Abercrombie betrays public trust by pandering to big business health insurers

Share |

My first career as a social anthropologist taught me a lesson that has stayed with me for almost forty years: what people do tells you a lot more than what people tell you they do. It is the difference between perception and reality, something that can be grotesquely distorted when enough money is spent.

Governor Abercrombie's action in signing SB 1274 yesterday is a good example of how this lesson applies to real life. Governor Abercrombie was elected, simply put, for his verbiage about helping Hawaii's children and most vulnerable citizens.

Questions began to arise in the disability community when the Governor's office released an ad for respite care that frivolized its purpose.

A swipe of the pen yesterday stripped 270,000 people of their right to an external appeal when their insurance carrier denies treatment ordered by a doctor. Last week's federally published regulation removed the entire purpose of SB 1274, which was to meet a July 1 deadine. The deadline was extended to the end of the year, with the feds saying they would let states know by the end of July if their current state programs needed any tweaking.

The action says more about the Governor than his words, because the only possible reason left for him to sign the bill was plain old pandering to big health insurance companies. They are tired of wasting corporate profits on lawyers defending the indefensible: cutting medical services just to cut costs. The fact it's the companies that keep losing these appeals is why Governor Abercrombie signed SB 1274.

It is the same sort of pandering to the same ten for-profit "pure-play and multiproduct plans" going on now in New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Georgia, New York, and thirty-five or so other states.

The Commonwealth Fund recently published an issue brief "Assessing the Financial Health of Medicaid Managed Care and Quality of Patient Care They Provide."

While the number of Medicaid members in publicly traded plans is still lower than the number in non–publicly traded plans, the total number in publicly traded plans has been increasing. From 2004 to 2009, the total Medicaid members enrolled in publicly traded plans rose from 5.6 million (32 percent of total Medicaid population) to 9.8 million members (41 percent of the total Medicaid members).

According to figures submitted to the SEC by the ten companies included in the Commonwealth study, that figure has grown fifty-one percent to 14.8 million as of March 31, 2011. All in all, about 40 million Americans with Medicaid, Medicare or Trinet (US military) are receiving their healthcare from publicly traded companies.

The rate at which Americans are being herded unknowingly into for-profit Medicaid managed care plans is growing faster than Medicaid membership itself. The DHHS 2010 Actuarial Report predicted a 5.6 increase in Medicaid membership between 2009 and 2010. Just in the six months between September 30, 2010 and March 30, 2011, Medicaid membership in for-profit companies grew ten percent. That ten percent growth in enrollment resulted in a thirty percent growth in Medicaid revenues to the same companies.

Couple that increase with the newly emerging White House position supporting the restriction of appeals rights for everyone on Medicaid, and the Republicans won't need to life a finger to destroy and privatize Medicaid. President Obama and compliant pro-big-business governors like Neil Abercrombie are doing the job for them.

The oddest part of all is that Nero is fiddling, Rome is burning, and the major media aren't noticing. Perhaps the very loud and boisterous Republican attack on Medicare has distracted them from the guerilla warfare launched against Medicaid.

Once more, it is an issue of perception versus reality.

Please sign our petition to stop this destruction of human rights.

Obama, the Republicans, and the silent war against Medicaid

Share |

While the Republican-driven war on Medicare is grabbing public attention, President Obama's own war on Medicaid is going largely unnoticed.

The "friend of the court" document submitted to the Supreme Court by the Department of Justice on May 26 was strongly opposed by DHHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. When two arms of the Administration disagree on policy, the decision goes to the President. Congressman Henry Waxman was quoted today stating the President "evidently decided to let this brief go through, and this is a serious mistake."

The brief opens the door to the Supreme Court denying almost seventy million Americans the protections of federal Medicaid law. Children, adults with disabilities, and senior citizens will be at the mercy of state bureaucrats and, increasingly, the big business insurance companies that are gobbling up state Medicaid contracts across the country.

These are the same big corporations that stand to benefit if the Republican's "Voucher Care" concept of Medicare passes. Already accused of criminal Medicaid fraud in multiple states, these are companies growing at double digit rates thanks to the Affordable Care Act, and the biggest one was linked to the Tea Party back in 2009. Profits are made by not spending the federal and states funds they are paid on actual medical care.

George Washington University health policy expert Sara Rosenbaum warned that there’s “no stopping point … in terms of its spillover effects” if the Supreme Court broadly restricts individuals’ access to the courts over state implementation of such a federal program."

Please sign our petition to the Department of Justice to have this dangerous document withdrawn.

Why Medicaid is creating demonic glee on Wall Street

Share |

The Obama Administration has told the Supreme Court that Medicaid turns beneficiaries into second-class citizens. The amicus brief filed by Acting Solicitor General Neal K. Katyal on May 26 effectively exempts everyone receiving Medicaid - including children, the elderly and people with disabilities - from the protection of federal law.

The Affordable Care Act has already been driving a double-digit boost to the privatization of Medicaid and Medicare, by spawning new contracts going out to bid across the country. Katyal's brief will allow corporate insurers, many already with reputations for criminal Medicaid fraud, to continue receiving federal and state funding with no federal controls over how, or even if, it is spent.

As official Administration policy, the brief also seems to grant these health insurers immunity from anyone appealing their decisions successfully ever again. It may also raise interesting questions about the content of meetings between the President and some of these same health insurance companies that took place prior to passage of the ACA.

Corporations are already reporting to the SEC with demonic glee the profits to be reaped by refusing to spend the money they get paid every month for state Medicaid and federal Medicare contracts. First quarter 2011 Medicaid/Medicare income to Wall Street-driven private insurers was about $30 billion, already well on the way to surpassing the 2010 total of $114 billion. Companies like UnitedHealth have reported federal revenue increases of over twenty percent just in the past six months.

Many of the companies gobbling up these new state and federal contracts are already developing unsavory reputations for criminal Medicaid fraud. Private insurers like Amerigroup, Unitedhealth, Wellcare and Humana have all either been charged with criminal fraud, or are fighting/have already reached repayment agreements to avoid criminal prosecution for stealing state Medicaid funds.

If this amicus brief is allowed to stand, civil rights earned over the past sixty years will be decimated. These companies are already creating a corporate criminal culture out of Medicaid and Medicare, which can only expand if they are allowed to violate federal laws with impunity.

This is what is already happening in states like Hawaii, where at least six different federal civil rights investigations have been initiated in the past fifteen months. The investigations have all been on behalf of medically fragile children and target one of two for-profit health insurance companies, Unitedhealth or Wellcare. Together, the two collect about seventy percent of the state's annual $1.75 billion Medicaid budget, in exchange for providing Medicaid services to the elderly, blind and children as well as adults with disabilities.

Florida's legislature recently voted to force its entire Medicaid population into managed care programs operated by for-profit insurers. Hawaii's former Republican governor Linda Lingle started that process locally, and recent announcements by state officials open the door for greater for-profit corporate intrusion into Medicaid and further violations of federal civil and legal rights.

Legislation is currently sitting on the desk of Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie that would exempt the state's entire Medicaid population from equal access to state appeals procedures. S.B. 1274 has been heavily lobbied for by the state's Medicaid insurers, who claim they are spending too much money defending their medical decisions in current state insurance division appeals.

These medical decisions they are defending are some of the same ones targeted by the federal civil rights investigations, two of which have been opened just in the past month. Two cases that were closed last summer both found in favor of the medically fragile children who filed the appeals.


More on the amicus brief itself

The New York Times reported on May 28 that Representative Henry A. Waxman of California called the brief “wrong on the law and bad policy.”

I am bitterly disappointed that President Obama would accept the position of the acting solicitor general to file a brief that is contrary to the decades-long practice of giving Medicaid beneficiaries and providers the ability to turn to the courts to enforce their rights under federal law,” Mr. Waxman said. He said that he and other Democratic lawmakers planned to file a brief opposing the administration’s view.

The amicus brief was apparently the opposite of that requested in a letter by twelve national organizations on March 21. The letter stated that "the federal government has an interest in assuring that ... federal laws are not undermined by conflicting state laws." The letter went on to say that the right of Medicaid beneficiaries and providers "to vindicate federal Medicaid requirements further[s] the federal government's interest in ensuring that the Medicaid program provides meaningful benefits to Medicaid recipients."

On June 3 by the National Senior Citizens Law Center released an evaluation of the brief, saying it "will eliminate what is often the only practical corrective mechanism for ensuring that federal Medicaid funds actually provide the treatments and services prescribed by Congress."

The Acting Solicitor General’s argument arbitrarily carves safety net laws out from the protections of the Constitution’s supremacy clause. The brief charts a path for the Supreme Court to permit federal courts to continue routinely apply federal supremacy to strike down state laws protecting consumers, workers, retirees, bank depositors and others, alleged by business litigants to conflict with federal laws. This result hardly fits the administration’s often-proclaimed goal of promoting courts responsive to the needs of ordinary people rather than powerful interests.

If you think this amicus brief is a bad idea, you can let President Obama know by going to the White House website and emailing a comment. Your message can be as simple as:

Dear President Obama:

Please do not allow Medicaid beneficiaries to be made into second-class US citizens. The amicus brief filed on May 26 by the office of the Solicitor General needs to be withdrawn.