Division statistics, the number of cases filed since you took office nearly equals the number filed in the last 10 years. In fact, since you took office, over 20 cases have been filed in the external review and won by QUEST or QExA members against Evercare and HMSA QUEST. Some of those cases were previously denied by the Administrative Appeal and even had Legal Aid assistance. Apologies for failing, promises to do better, and an uncertain plan of assistance, will not help those more than twenty families as certainly as the external review did. The health plans are the only winners under SB1274.

Most of us are, right this minute, depending on a lawyer for our lives, and the lives of our children. We are in the midst of “glitches” that have spanned months, if not years. We have all experienced the failure of the DHS review system, including their failure to monitor the contractors for federal compliance.

We appreciate your intentions, but your proposals on Monday did not meet our concerns. In fact, they left us terrified for our futures and angry that you could belittle our life-and-death battles with the insurance plans as mere “glitches.” We will not rest our efforts until we have a system we can count on to prevent health plans from running over us and our children.

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?