From wmjwj at wmjwj.org Tue Nov 1 12:35:59 2011 From: wmjwj at wmjwj.org (WMass Jobs with Justice) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 12:35:59 -0400 Subject: [Health Care Action] Tell MHA to Respect Springfield City Council Resolution Message-ID: <041a01cc98b4$58a16850$09e438f0$@org> From: Ivette Hernandez Ivette.Hernandez at seiu.509.org Mental Health Advocates United First, the good news: Workers at Mental Health Association (MHA) who are forming a union with SEIU Local 509 now have an election date. Mail ballots will go out on November 14th and will be counted on November 30th Now the bad news: It looks like Linda Williams, the executive director of MHA could be headed down the same path that led the NLRB to set aside the first union election. (More information here.) If that wasn?t bad enough, her most recent actions?like hiring a high paid anti-union consultant, seem to be in conflict with the Springfield City Council Resolution supporting workers rights to organize. Can you call John Odierna, the MHA Board President and ask him to respect the Springfield City Council Resolution? 413-737-0101 extension 107 After you make the call, tell us how it went by clicking here. The resolution calls on employers to: ?allow their employees to choose freely whether to unionize or not, free of intimidation or coercion.? As President of the Board of Directors at MHA, John Odierna has a responsibility to ensure MHA follows? federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations. He should also ensure that MHA respects this resolution passed by the City Council and approved by the Mayor. Workers at MHA can?t wait another year for new election because of the misconduct of Linda Williams and Management. Another year of no respect, no dignity and no voice on the job is bad for the clients, bad for the workers and bad for our community. Call John Odierna, MHA Board President right now and ask him to respect Springfield City Council Resolution. 413-737-0101; extension 107 Sample Script or Message: Hi this is ____ and I live in _____ and I support the workers at MHAs right to form a union free of intimidation or coercion. As the President of the Board of Directors of MHA, Inc., you have a responsibility to ensure MHA abides by federal, state and local laws. I am appalled that Linda Williams is failing to respect the City Council Resolution supporting workers rights to form a union free from intimidation or coercion. Please tell Linda Williams and MHA management to respect the Resolution and stop her anti-union campaign of fear, intimidation and interference. After you?ve made the call, let us know how it went by filling out this short report. In Solidarity, Ivette Hernandez, SEIU Local 509 Member SEIU LOCAL 509 Mental Health Advocated United 100 Talcott Avenue, Bldg 131, 2nd fl, Watertown, MA 02472 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wmjwj at wmjwj.org Tue Nov 1 14:17:05 2011 From: wmjwj at wmjwj.org (WMass Jobs with Justice) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 14:17:05 -0400 Subject: [Health Care Action] Verizon leafleting this week Message-ID: <049201cc98c2$794febe0$6befc3a0$@org> Dear Workers' Rights Activists, You can support the 45,000 Verizon North East employees bargaining now with this very greedy corporation. Sign the online Message of Solidarity . Join our Verizon Street Heat committee - it meets Friday November 4, 9:30-10:30am, at IBEW Local 2324, 281 Cottage St, Springfield . Put Verizon on Hold! Keep Good Jobs on the Line! by saying iWon 't and postponing your Verizon purchases or going elsewhere. More at http://www.jwjblog.org/2011/10/iwont/. The union alternative is AT&T. If you are locked into Verizon, please note that its products are also sold and serviced at many outlets other than the company-owned stores that we are targeting. Please say I Will to leafleting about Verizon and corporate greed! We leaflet Verizon Wireless stores right at the door and also stand near the street with the VeriGreedy banner. Let the Store Captains listed below know you are coming this Saturday! No leafleting tomorrow, Wednesday, Noon to 2pm, at the Hadley store. Graduate Employees Organization/UAW 2324 has adopted this shift and there's a big STUDENT DEBT STREET ACTION 12:30-3:30pm in Boston. (Info, including rides: 413-461-3300, phenom at phenomonline.org.) Please let Ryan Quinn know you are available to leaflet this shift next week: rep at geouaw.org, 413-545-0705. This week's schedule: Saturday, Noon to 2pm, at the Hadley store, 360 Russell St, Hadley : Please let Jon Weissman know you are coming: jon at wmjwj.org, 413-827-0301. Saturday, 11am to 1pm, at the Pittsfield store, 555 Hubbard Ave, Pittsfield : Please let Brian Morrison know you are coming: brian.morrison at state.ma.us, 413-281-3223. Berkshire Central Labor Council has adopted this shift. Saturday, Noon to 2pm,, at the Springfield store, 1420 Boston Rd, Springfield : Please let Kathy Collins know you are coming: kathy7157 at hotmail.com, 413-734-0863. Saturday, Noon to 2pm, at the West Springfield store, 1123 Riverdale St, West Springfield : Please let Patrick Burke know you are coming: patrick at wmjwj.org, 413-454-5692. Join us! Please wear your organization's apparel and/or a red shirt/jacket, as the strikers did. If it looks like rain, we will make the decision to call it off by 9am and let you know by email. If we know you are coming, we can send the email to your cell phone as a text message if you send your phone number and name of carrier to wmjwj at wmjwj.org. You can call the Store Captains listed above to be sure, but it's better if you tell us in advance that you're coming and we'll call you. When we call off a planned leafleting shift, the captains will be there at the beginning to tell anyone who did not get the message, but we'll only wait 15 minutes. If this email was forwarded or copied to you, be sure to keep up-to-date on workers' rights campaigns by subscribing to the Workers' Rights List. To subscribe, send a blank email to workersrights-subscribe at lists.prometheuslabor.com or go to http://lists.wmjwj.org/mailman/listinfo/workersrights. {Big Thanks to Deborah L!} ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jon Weissman, Coordinator Western Mass Jobs with Justice 640 Page Blvd #101 Springfield MA 01104 (413) 827-0301 Founded in 1987, Jobs with Justice's mission is to improve working people's standard of living, fight for job security, and protect workers' right to organize. We believe workers' rights are human rights and to be successful, we have to be part of a larger campaign for economic and social justice. To that end, "J with J" has created a national coalition and a network of local coalitions that connect labor, community, student, and faith-based organizations and activists on workplace and community social justice campaigns. Western Mass JwJ - founded June 5, 1993 - is now a coalition of almost 70 organizations. Let's keep in touch - please check out our mailing lists at http://wmjwj.org/our-lists. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From don at mccanne.org Tue Nov 1 14:17:56 2011 From: don at mccanne.org (Don McCanne) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 11:17:56 -0700 Subject: [Health Care Action] qotd: Medicare Advantage patients for sale on Wall Street Message-ID: Health News Florida October 28, 2011 How much are you worth to HMOs? By Carol Gentry Medicare health plan members are worth more than any other category of enrollee in a merger or acquisition deal, Wall Street analysts say. In fact, they?re worth four times as much as members of employer-based plans and five times as much as members of Medicaid plans, according to a report from Goldman Sachs researchers Matthew Borsch and Samuel Wass. By their calculations, Medicare Advantage (HMO or similar managed-care plan) enrollees have a ?value per member" of $6,000 in a merger or acquisition. That compares with $1,500 for commercial plans ? the ones that employers offer but in which the insurer takes the financial risks ? and $1,200 per member for Medicaid plans. The researchers prepared the analysis in the wake of Monday's announcement that Cigna will buy HealthSpring, a holding company that includes Medicare plans in 11 states and Washington, D.C. that encompass 340,000 members. Other analysts have also noted the mega-insurers' growing desire to acquire Medicare customers. As Carl McDonald of CitiGroup wrote today in a note about Universal American: "It?s hard to overstate how much the attitude of the largest plans ...has changed toward the Medicare business in just the last six months." United Health Group was first to discover the pot of gold Medicare plans offered and bought PacifiCare in 2005, as McDonald notes, but now WellPoint, Cigna and Aetna are waking up. http://www.healthnewsflorida.org/top_story/read/how_much_are_you_worth_to_an_hmo Comment: Bet you didn't realize that by signing up with a taxpayer-financed, private Medicare Advantage plan you can command a price of $6000 for the sale of yourself when your plan is acquired by another plan. Well, actually you don't get the $6000. Neither does it revert to Medicare and the taxpayers. No, it goes to the top 1 percent, while leaving the 99 percent of us once again dumbfounded. What price does a person in the traditional Medicare program command? What a ridiculous question. Medicare doesn't buy and sell patients. That happens only when Medicare patients are privatized. Selling patients is a function limited to private plans, not public social insurance programs. When are we finally going to say that we are not for sale to the 1 percent? Since it was Congress that arranged the sale, let's Occupy Congress! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Quote-of-the-day mailing list Quote-of-the-day at mccanne.org http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/quote-of-the-day From acswift at comcast.net Wed Nov 2 11:44:11 2011 From: acswift at comcast.net (Alice Swift) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 11:44:11 -0400 Subject: [Health Care Action] Fwd: YOU'RE INVITED: SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE IN VERMONT AND LESSONS FOR MASSACHUSETTS In-Reply-To: <140587891.1077639.1320244938117.JavaMail.root@sz0009a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net> References: <140587891.1077639.1320244938117.JavaMail.root@sz0009a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: This is a great opportunity to learn about the Vermont single payer plan and how we can follow in their footsteps in Mass. I especially hope legislators will take advantage of the opportunity to hear it from an expert. A.S. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mass-Care Announce Date: Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 10:42 AM Subject: YOU'RE INVITED: SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE IN VERMONT AND LESSONS FOR MASSACHUSETTS To: Mass-Care Announce *YOU?RE INVITED!* * Senator Jamie Eldridge, Representative Jason Lewis and Mass-Care present * *THE ROAD TO SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE IN VERMONT AND LESSONS FOR MASSACHUSETTS* * * Featuring *Dr. William C. Hsiao *Harvard Economist and Lead Architect of the Successful Single Payer Healthcare Legislation in Vermont * * *Monday, November 14 2pm House Members? Lounge *** If you have any questions, please contact Laura Richter in Rep Lewis? office at Laura.Richter at mahouse.gov or x7609 -- Jason Lewis State Representative 31st Middlesex District - Stoneham and Winchester State House, Room 466 Boston, MA 02133 617 722-2017 Jason.Lewis at mahouse.gov www.RepJasonLewis.com http://www.facebook.com/RepJasonLewis _______________________________________________ Mass-Care: The Massachusetts Campaign for Single Payer Health Care 33 Harrison Ave - 5th floor Boston, MA 02111 Ph: 617-723-7001 Fx: 617-723-7002 Em: info at masscare.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From don at mccanne.org Wed Nov 2 15:54:19 2011 From: don at mccanne.org (Don McCanne) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 12:54:19 -0700 Subject: [Health Care Action] qotd: Dave Zweifel on single payer Message-ID: The Capital Times November 2, 2011 Plain Talk: Health care solution is simple: single-payer By Dave Zweifel The answer to the nation?s health care crisis is staring everyone in the face, yet as a country we continue to refuse to come to grips with it. It is far from rocket science. What this country simply needs is a single-payer national health insurance program that covers all American citizens from the day they?re born to the day they die ? just as other advanced countries have done for decades. We could finance health care coverage for every American by taking the resources that employees and employers are pumping into the current broken system and still have money left over for a substantial tax cut, not to mention that it would put U.S. employers back on a level playing field with their competitors in the world market. Yet we refuse to even put that debate on the front burner where it belongs, plodding along with a system that with each passing year continues to hurt more and more Americans in many different ways. (Dave Zweifel is editor emeritus of The Capital Times.) http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/column/dave_zweifel/article_e26dbb61-a1d2-5a03-86b6-ff2e6524596f.html Comment: As the implementation of the Affordable Care Act unfolds, it becomes ever more evident that it won't accomplish our goals and that we will need to enact a single payer national health program. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Quote-of-the-day mailing list Quote-of-the-day at mccanne.org http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/quote-of-the-day From don at mccanne.org Thu Nov 3 17:34:07 2011 From: don at mccanne.org (Don McCanne) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 14:34:07 -0700 Subject: [Health Care Action] qotd: "Narrow networks" take away choice Message-ID: The Arizona Republic November 3, 2011 Health Net set to offer discounted insurance By Ken Alltucker Health Net of Arizona is teaming with Banner Health to offer a new health-maintenance-organization insurance plan that allows businesses and their workers access to discounted care if they agree to limit their network of health providers. The Health Net ExcelCare HMO plan offers customers a network exclusively made up of Banner Health Network medical providers and Banner Health hospitals. Although it's Health Net's initial foray into "narrow networks" in Arizona, the health insurer said that it has had success enticing both large and small employers in California to choose similar plans with slimmed-down networks. Health Net has been among the most aggressive in promoting HMO plans with narrow networks, but other insurance companies such as Aetna and UnitedHealth Group have also offered such plans. http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2011/11/01/20111101health-net-offer-discounted-insurance.html Comment: "Narrow networks" - sharply limiting the network of physicians and hospitals that the insurer will cover - is yet another example of private insurer innovation in their marketed products. Only in the private sector can taking away patients' choices in their health care professionals and institutions be considered an improvement in product design. A public single payer system would be designed to enhance access, not restrict it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Quote-of-the-day mailing list Quote-of-the-day at mccanne.org http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/quote-of-the-day From calendar at wmjwj.org Fri Nov 4 15:02:47 2011 From: calendar at wmjwj.org (=?us-ascii?Q?Workers'_Rights_Calendar?=) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 15:02:47 -0400 Subject: [Health Care Action] Say "NO" to Union Busting in Springfield! 11/9 Message-ID: <010a01cc9b24$578a6f80$069f4e80$@org> on Thursday November 10 Say "NO" to Union Busting in Springfield! Last year, caregivers at Mental Health Association (MHA) in Springfield fought hard to organize their union with Service Employees Local 509. Unfortunately, they were stopped from doing so when the agency used anti-union intimidation tactics like erecting a stockade fence around the voting site and telling employees that annual bonuses were tied to the election's outcome. The National Labor Relations Board found MHA behavior to be illegal and ordered a re-running of the union election, this time by mail ballot free of fear and intimidation. Now MHA workers have a second chance to form their union, but MHA is at it again! MHA's CEO Linda Williams has once again hired a high-priced union buster to deny her employees their voice for respect and dignity on the job. . She is thumbing her nose at the National Labor Relations Board, which overturned last year's election. . She is thumbing her nose at the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which chartered MHA, a tax-exempt not-for-profit social service agency, to spend its tax-subsidized money to benefit the community - not to frustrate its employees' human right to form a union. . She is thumbing her nose at the Springfield City Council, which last October called upon all Springfield employers to allow their employees to choose freely whether to unionize or not, without intimidation or coercion. . She is thumbing her nose at We the People, who have a human right to form unions. We're not going to stand for illegal union busting in our community! Join MHA workers on Thursday November 10 for two important actions as the Springfield City Council investigates MHA's conduct. * At 5pm we will deliver hundreds of letters from the community to the President of MHA's Board of Directors calling on MHA to respect workers rights to form a union - 175 State Street . * At 6pm Springfield City Council Sub-Committees on General Government and Civil Rights will hold a hearing on the Council's Resolution Supporting Workers Rights - 36 Court Street . * Walking, these two locations are about 6 minutes apart. For more information and to sign up to attend these two important actions, click here: http://509.seiu.org/page/s/MHAHearingandMarch. Flyer attached. -- Peter Witzler Senior Community Political Organizer Supporting People, Supporting Communities http://spsc.seiu.org/ SEIU, Public Services Division Cell: 202.257.4952 Office: 202.730.7389 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MHA Hearing Flyer.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 162115 bytes Desc: not available URL: From calendar at wmjwj.org Fri Nov 4 15:04:44 2011 From: calendar at wmjwj.org (=?us-ascii?Q?Workers'_Rights_Calendar?=) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 15:04:44 -0400 Subject: [Health Care Action] Say "NO" to Union Busting in Springfield! 11/10 Message-ID: <011701cc9b24$9d7b1940$d8714bc0$@org> on Thursday November 10 Say "NO" to Union Busting in Springfield! Last year, caregivers at Mental Health Association (MHA) in Springfield fought hard to organize their union with Service Employees Local 509. Unfortunately, they were stopped from doing so when the agency used anti-union intimidation tactics like erecting a stockade fence around the voting site and telling employees that annual bonuses were tied to the election's outcome. The National Labor Relations Board found MHA behavior to be illegal and ordered a re-running of the union election, this time by mail ballot free of fear and intimidation. Now MHA workers have a second chance to form their union, but MHA is at it again! MHA's CEO Linda Williams has once again hired a high-priced union buster to deny her employees their voice for respect and dignity on the job. . She is thumbing her nose at the National Labor Relations Board, which overturned last year's election. . She is thumbing her nose at the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which chartered MHA, a tax-exempt not-for-profit social service agency, to spend its tax-subsidized money to benefit the community - not to frustrate its employees' human right to form a union. . She is thumbing her nose at the Springfield City Council, which last October called upon all Springfield employers to allow their employees to choose freely whether to unionize or not, without intimidation or coercion. . She is thumbing her nose at We the People, who have a human right to form unions. We're not going to stand for illegal union busting in our community! Join MHA workers on Thursday November 10 for two important actions as the Springfield City Council investigates MHA's conduct. * At 5pm we will deliver hundreds of letters from the community to the President of MHA's Board of Directors calling on MHA to respect workers rights to form a union - 175 State Street . * At 6pm Springfield City Council Sub-Committees on General Government and Civil Rights will hold a hearing on the Council's Resolution Supporting Workers Rights - 36 Court Street . * Walking, these two locations are about 6 minutes apart. For more information and to sign up to attend these two important actions, click here: http://509.seiu.org/page/s/MHAHearingandMarch. Flyer attached. -- Peter Witzler Senior Community Political Organizer Supporting People, Supporting Communities http://spsc.seiu.org/ SEIU, Public Services Division Cell: 202.257.4952 Office: 202.730.7389 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MHA Hearing Flyer.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 162115 bytes Desc: not available URL: From don at mccanne.org Fri Nov 4 15:21:57 2011 From: don at mccanne.org (Don McCanne) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 12:21:57 -0700 Subject: [Health Care Action] qotd: Exemptions for self-insured plans place employees at risk Message-ID: The Hill November 3, 2011 Healthwatch By Julian Pecquet and Sam Baker Consumer advocate and law Professor Tim Jost on Thursday urged the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to take a "leadership role" in pressing states to address potential gaps in the healthcare law's applicability. The law's consumer protections don't apply to all types of plans, and Jost said those gaps pose problems for both consumers and insurers. Self-insured plans are exempt from most of the law's regulations, and policies offered by large employers also don't have to meet certain requirements. Jost said small businesses are shifting toward self-insurance, so employees will be stuck without benefits Congress intended to provide. There's also a risk to insurers, he said, because small businesses could drop their self-insured policies and move into the exchanges as soon as one of their workers gets sick. http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/other/191759-overnight-health-health-budgets-back-in-spotlight And... National Health Policy Forum December 21, 2010 Self-Insurance and the Potential Effects of Health Reform on the Small-Group Market By Kathryn Linehan Self-insured employer plans are explicitly exempted from some requirements, though ?self-insured? is a term not defined in PPACA (or elsewhere). The exemptions are described below. ? Self-insured plans are not required to provide coverage with minimum essential benefits. ? Individual and small-group plans are required to participate in a risk-adjustment system, but self-insured plans are exempt. ? Self-insured plans are not subject to provisions (specifically, medical loss ratio requirements and review of premium increases) that are intended to limit insurer earnings. ? Starting in 2014, health insurers are required to pay an annual fee to be calculated by the Secretary, but self-insured plans do not have to pay this fee. In a September 2010 paper, Timothy Stoltzfus Jost described the ?threat? of self-insuring to exchanges: If small businesses with healthy employees can remain ?self-insured? until the health of their pool deteriorates and then join the exchange, premiums within the exchange will increase and the exchange will become less viable. If a state opens its exchange to groups above 100, the threat is even greater, as legitimate self-insured plans will seek to insure their employees through the exchange when their experience deteriorates. Moreover, the self-insured plans that have proven most adept at providing high-quality benefits to their employees at low cost (which exist at many large firms) are likely to remain independent of the exchange, while less successful self-insured plans turn to the exchange for coverage. https://www.nhpf.org/uploads/announcements/IB840_PPACASmallGroup_12-21-10.pdf Comment: Well over half of all employees who obtain their health insurance through their work are enrolled in self-insured plans - plans in which health care bills are paid by the employer rather than by a private insurer (except for stop-loss insurance). By self-insuring, employers escape state insurance regulation, and they are exempt from many of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act. These exemptions may benefit the employers, but they expose the employees and their families to greater risks, potentially impairing health care access and increasing the cost sharing burden, including costs for care that the plan is not required to cover. Some say that employers will not compromise their self-insured plans since they would be used to attract better qualified employees, but we are already seeing a shift of risk from employers to employees through greater cost sharing and other plan innovations. As mentioned in a message earlier this week, there has been an increase in the sale of deceptive "self-insured packages" which are merely stop-loss plans that look like health insurance, but that are exempt from the regulatory oversight of private health plans. As health care costs continue to rise, employers surely will continue to leverage lax self-insured rules to accrue to their own benefit, at a cost to their employees. For those employers who end up facing higher costs in their self-insured plans resulting from deterioration in the average health status of their employee pools, they have the out of transferring their employees to the new state insurance exchanges. Of course, subjecting the exchanges to adverse selection (enrolling more costly patients) will drive up premiums for everyone else enrolled in the exchange plans. As we have said many times before, the fundamental flaw in the reform process was that Congress elected to build on our highly dysfunctional, fragmented system of financing health care. It wasn't working before, and the tweaks in the Affordable Care Act are not near enough to make it work now. We need to start over with an improved Medicare that covers everyone. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Quote-of-the-day mailing list Quote-of-the-day at mccanne.org http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/quote-of-the-day From acswift at comcast.net Sat Nov 5 11:35:32 2011 From: acswift at comcast.net (Alice Swift) Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2011 11:35:32 -0400 Subject: [Health Care Action] Fwd: Join Mass-Care and Occupy Boston on Nov. 12! In-Reply-To: <1729374297.1198274.1320506582422.JavaMail.root@sz0009a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net> References: <1729374297.1198274.1320506582422.JavaMail.root@sz0009a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mass-Care Announce Date: Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 11:23 AM Subject: Join Mass-Care and Occupy Boston on Nov. 12! To: Mass-Care Announce Dear Single Payer Supporters - Mass-Care and Massachusetts PNHP are teaming up with Occupy Boston's Health Justice Working Group to support a health care system that serves the 99 percent! Please join us on *Saturday, November 12 at noon in the Occupy Boston space at Dewey Square* (right next to South Station, across from the Federal Reserve) for speakouts against health care disparities and health injustice, followed by a Solidarity March at 1 p.m. We are also planning educational and service activities to take place throughout the day at Dewey Square. Stand with us for health care and health justice! _______________________________________________ Mass-Care: The Massachusetts Campaign for Single Payer Health Care 33 Harrison Ave - 5th floor Boston, MA 02111 Ph: 617-723-7001 Fx: 617-723-7002 Em: info at masscare.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From don at mccanne.org Mon Nov 7 10:59:39 2011 From: don at mccanne.org (Don McCanne) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 07:59:39 -0800 Subject: [Health Care Action] qotd: Massachusetts physicians prefer single payer over the Affordable Care Act Message-ID: Worcester Business Journal November 7, 2011 Temperatures Rise Over Costs Of Care Polls Find Public, Doctors Favor More Government Involvement By Livia Gershon Presumably, doctors are more familiar than the general public with the pressures driving up health care costs, and an overwhelming majority of them also say there needs to be some government involvement in the health care system. A survey by the Massachusetts Medical Society this fall found that 41 percent of doctors thought the best option for health care reform in the U.S. would be to adopt a single-payer system like Canada?s. That number was up from 34 percent in 2010. (Another survey by the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation) found that 88 percent of Massachusetts residents think it?s important for the state government to take major action on health care costs. http://www.wbjournal.com/news50169.html And... Massachusetts Medical Society September 28, 2011 Physician Workforce Study 6.1. Practicing Physicians Opinions on U.S. Health Care System Reform A question was added to the Practicing Physician Survey in 2010 to document how physicians view upcoming system changes in national health care reform. The following question was asked again this year of each of the respondents: Which of the following would you choose as the best option for the U.S. health care system? The percent of practicing physicians choosing each response is outlined below: 1. Both public and private plans with a public buy-in option (allow businesses and individuals to enroll in a public Medicare-like health insurance plan that would compete with private plans) -- 23% 2. Keep the existing mix of public and private plans, but allow insurers to sell plans with limited benefits and high deductibles to keep premiums low. State subsidies would help low-income individuals buy insurance. Individuals could choose to buy a less expensive catastrophic plan, more expensive comprehensive coverage, or no insurance at all -- 15% 3. The recent national plan (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) passed by Congress in 2010 (modeled after the Massachusetts health reform law of 2006). This plan includes an individual mandate, expansion of public programs, American Health Benefit Exchanges, changes to private insurance including prohibiting the denial of coverage for preexisting conditions, and employer requirements ?- 17% 4. Single-payer national health care system offering universal health care to all U.S. residents -- 41% 5. Other (please specify) -- 4% While more physicians prefer single payer as the best option for U.S. heath care reform compared to last year?s survey results (41% in 2011 and 34% in 2010), the majority of physicians prefer other options (59% in 2011 and 66% in 2010). http://www.massmed.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Research_Reports_and_Studies2&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=61512 Comment: Of five options for the U.S. health care system presented to Massachusetts physicians, far more - 41 percent - preferred single payer to any other option. That was almost twice as many as those who preferred the second choice option. The single payer choice jumped from 34 percent last year, likely representing further dissatisfaction with their current system based on a design very similar to that of the Affordable Care Act. The leadership of the Massachusetts Medical Society is not very supportive of single payer, pointing out in this report that 59 percent of Massachusetts physicians prefer other options to single payer. But if they were more objective, they would have pointed out that when offered a choice of "The recent national plan (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) passed by Congress in 2010 (modeled after the Massachusetts health reform law of 2006)," 83 percent of physicians prefer other options. Presenting the remaining data in the same manner, 85 percent of physicians prefer other options to high deductible plans, 77 percent prefer other options to a "public option," and 96 percent prefer one of the listed options (including single payer) to any other undefined option that they might otherwise prefer. >From this we can conclude that a clear plurality of Massachusetts physicians, who have direct experience with the Affordable Care Act model, would prefer single payer, and that support is increasing. By a large majority, they reject any other option, including their current system based on the model of the Affordable Care Act. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Quote-of-the-day mailing list Quote-of-the-day at mccanne.org http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/quote-of-the-day From calendar at wmjwj.org Mon Nov 7 13:31:36 2011 From: calendar at wmjwj.org (=?utf-8?Q?Workers=E2=80=99_Rights_Calendar?=) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 13:31:36 -0500 Subject: [Health Care Action] 11/9 rally in Boston to protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid Message-ID: <041e01cc9d7b$7c304c20$7490e460$@org> Lunch and transportation are free. Bus leaves the Springfield Plaza Wednesday November 9 at 8:30 AM for the 11 AM rally at Wang Theatre. Call Linda Stone, Western Mass. Organizer, Massachusetts Senior Action Council, at 413-543-2334 to reserve your seat. MEDIA ADVISORY Wednesday, November 9, 11:00 a.m. EST Contacts: Mass Senior Action: Carolyn Villers, 617-435-1926 NCPSSM: Natasha Perez, 617-504-7428 (Nat?l Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare) 1199SEIU: Jeff Hall, 617-281-8384 AARP Massachusetts: Chryste Hall, 617-305-0515 or Rhiannon D?Angelo, 617-305-0566 Social Security Works: Don Owens, 202-302-5928 AFL-CIO: Nora Frederickson, 603-785-4211 On November 9, thousands will rally in Boston to protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid Seniors and workers warn that proposed cuts will jeopardize retirement security, benefits, and jobs for millions BOSTON, MA ? Historic turnout is expected for a rally on Wednesday, November 9, 11:00 a.m. at the Citi Performing Arts Center Wang Theatre in Boston where thousands of seniors and workers will voice their opposition to proposed Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid cuts. As a congressional Super-Committee readies its recommendations on reducing the federal deficit, the November 9 event is expected to draw the largest senior turnout in Boston of any community rally in decades. The rally at the Wang Theatre will be followed by a march and caravan towards the offices of Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Scott Brown. Seniors and workers say the proposed cuts will not only jeopardize benefits and retirement security for today?s seniors and the seniors of tomorrow ? they warn the proposed cuts are job killers that will undermine the nation?s economic recovery and will immediately thrust more families and seniors into poverty. The Super-Committee ? a 12 member bipartisan group, including Sen. Kerry ? is considering potential cuts to Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security that would harm today?s seniors and workers ? including: a $112 billion cut to Social Security by changing how the Social Security cost of living adjustment (COLA) is calculated and reducing benefits; raising the age of Medicare eligibility from 65 to 67; and, increasing out-of-pocket costs for seniors in Medicare. There is a broadly-held concern among those slated to participate in the rally that Congress is not heeding the growing level of constituent frustration over the attacks on these hard-earned benefits that workers have paid into for years. Rally organizers say these benefits represent an intergenerational commitment ? and that cuts of the magnitude being considered by the Super-Committee would constitute a betrayal of the seniors, veterans, and workers who have paid into the safety net and retirement systems for years. The rally to defend retirement security and jobs will begin at 11 a.m., with seniors and workers uniting from across the state and region to speak out and share their concerns at the Citi Performing Arts Center Wang Theatre, 270 Tremont Street, Boston, MA. Following the program at the Wang Theatre at approximately12:45 p.m., the group will then march and board buses heading towards the offices of Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Scott Brown to again raise their voices in defense of retirement security and jobs. The group is expected to arrive at City Hall Plaza, and rally facing the offices of Sen. Kerry and Sen. Brown beginning at approximately 1:30 p.m. WHO: 2,000+ seniors, workers from across Massachusetts 500+ seniors, workers from Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, New York Leaders from AARP Massachusetts, Mass Senior Action, AFL-CIO, 1199 SEIU, National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare 50+ organizations representing seniors, workers (listed below) WHAT: Thousands of seniors and workers rally to oppose cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid ? Major rally at Wang Theatre ? March/caravan to offices of Sen. Kerry and Sen. Brown WHEN: Wednesday, November 9, 2011, 11:00 a.m. EST 11:00 a.m. ? 12:45 p.m.: Seniors, Workers Speak Out! At the Citi Performing Arts Center Wang Theatre, 270 Tremont Street, Boston ? Comments from key organizing groups: Mass Senior Action, AARP, AFL-CIO, 1199SEIU, and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare ? Seniors, workers say how cuts to Medicare, Social Security will hurt them ? Call to action; rallying cry 1:00 p.m. ? 1:30 p.m.: March and caravan towards offices of Sen. Kerry, Sen. Brown Convoy of 30+ buses with signs, music depart towards offices of Sen. Kerry, Sen. Brown 1:30 p.m. ? 2:00 p.m.: Seniors, Workers Rally! On City Hall Plaza, facing Sen. Kerry, Sen. Brown?s offices WHERE: ? 11:00 a.m. ? 12:45 p.m. @ Citi Performing Arts Center Wang Theatre, 270 Tremont Street, Boston ? 1:00 p.m. ? 1:30 p.m. @ March and caravan towards the offices of Sen. Kerry, Sen. Brown ? 1:30 p.m. ? 2:00 p.m. @ City Hall plaza facing offices of Sen. Kerry, Sen. Brown WHY: Deadline looming ? The Super-Committee is due to report recommendations on Nov. 23. Now on the table: potential cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security that would harm today?s seniors and workers. Social Security has not contributed one dime to the federal deficit, and cutting Medicare alone will not address the skyrocketing costs crippling the entire health care system. These proposals will, however, hurt today?s seniors, today?s workers and tomorrow?s retirees. Seniors and workers say: don?t cut our hard-earned benefits; focus attention on creating jobs, not hurting constituents. Today, about one million Massachusetts residents rely on Social Security and Medicare. The average Social Security benefit for middle- and low- income Bay State Seniors is $13,900, while their average out-of-pocket cost for health care is $6,800. Supported by: 1199SEIU ? AARP ? AFGE District 2 ? Association for Behavioral Healthcare ? Boston Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO ? Boston Center for Independent Living ? Boston Workers Alliance ? City of Boston, Elderly Commission ? Coalition for Human Needs ? Community Catalyst ? Community Labor United ? Chinese Progressive Association ? City Life/Vida Urbana ? CSJ/CAP ? Chelsea Collaborative ? Disability Policy Consortium ? Dorchester People for Peace ? Eastern Mass OWL ? GALLAN ? Greater Boston Labor Council ? Health Care for All ? IBEW Local 103 ? IBEW Local 2222 ? IUE-CWA Local 201 ? Jobs with Justice ? Latinos for a Secure Retirement ? MA AFL-CIO ? Mass Association Older Americans ? Mass Alliance of HUD Tenants ? Massachusetts Building Trades Council, AFL-CIO ? Mass Council on Aging ? Mass Coalition for a Working Economy ? Mass Peace Action ? MassUniting ? Mass Nurses Association ? Mass Senior Action Council ? Mass Home Care ? Mass Teachers Association ? Move On ? NAGE ? NASW ? National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare ? Neighbor to Neighbor ? New England United for Justice ? North Shore Labor Council ? Neighbors United Better East Boston ? Progressive Democrats of America ? Providers' Council ? SEIU Massachusetts State Council ? SEIU 509 ? SEIU 615 ? SEIU 888 ? Social Security Works ? Urban League of Eastern Massachusetts ? Union of Minority Neighborhoods ? USW Local 4-366 ? Western MA Jobs with Justice # # # -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/octet-stream Size: 120818 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 76192 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/octet-stream Size: 170547 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wmjwj at wmjwj.org Mon Nov 7 14:37:16 2011 From: wmjwj at wmjwj.org (WMass Jobs with Justice) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 14:37:16 -0500 Subject: [Health Care Action] Verizon leafleting this week Message-ID: <04a101cc9d84$ace16bc0$06a44340$@org> If this email was forwarded or copied to you, be sure to keep up-to-date on workers' rights campaigns by subscribing to the Workers' Rights List. To subscribe, send a blank email to workersrights-subscribe at lists.prometheuslabor.com or go to http://lists.wmjwj.org/mailman/listinfo/workersrights. Dear Workers' Rights Activists, Please let the Store Captains listed below know you are coming to leaflet about Verizon and corporate greed this week! See schedule below. And please sign the online Message of Solidarity . We leaflet regularly at the door and stand out with the VeriGreedy banner at the street at 360 Russell St, Hadley , 1123 Riverdale St, West Springfield , 1420 Boston Rd, Springfield , & 555 Hubbard Ave, Pittsfield . This week's schedule: Wednesday, Noon to 2pm, at the Hadley store: Please let Ryan Quinn know you are coming: rep at geouaw.org, 413-545-0705. Graduate Employees Organization/UAW 2324 has adopted this shift. Saturday, Noon to 2pm, at the Hadley store: Please let Jon Weissman know you are coming: jon at wmjwj.org, 413-827-0301. Saturday, 11am to 1pm, at the Pittsfield store: Please let Brian Morrison know you are coming: brian.morrison at state.ma.us, 413-281-3223. Berkshire Central Labor Council has adopted this shift. Saturday, Noon to 2pm,, at the Springfield store: Please let Kathy Collins know you are coming: kathy7157 at hotmail.com, 413-734-0863. Saturday, Noon to 2pm, at the West Springfield store: Please let Patrick Burke know you are coming: patrick at wmjwj.org, 413-454-5692. Join us! Please wear your organization's apparel and/or a red shirt/jacket, as the strikers did. If it looks like rain, we will make the decision to call it off by 9am and let you know by email. If we know you are coming, we can send the email to your cell phone as a text message if you send your phone number and name of carrier to wmjwj at wmjwj.org. You can call the Store Captains listed above to be sure, but it's better if you tell us in advance that you're coming and we'll call you. When we call off a planned leafleting shift, the captains will be there at the beginning to tell anyone who did not get the message, but we'll only wait 15 minutes. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jon Weissman, Coordinator Western Mass Jobs with Justice 640 Page Blvd #101 Springfield MA 01104 (413) 827-0301 Founded in 1987, Jobs with Justice's mission is to improve working people's standard of living, fight for job security, and protect workers' right to organize. We believe workers' rights are human rights and to be successful, we have to be part of a larger campaign for economic and social justice. To that end, "J with J" has created a national coalition and a network of local coalitions that connect labor, community, student, and faith-based organizations and activists on workplace and community social justice campaigns. Western Mass JwJ - founded June 5, 1993 - is now a coalition of almost 70 organizations. Let's keep in touch - please check out our mailing lists at http://wmjwj.org/our-lists. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From calendar at wmjwj.org Tue Nov 8 08:57:52 2011 From: calendar at wmjwj.org (=?us-ascii?Q?Workers'_Rights_Calendar?=) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 08:57:52 -0500 Subject: [Health Care Action] Reminder: Join Cooley Nurses on picket line tomorrow 11/9 Message-ID: <06f501cc9e1e$6929db20$3b7d9160$@org> COOLEY DICKINSON NURSES TO PICKET HOSPITAL STAFFING, SUCCESSOR LANGUAGE AND SECURING THEIR PENSION ARE THE ISSUES The Registered Nurses at Cooley Dickinson Hospital in Northampton, MA, are taking their contract fight to the streets with an informational picket scheduled for November 9. After 15 months of contract negotiations several important issues remain unresolved, including a guarantee of safe RN staffing, successor language, and protection of their defined benefit pension. In response to an increase in patient assignments, nurses are calling for nurse staffing language to ensure that patients receive the care they need when they need it and to protect their licenses. With active discussions underway with potential buyers for the hospital, the RNs need to have successor language to protect their union rights and contract no matter who takes over. And lastly, the nurses are fighting to secure their pension. Recently the hospital tried to end their defined benefit pension and now they want to stop offering it to new nurses. Bring a friend. Help spread the word. WHEN: Wednesday, November 9, 2011 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. WHERE: On Rt. 9 in front of Cooley Dickinson Hospital Northampton, MA WHO: The Registered Nurses and their Community Supporters Leo Maley Associate Director/Region 1 Community Organizer Division of Legislation and Government Affairs Massachusetts Nurses Association LMaley at mnarn.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From don at mccanne.org Tue Nov 8 10:35:18 2011 From: don at mccanne.org (Don McCanne) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 07:35:18 -0800 Subject: [Health Care Action] qotd: Out-of-pocket medical expenses drive more into poverty Message-ID: The Washington Post November 7, 2011 Census Bureau measures more Americans living in poverty By Michael A. Fletcher The Census Bureau on Monday released a new, comprehensive poverty measure that painted a more dismal picture of the nation?s economic landscape than the official measure from September. The report found that 49.1 million Americans ? 16 percent of the population ? lived in poverty in 2010, which is higher than the 46.2 million Americans found to live in poverty by the official measure released in September. The new report marked the culmination of a years-long effort by the Census Bureau to come up with a poverty measure that takes into account the huge amounts of money in social services benefits provided to the needy, as well as their expenses for things such as medical care and payroll taxes. The increased level of poverty revealed by the supplemental measure is at odds with what some poverty experts expected. The increased level of poverty was fueled by the sharply higher levels of poverty among senior citizens found by the alternative measure. The poverty rate for those 65 and older was 15.9 percent based on the supplemental measure, much higher than the 9 percent rate for the elderly when using the official poverty yardstick. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/census-bureau-report-more-americans-living-in-poverty/2011/11/07/gIQAAHm1wM_story.html?wpisrc=nl_wonk And... United States Census Bureau Current Population Reports November 2011 The Research SUPPLEMENTAL POVERTY MEASURE: 2010 The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) established the Panel on Poverty and Family Assistance, which released its report titled Measuring Poverty: A New Approach in the spring of 1995. Based on its assessment of the weaknesses of the current poverty measure, this NAS panel of experts recommended having a measure that better reflects contemporary social and economic realities and government policy. SPM (Supplemental Poverty Measure) family resources should be defined as the value of cash income from all sources, plus the value of in-kind benefits that are available to buy the basic bundle of goods (FCSU) minus necessary expenses for critical goods and services not included in the thresholds. In-kind benefits include nutritional assistance, subsidized housing, and home energy assistance. Necessary expenses that must be subtracted include income taxes, social security payroll taxes, childcare and other work-related expenses, child support payments to another household, and contributions toward the cost of medical care and health insurance premiums, or medical out-of-pocket (MOOP) costs. Resource measure: Official Poverty Measure: Gross before-tax cash income Supplemental Poverty Measure: Sum of cash income, plus in-kind benefits that families can use to meet their FCSU needs, minus taxes (or plus tax credits), minus work expenses, minus out-of-pocket medical expenses For children, not accounting for the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) would result in a poverty rate of 22.4 percent, rather than 18.2 percent. The inclusion of each of the listed in-kind benefits results in lower poverty rates for children. Not subtracting MOOP (medical out-of-pocket expenses) from the income of families with children would have resulted in a poverty rate of 15.4 percent. Findings are similar for the other two age groups shown. For the 65 years and older group, however, WIC (Women, Infants, and Children program) has no statistically significant effect while SPM (Supplemental Poverty Measure) rates increase by about 7.3 percentage points with the subtraction of MOOP from income. Clearly, the subtraction of MOOP has an important effect on SPM rates for this group. >From the Summary Results showed a higher proportion of several groups were poor using the SPM. These groups were adults aged 18 to 64 and 65 and over, those in married-couple families or with male householders, Whites, Asians, the foreign born, homeowners with mortgages, and those with private health insurance. Since in-kind benefits help those in extreme poverty, there were lower percentages of individuals with resources below half the SPM threshold for most groups. The effect of benefits received from each program and expenses on taxes and other non-discretionary expenses on SPM rates were examined. It was shown that medical out-of-pocket expenses had an important effect on SPM rates and on the well-being of those 65 years and older, in particular. http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-241.pdf Comment: Many have believed that our poverty rates would not be so dismal if more factors were considered such as the value of social services benefits, thus the supplemental poverty measure was created. The shocking result is that poverty rates are actually greater, especially because of the additional drain on resources of out-of-pocket medical expenses - a measure even worse for those over 65. PNHP's version of single payer would provide first dollar coverage, eliminating out-of-pocket expenses such as deductibles, co-payments, and coinsurance. This would not only reduce financial barriers to health care, it would also reduce U.S. poverty levels. This is partly what we mean by "improved" in "an improved Medicare for all." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Quote-of-the-day mailing list Quote-of-the-day at mccanne.org http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/quote-of-the-day From don at mccanne.org Wed Nov 9 16:08:58 2011 From: don at mccanne.org (Don McCanne) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 13:08:58 -0800 Subject: [Health Care Action] qotd: Healthcare Reform 2.0 - Woolhandler and Himmelstein Message-ID: CUNY School of Public Health Social Research Fall 2011 Healthcare Reform 2.0 By Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPH and David Himmelstein, MD So while the American people want an expanded and improved Medicare for All ? that is, a single-payer system ? corporations dead-set against single-payer reform have come to dictate the agendas of both political parties. Hence, the only way to win national health insurance is to build a popular movement to counter corporate power. http://www1.cuny.edu/mu/forum/2011/11/09/dr-steffie-woolhandler-and-dr-david-himmelstein-on-their-recent-publication- ?healthcare-reform-2-0?-in-the-fall-2011-issue-of-social-research/ Healthcare Reform 2.0 (12 pages): http://www1.cuny.edu/mu/sph/files/2011/11/783_Woolhandler-Himmelstein_719-730.pdf Comment: This brief primer (9 short pages plus references) on Healthcare Reform 2.0 will provide little new information for those who have followed the research and educational efforts of the leadership of Physicians for a National Health Program. Nevertheless, it should be downloaded to be used as an advocacy piece to explain to others why Healthcare Reform 1.0 (Affordable Care Act) will remain a failure, and why we have to move on to Healthcare Reform 2.0 (expanded and improved Medicare for All). By distributing this, electronically or in hard copy, you can become a part of the popular movement to counter corporate power. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Quote-of-the-day mailing list Quote-of-the-day at mccanne.org http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/quote-of-the-day From calendar at wmjwj.org Wed Nov 9 19:02:00 2011 From: calendar at wmjwj.org (=?us-ascii?Q?Workers'_Rights_Calendar?=) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 19:02:00 -0500 Subject: [Health Care Action] Tomorrow's MHA Rally and City Council Hearing Called Off Message-ID: <027a01cc9f3b$fdf96a90$f9ec3fb0$@org> Please help spread the word. From: Peter Witzler peter.witzler at seiu.org Tomorrow's SEIU Local 509 MHA Rally and City Council Hearing Called Off Over the last few months we have worked with a number of vibrant human service workers at Mental Health Association (MHA) as we joined together to form a union at their workplace. They have worked hard to build a stronger voice for workers and clients at their agency. Unfortunately, MHA's management, including the Board of Directors, has decided to spend the agency's scarce resources on union busters rather than sit down with employees and negotiate a contract. Those anti-union consultants will walk away with thousands of dollars of the agency's money and hundreds of thousands of dollars in staff time wasted in meeting after meeting about why there shouldn't be a union at MHA. Thankfully, we can announce that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has opened an investigation to see if MHA's spending on union busters has been appropriately reported in their financial reports. The Operational Services Division has demanded that the agency provide detailed listings of invoices and other details of their anti-union spending. We will continue to update you on the process of this audit. MHA employees have told us that they are tired of the campaign and that they want to give their CEO and the Board of Directors a chance to make change, and we respect that choice. For that reason we are withdrawing from the union election. We are sad that we won't be taking the next step with those caregivers at MHA today, but we are proud to have been in this struggle with them. As a result of this withdrawal, the rally and hearing that was scheduled for Thursday November 10 in Springfield has been called off. Thank you for your support and solidarity. Peter Witzler Senior Community Political Organizer Supporting People, Supporting Communities http://spsc.seiu.org/ SEIU, Public Services Division Cell: 202.257.4952 Office: 202.730.7389 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jon Weissman, Coordinator Western Mass Jobs with Justice 640 Page Blvd #101 Springfield MA 01104 (413) 827-0301 Founded in 1987, Jobs with Justice's mission is to improve working people's standard of living, fight for job security, and protect workers' right to organize. We believe workers' rights are human rights and to be successful, we have to be part of a larger campaign for economic and social justice. To that end, "J with J" has created a national coalition and a network of local coalitions that connect labor, community, student, and faith-based organizations and activists on workplace and community social justice campaigns. Western Mass JwJ - founded June 5, 1993 - is now a coalition of almost 70 organizations. Let's keep in touch - please check out our mailing lists at http://wmjwj.org/our-lists. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wmjwj at wmjwj.org Wed Nov 9 19:44:16 2011 From: wmjwj at wmjwj.org (WMass Jobs with Justice) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 19:44:16 -0500 Subject: [Health Care Action] MHA Under investigation by state Operational Services Division In-Reply-To: <027a01cc9f3b$fdf96a90$f9ec3fb0$@org> References: <027a01cc9f3b$fdf96a90$f9ec3fb0$@org> Message-ID: <02e501cc9f41$e12c01b0$a3840510$@org> Mental Health Assn. of Springfield under investigation by state Operational Services Division: http://spsc.seiu.org/2011/11/08/mha-under-investigation-by-state-operational -services-division/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From don at mccanne.org Thu Nov 10 08:14:29 2011 From: don at mccanne.org (Don McCanne) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 05:14:29 -0800 Subject: [Health Care Action] qotd: Reinhardt: Placing "All-Payer" in the reform dialogue Message-ID: Health Affairs November 2011 The Many Different Prices Paid To Providers And The Flawed Theory Of Cost Shifting: Is It Time For A More Rational All-Payer System? By Uwe E. Reinhardt Abstract In developed nations that rely on multiple, competing health insurers ? for example, Switzerland and Germany ? the prices for health care services and products are subject to uniform price schedules that are either set by government or negotiated on a regional basis between associations of health insurers and associations of providers of health care. In the United States, some states ? notably Maryland ? have used such all-payer systems for hospitals only. Elsewhere in the United States, prices are negotiated between individual payers and providers. This situation has resulted in an opaque system in which payers with market power force weaker payers to cover disproportionate shares of providers? fixed costs ? a phenomenon sometimes termed cost shifting ? or providers simply succeed in charging higher prices when they can. In this article I propose that this price-discriminatory system be replaced over time by an all-payer system as a means to better control costs and ensure equitable payment. http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/30/11/2125.abstract Comment: This is an important contribution to the health policy literature. It is intended to be a seminal paper designed to displace the useless discussion of cost shifting between public programs and private insurers with a discussion of reducing price discrimination (charging individuals, private insurers or government programs different prices for the same services) by shifting to an all-payer system that would better control costs and ensure equitable payment. An all-payer system simply establishes "uniform price schedules that are either set by government or negotiated on a regional basis between associations of health insurers and associations of providers of health care."(1) Why is this important? Although there is considerable variation in prices throughout the health care system, high prices, on average, have been a major contributor to our very high per capita spending on health care.(2) As Uwe Reinhardt explains, much of this excessive pricing has resulted from private insurers, with a weak market presence, negotiating with health care providers, especially hospitals, that dominate their respective markets. The health care provider consolidation that is taking place can only compound the impact of this market distortion. Although private insurers also are consolidating, competing plans are still not in a position to extract major price concessions from dominant health care providers. All-payer price setting through government or association negotiation is designed to displace the ineffectual private insurers as price negotiators while establishing both better cost control and more equitable payments for health care. (In some areas, private insurers have been able to hold prices down at Medicare rates for physicians where the physicians have a very weak negotiating clout. This is less true of hospitals that have a weaker clout.) Price discrimination - charging different prices for the same services - hits especially hard those who have the weakest bargaining power: individual patients who are now bearing more of the costs of health care. Contrary to widely held ideological beliefs, here it is price discrimination in the private insurance market and not the government that has created the perversity of rationing based on the ability to pay. In his article, Reinhardt explains, "It should be recognized that the higher the fraction of health care spending that individuals and families must bear out of their own resources, the more heavily the model relies on rationing health care by price and the patient?s ability to pay ? that is, rationing by income level. It may surprise some readers that anyone would associate markets with rationing. But as economists tell their students, free markets represent just one of many styles of rationing. Relying on price and ability to pay is precisely how markets in general manage to ration scarce resources among unlimited ends."(1) One of the reasons that this article on all-payer systems is so important is that we are at a crossroads in the reform process. He writes, "At this time, the US health system appears to stand at a clearly delineated crossroads. On one road, Americans would seek better control over national health spending through an all-payer system, such as the one operated by Maryland for the hospital sector. On the other road, Americans would seek better control of health care prices and national health spending through greater reliance on market forces for most of the health system. Depending on how that road is traveled, it could entail more pronounced rationing of health care by income class, meaning less health care for those who cannot afford it. The battle over US health policy in the coming decades is likely to be over which road to take."(1) Since an all-payer system would correct only a portion of the flaws in our health care financing, why shouldn't we go full bore and enact a single payer system? Reinhardt brings up the political feasibility argument, as follows, "In any event, an all-payer system with multiple private insurers would be likely to be more broadly politically feasible than a government-run single-payer system, such as Canada?s provincial, government-run single-payer insurance systems. A single-payer system, of course, would be another alternative that would eliminate price discrimination and any cost shifting." Reinhardt discusses the effectiveness of all-payer for hospitals in the state of Maryland. In a previous response to the Maryland all-payer system, I stated, "If we can succeed in reestablishing a public service role for government, then wouldn't it be reasonable to simply enact an all-payer system for hospitals? The problem is that it only makes one change in our fragmented, dysfunctional system of financing care, and not a complete change at that. Under all-payer, only the rates are controlled, but each service still must be accounted for and paid for independently, and the hospitals would still have multiple public and private payers with which they would have to interact."(3) So what about Switzerland? Reinhardt mentions it as having successfully applied an all-payer system. In another previous message on the OECD/WHO report on Switzerland, I stated, "It is not clear why so many in the U.S. are enamored of the Swiss health insurance system when this OECD/WHO report confirms that it is highly inefficient and fragmented, with profound administrative waste, inequitably funded, with regressive financing and with wide variations in premiums, has the highest out-of-pocket costs, has an increasing prevalence of managed care intrusions, and is controlled by a private insurance industry that has learned how to game risk selection at significant cost to those on the losing end."(4) Uwe Reinhardt is to be highly commended for moving us in the right direction, but... We've said it before and we'll say it again. If political feasibility is the barrier to enacting a single payer system, let's not simply jettison single payer; let's change the political feasibility instead! All-payer might be a modest incremental improvement (modest when compared to what needs to be done), but why settle for that when we can have it all through an improved and expanded Medicare for all? (1) http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/30/11/2125.full (2) http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/docs/Its-The-Prices-Stupid.pdf (3) http://www.pnhp.org/news/2011/september/hospitals-all-payer-or-global-budgets (4) http://www.pnhp.org/news/2011/october/oecdwho-report-on-the-swiss-health-system -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Quote-of-the-day mailing list Quote-of-the-day at mccanne.org http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/quote-of-the-day From acswift at comcast.net Thu Nov 10 10:28:58 2011 From: acswift at comcast.net (Alice Swift) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:28:58 -0500 Subject: [Health Care Action] Fwd: Join Mass-Care Saturday, Monday, and in the Globe! In-Reply-To: <2126714529.1382344.1320938738760.JavaMail.root@sz0009a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net> References: <2126714529.1382344.1320938738760.JavaMail.root@sz0009a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mass-Care Announce Date: Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:25 AM Subject: Join Mass-Care Saturday, Monday, and in the Globe! To: Mass-Care Announce Hello Single Payer Supporters - Mass-Care is on the move this week, and we are in the Boston Globe today! *This Saturday*, November 12, we will be joining up with Occupy Boston for a noon teach-in and a 1PM rally for health care justice and the 99%! See details here: http://healthjusticeboston.org/2011/11/09/health-justice-day-of-action-occupy-boston-saturday-1112/ *This coming Monday*, November 14 at 2PM, Professor William Hsiao will be giving a presentation to Massachusetts legislators about Vermont's move towards a single payer system, and the opportunities for Massachusetts to follow! Please join us in the House Members' Lounge at the State House. *Today in the op-ed pages of the Boston Globe*, Robert Kuttner has a piece discussing the limits of Massachusetts health reform, and crossroads the nation will eventually reach where we have to choose between truly universal care or erosion of access to care. In it, he draws on data from the new report released by Mass-Care and PNHP: http://bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2011/11/10/best-mass-health-strategy-offers-halfway-house-universal-care/j3mGN3cuspTWA0fD4nHE4H/story.html First Vermont, and now the changing tide of the Occupy movement, have the potential to create new openings for the single payer movement. Please help us keep up the momentum and join us for this week of action! _______________________________________________ Mass-Care: The Massachusetts Campaign for Single Payer Health Care 33 Harrison Ave - 5th floor Boston, MA 02111 Ph: 617-723-7001 Fx: 617-723-7002 Em: info at masscare.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From don at mccanne.org Fri Nov 11 09:28:19 2011 From: don at mccanne.org (Don McCanne) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 06:28:19 -0800 Subject: [Health Care Action] =?windows-1252?q?qotd=3A_Dr=2E_Jacqueline_Da?= =?windows-1252?q?vis_on_the_fight_to_save_Britain=92s_NHS?= Message-ID: Physicians for a National Health Program National Meeting, Washington, D.C. October 29, 2011 The Fight to Save Britain?s NHS Luncheon address by Jacqueline Davis, M.D. (Excerpts) First I want to thank you for inviting me here. I bring greetings from the land of socialized medicine and death panels, to the land of ?islands of excellence in a sea of misery.? I?ve never been to this city before and when I told family and friends about my invitation to Washington they assumed I was off to meet the president. I told them it was much more important than that. But just in case he?s listening ? I could be free for tea tomorrow.... **** Of course the NHS faces the challenges that all health systems do, i.e. changing demographics, increased range and cost of treatments, rising patient expectation and the global financial crisis. But in the face of all these the NHS still manages to be one of the most cost-efficient and equitable health services in the world. And the public love it. At the end of the Labour government?s 13 years in power it had the highest satisfaction ratings ever, and it still is the most popular institution in the UK bar none, and that includes the royal family. So if it?s so good, why are we having to fight for it? Because there?s another big challenge which all public services face and that is the neoliberal agenda which still has the upper hand despite its current manifest failures on a global scale. **** A successful public service is an affront to the free marketeers. They simply won?t let the facts get in their way. Despite all evidence to the contrary they continue to insist anything the public sector can do the private sector can do better and more cheaply, and no evidence to the contrary will persuade them otherwise. So the politicians for ideological reasons, and the private sector for financial reasons, have had the NHS ? traditionally publicly funded, publicly delivered and publicly accountable ? in their sights for some time. They have acted together, beneath the radar, to turn the NHS from a cost-effective integrated public service into a kite mark attached to a ragbag of competing private providers. **** Up till now you trusted your GP to give advice on clinical grounds. But now ? if your GP says no to treatment and/or referral is it because they want to pocket the money that is saved ? which the bill allows them to do? Or if they refer you to Hips R Us down the road, is it because their wife has a financial interest in it? 25 percent of GPs already have a direct interest in the private sector. This suspicion will be very corrupting, and most GPs are worried about it. **** We fear NHS services being reduced to a core of poor services for poor people, with those who can afford it topping up their personal health budgets with insurance or out-of-pocket payments and those who can?t afford it going without. And we really fear the arrival of the private companies, many of them from the U.S., whose behavior leaves much to be desired. They want to ?cherry pick.? leaving the NHS to pick up the complex expensive patients as well as providing the expensive emergency care and the training that is not attractive to the private sector. We fear they will behave in a fraudulent way as they do already in the USA. **** Our organization was vociferous from day one, saying that the bill spelled the end of the NHS, and of course we were accused of shroud waving and gross exaggeration. But we stuck in there and joined together with other campaigning organizations and the pressure has built up over the last year. How did we do it? We produced analyses and simple 10-point critiques of the bill in our regular campaign newspaper as well as special pamphlets and postcards. We wrote doggedly ? all of us would take it in turns ? to national and local papers and had a lot of articles and letters published. We offered to do public talks, to our own groups and also to anyone from medical students to pensioners, and in fact those two groups turned into some of our most outspoken supporters. We helped organize online petitions. We put a lot of energy into lobbying politicians. We have helped expose the scandals of the revolving door between government and the private sector and the infiltration of government by corporate interests. We have questioned the neutrality of so called think tanks and helped expose the strength of the health lobbying industry in Westminster. We marched, we used social media to spread our message and some of us even got elected to the Council of the British Medical Association so that we could begin to change our union from within. **** The problem we have come to realize is that we aren?t just fighting the Tory government; we are fighting the global medical industrial complex with all its power, influence and money. And its cozy relationship with today?s politicians. It?s easy to lose hope but we mustn?t. We have to take on this cozy configuration of politicians and giant corporations which have come to a ?comfortable accommodation? at our expense. We must change the tone of the debate with these people who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. We must say that the market should serve society rather than society serving the market, that there are public goods and goals for which the market is not suited and that what matters is not how affluent a country is but how unequal it is. We must collect evidence and use it to criticize and expose. We must create the strong voice of civil society and we doctors have a particular duty to be that voice and we must organize and use it. Firstly because ? and we must never lose sight of the fact ? we are right. Secondly, we are the patients? true advocates and our patients are depending on us. And finally Aneurin Bevan, the great founder of the NHS, said, ?The NHS will last as long as there are folk left with the faith to fight for it.? We must be those folk because, personally, I am not prepared to let him down. (Dr. Jacqueline Davis is a consultant radiologist working in a hospital in London. She is co-chair of the NHS Consultants? Association, a nationwide group of distinguished physicians representing all specialties, and a member of the Keep Our NHS Public campaign.) (You may have to cut and paste this link for it to work.) http://www.pnhp.org/news/2011/november/the-fight-to-save-britain?s-nhs Comment: We share with the British concerns about the neoliberal attack on our health care services. In their case it is an attack on their public National Health Service, whereas in our case it is an attack on Medicare and other public programs and, even greater, a virtual blockade - a dysfunctional private financing construct that often uses public money - that prevents us from bringing comprehensive health care services to all of our people. This luncheon address by Dr. Jacqueline Davis was a highlight of PNHP's recent annual meeting in Washington, DC. You may want to take a moment this weekend to read the entire address, available at the link above, and then savor it. You'll then understand clearly why we gave her a standing ovation, not to mention that it will reinforce your dedication to the cause of health care justice for all. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Quote-of-the-day mailing list Quote-of-the-day at mccanne.org http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/quote-of-the-day From calendar at wmjwj.org Mon Nov 14 09:47:22 2011 From: calendar at wmjwj.org (=?us-ascii?Q?Workers'_Rights_Calendar?=) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 09:47:22 -0500 Subject: [Health Care Action] Support the 99%-JOBS NOT CUTS!! 11/16 Message-ID: <02ec01cca2dc$51bc1fd0$f5345f70$@org> From: tim carpenter pdatimcarpenter at gmail.com Operation Super-committee on the go! Dear Friend, You are among the PDA members whose Senator is on the Super Committee. What an opportunity you have! On Nov. 16th, we will have a Brown Bag Lunch Vigil at Senator John Kerry's office, and a barn burner that BBLV should be. We'll be at Senator Kerry's office from noon to 1:00 p.m. in Springfield. Map and directions here. Main Street matters! The 99% matter! The asks (or demands) are simple and common sense. Here they are: . No cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid Cosponsor H Con Res 72! . Stop the handouts to Big Pharma! Negotiate prescription drug prices under Medicare Part D . Make Wall Street pay and create JOBS Sponsor the Financial Transaction Tax! Make jobs, not cuts! Our ask is simple, too. Join us at our Vigil! Make a sign with one of these asks, or use one we'll have there. Make your voice heard. Give Main Street clout. In solidarity, Tim Carpenter and Sally Weiss P.S. If you have questions, contact Sally here and Tim here. When forwarding this email, please remove the personalized links before you hit send. BBLV Partners Obama No Cuts SS ECR Medicare Petition No Fracking NAT GAS Act Afghanistan SOFA Dont Buy Bottled Water-PDA Water Bottle Change makes Change -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From don at mccanne.org Mon Nov 14 11:21:42 2011 From: don at mccanne.org (Don McCanne) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 08:21:42 -0800 Subject: [Health Care Action] qotd: UK Health Minister Lansley on patient accountability for costs Message-ID: Brookings Engelberg Center for Health Care Reform November 9, 2011 Perspectives on Health Care Reform in the U.K. A dialogue with UK Secretary of State for Health Andrew Lansley Q&A Mark McClellan, Director of the Engelberg Center: Another point (that you mentioned) was the availability of care at a low or at really no cost to patients, to consumers. That is a big difference from the United States, obviously, where not just the more conservative members of our legislatures, but others as well believe that patients should have some accountability, some responsibility for some of the costs, and, conversely, if they make decisions to stay healthier, if they make decisions to use care more effectively, that they should get some of the savings. You put a big emphasis on how these reforms are going to lead to more patient choice in terms of GPs, in terms of hospital care, in terms of specialist teams, and so on. As you said, money following the patient. Is that going to be enough? There are a lot of people here who believe that you really need even more consumer involvement, consumer stake in care to drive real reforms in care. UK Health Minister Andrew Lansley: Well, I understand the view that says if people pay directly for something, they value it more. I actually think, in the British context, where health care is concerned, people understand the value of the health care that is provided to them. They don't need to have it itemized in a bill sent to them and pay for it out of their own pocket to realize that the National Health Service provides them something that they should attach enormous value to. I think, generally speaking, it isn't the case that people in Britain consume large amounts of health care, that they don't need to, because it's free. And in particular, I think through the intermediation process with general practitioners the relationship that is built up between the British public and their general practitioners is instrumental to the process of managing demand in a way that is responsible and effective. Now I think it's not perfect, and I think that's one of the central reasons why I think we need to give patients a greater say in decision making. I don't think, in a free system, as a consequence of that we are going to see irresponsible or excessive demand. I think patients themselves, given good information and opportunities to make choices, on balance, will make decisions that are probably less costly, less invasive, less interventionist because they want to have care that supports them at home and very often they don't want to be in the hospital. So issues like avoiding admissions to hospitals, I think patients are with us on this. They're not conflicting with us. See, the one thing I would say is important in terms of access, that we don't necessarily achieve, where we do need to act is to ensure that patients do have access to the latest and most effective treatments and medicines. And there, particularly, we acted, since the election, in the creation of the Cancer Drug Fund because we knew that, in Britain for example, there was a very low take-up of cancer medicines within five years of their being introduced. And I think that is absolutely an area where the public have an expectation and a right to expect that they should have access to whatever their clinicians regard as the most effective treatment available. Some of it's cost effective but, you know, on that basis, with clinical judgement, they should be able to get access to it. I have to say, when you look at the cost, literally the transaction cost alone, of moving away from a taxpayer funded service as the NHS is, in the way in which we're organized, at the moment we have something like five percent of NHS costs consumed in administration. I'm planning to bring that down to about three to three and a half percent over the course of the next four years. That alone will save us about one and one-half billion pounds a year. But that is very modest administration costs relative to the costs of administration of insurance systems in the United States. So on that basis alone I think there is, in a constrained financial bound, there's no intrinsic merit in moving away from the structure of the system we have. http://www.brookings.edu/events/2011/1109_uk_health_care.aspx Comment: Health Minister Andrew Lansley of the United Kingdom is currently at the center of a storm of controversy over his efforts to further privatize their health care on the theory that expanding market competition for the National Health Service will improve quality and reduce costs. So it is instructive to ask if his views extend to include the U.S. concept of empowering consumers by requiring an even greater financial stake "to drive real reforms in care," as former CMS Secretary Mark McClellan phrases it. Although holding very conservative political views, Lansley almost scoffs at the suggestion that British citizens would consume large amounts of care merely because it is free. When you think about it, the suggestion that patients need price sensitivity to prevent over-consumption of health care is almost an insult. Patients want to consult with their physicians to obtain the most appropriate care for their medical circumstance, in an environment removed from financial considerations. They are not looking for bargain basement deals. This is about health care, for Pete's sake. It's not like deciding whether you are going to purchase a garment at Walmart or at Nordstrom. The assumption in the United Kingdom and in all other wealthier nations, except the United States, is that public stewards will ensure that health care will always be there for you when you need it. It is not a commodity that wise shoppers will follow and then purchase only after it goes on sale. The advocates of consumer-directed health care are going to have to do a better job of explaining how requiring patients to pay out of their pockets or savings accounts when they access care is an answer to a problem, when that problem doesn't seem to even exist. As Minister Lansley states, "it isn't the case that people in Britain consume large amounts of health care... because it's free." Further, "the relationship that is built up between the British public and their general practitioners is instrumental to the process of managing demand in a way that is responsible and effective." How about that! The traditional physician-patient relationship works! The per capita health care spending in the United Kingdom is less than half that of the United States. The British did not have to use consumer empowerment through price sensitivity to control their health care spending. It appears that the only significant impact of increasing the financial stake of the health care consumer has been to erect financial barriers to beneficial health care services. So this detrimental intervention is being offered as a solution to the problem of high health care costs that other nations effectively manage using a responsible relationship between patients and their physicians? Talk about a disconnect between a problem and a solution! McClellan says, "There are a lot of people here who believe that you really need even more consumer involvement, consumer stake in care to drive real reforms in care." We could scoff at those people, but they're in charge now. That's tragic! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Quote-of-the-day mailing list Quote-of-the-day at mccanne.org http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/quote-of-the-day From wmjwj at wmjwj.org Tue Nov 15 14:20:21 2011 From: wmjwj at wmjwj.org (WMass Jobs with Justice) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:20:21 -0500 Subject: [Health Care Action] Verizon leafleting this week Message-ID: <011e01cca3cb$a3210300$e9630900$@org> If this email was forwarded or copied to you, be sure to keep up-to-date on workers' rights campaigns by subscribing to the Workers' Rights List. To subscribe, send a blank email to workersrights-subscribe at lists.prometheuslabor.com or go to http://lists.wmjwj.org/mailman/listinfo/workersrights. Dear Workers' Rights Activists, Please let the Store Captains listed below know you are coming to leaflet about Verizon and corporate greed this week! See schedule below. If you tell us in advance that you're coming, we'll contact you if anything changes (tell us how to contact you). And please sign the online Message of Solidarity . We leaflet regularly at the door and stand out with the VeriGreedy banner at the street at 360 Russell St, Hadley , 1123 Riverdale St, West Springfield , 1420 Boston Rd, Springfield , & 555 Hubbard Ave, Pittsfield . This week's schedule: Wednesday, Noon to 2pm, at the Hadley store: Please let Ryan Quinn know you are coming: rep at geouaw.org, 413-545-0705. Graduate Employees Organization/UAW 2324 has adopted this shift. Saturday, Noon to 2pm, at the Hadley store: Please let Jon Weissman know you are coming: jon at wmjwj.org, 413-827-0301. Saturday, 11am to 1pm, at the Pittsfield store: Please let Brian Morrison know you are coming: brian.morrison at state.ma.us, 413-281-3223. Berkshire Central Labor Council has adopted this shift. Saturday, Noon to 2pm,, at the Springfield store: Please let Kathy Collins know you are coming: kathy7157 at hotmail.com, 413-734-0863. Saturday, Noon to 2pm, at the West Springfield store: Please let Patrick Burke know you are coming: patrick at wmjwj.org, 413-454-5692. Join us! Please wear your organization's apparel and/or a red shirt/jacket, as the strikers did. If it looks like rain or snow, we will make the decision to call it off by 9am and let you know by email. If we know you are coming, we can send the email to your cell phone as a text message if you send your phone number and name of carrier to wmjwj at wmjwj.org. You can call the Store Captains listed above to be sure, but it's better if you tell us in advance that you're coming and we'll call you. When we call off a planned leafleting shift due to weather, the captains will be there at the beginning to tell anyone who did not get the message, but we'll only wait 15 minutes. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jon Weissman, Coordinator Western Mass Jobs with Justice 640 Page Blvd #101 Springfield MA 01104 (413) 827-0301 Founded in 1987, Jobs with Justice's mission is to improve working people's standard of living, fight for job security, and protect workers' right to organize. We believe workers' rights are human rights and to be successful, we have to be part of a larger campaign for economic and social justice. To that end, "J with J" has created a national coalition and a network of local coalitions that connect labor, community, student, and faith-based organizations and activists on workplace and community social justice campaigns. Western Mass JwJ - founded June 5, 1993 - is now a coalition of almost 70 organizations. Let's keep in touch - please check out our mailing lists at http://wmjwj.org/our-lists. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From don at mccanne.org Tue Nov 15 14:30:59 2011 From: don at mccanne.org (Don McCanne) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 11:30:59 -0800 Subject: [Health Care Action] qotd: Anthem Blue Cross uses bait and switch tactics Message-ID: Los Angeles Times November 15, 2011 Anthem Blue Cross sued over higher medical insurance deductibles By Duke Helfand For the second time in eight months, California health insurer Anthem Blue Cross is being sued over allegations that it has breached contracts with individual policyholders for hiking annual insurance deductibles in the middle of the year. The latest lawsuit, filed Monday by the group Consumer Watchdog, says that California's largest for-profit health insurance company used "bait and switch" tactics to raise deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs for some customers May 1. The lawsuit says the Woodland Hills insurer improperly changed policy renewal periods Aug. 1 from one year to one month, allowing the company to alter its benefits, co-pays and other costs repeatedly throughout the year. Some of those Anthem customers have seen their annual deductibles rise in the middle of the year to $550 from $500, according to the consumer lawsuit. Other deductibles have gone to $1,750 from $1,500 and to $2,950 from $2,500. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-anthem-lawsuit-20111115,0,7684974.story Comment: WellPoint's Anthem Blue Cross has found yet another way to shift insurance risk from itself to its beneficiaries. Individuals who purchased or renewed their health plans did so while assuming in good faith that their costs and risk exposure would be set for another year. No. Anthem Blue Cross included in the fine print the condition that these were only one month renewals, allowing them to change the terms of the insurance contract repeatedly throughout the year. "Bait and switch" is a despicable business practice, and the nation's largest insurer, WellPoint, is not above it. At the current rate of insurer consolidation, WellPoint's plans will likely be amongst only a few choices, if that, in the state health insurance exchanges to be established under the Affordable Care Act. And surely the other insurers will adopt the same despicable practices in order to remain competitive. Now the nation is awaiting a Supreme Court decision on the individual mandate that will tell us whether we will be required to purchase a plan from a selection of these despicable private programs or if we will have the right to remain uninsured - a right that many will exercise simply because these plans will be unaffordable, even with the proposed subsidies. We wouldn't have to tolerate the despicable behavior of the private insurers if only Congress would improve and expand Medicare. Medicare belongs to the people. We should all be able to benefit from it. Despicable? Despicable: "So worthless or obnoxious as to rouse moral indignation." (It's the right word, so we should use it.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Quote-of-the-day mailing list Quote-of-the-day at mccanne.org http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/quote-of-the-day From wmjwj at wmjwj.org Tue Nov 15 14:50:21 2011 From: wmjwj at wmjwj.org (WMass Jobs with Justice) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:50:21 -0500 Subject: [Health Care Action] Why Amazon's not on my shopping list Message-ID: <013901cca3cf$cfb22c60$6f168520$@org> From: Liz Cattaneo, American Rights at Work action at americanrightsatwork.org More details have emerged about Amazon's shameful treatment of its warehouse workers. According to a news report,1 Amazon left its Pennsylvania warehouse workers out in the freezing cold on multiple occasions last winter. After fire alarms sounded, warehouse workers evacuated ? and were forced to stand outside in frigid temperatures for hours at a time. Some workers even had to go to the hospital for cold exposure. Paul Grady, who was working the night shift last November, said, "They didn't care about anybody standing outside freezing because they knew they could replace us the next day if they had to." Black Friday ? the biggest shopping day of the year ? is just days away. This is the best opportunity we have to show Amazon that we aren't going to stand by and let them mistreat their workers. Join me and 8,080 other activists like you in signing the pledge. Thanks so much for your help. -Liz 1. http://articles.mcall.com/2011-11-05/news/mc-allentown-amazon-cold-20111105_1_warehouse-workers-amazon-s-lehigh-valley-warehouse-managers I pledge not to shop at Amazon this holiday season Take the pledge now. Despite thousands of customers raising hell, Amazon.com hasn't addressed the core problems underlying the shameful working conditions at its warehouses. Warehouse employees in Breinigsville, PA, have been working on their hands and knees at a frantic pace, enduring the pain because they're afraid of losing their jobs.1 I admit I've relied on Amazon for a lot of my shopping. But now I know that Amazon's great deals and convenience come at the expense of its workers. That's why this holiday, I'm personally not doing any of my shopping with Amazon, and I hope you'll join me. Click here to take the pledge to not shop at Amazon this holiday season. Like most retailers, Amazon depends on holiday shopping for a large percentage of its profit.2 During the biggest retail season of the year, the company won't want to risk losing customers ? which means right now is our best opportunity to make a difference for its warehouse workers. Amazon is a $100 billion corporate giant3 known for its innovation ? but mistreating workers is hardly cutting edge. Amazon has more than the means necessary to be a hugely profitable company without putting workers' health and well-being at risk. Amazon's workers deserve better. And as customers, we can demand better. Join me in pledging not to shop at Amazon.com this holiday. I emailed you a few weeks ago about how Amazon.com had been forcing employees to work in sweatshop conditions, with temperatures so high that Amazon kept ambulances parked outside to carry sick workers out on stretchers. Thanks to public attention and our collective outrage, Amazon is now planning to install air conditioners in its warehouses,4 but the company hasn't bothered to address other problems that are just as serious. Amazon is still continuing to rely on temporary employees who are forced to work at exhausting, brutal speeds ? just because it's cheaper. One temporary worker "...was expected to pick 1,200 items in a 10-hour shift, or one item every 30 seconds."5 Unfortunately, it's much harder for temporary workers to organize for better working conditions, and that's why we've got to step up and demand change. Send a message to Amazon and make a difference for these workers. Pledge not to shop at Amazon this holiday season. Thanks for your commitment to workers' rights. Sincerely, Liz, Hilary, Beth, Zoe, Michael, and the American Rights at Work team www.AmericanRightsatWork.org 1. http://articles.mcall.com/2011-09-18/news/mc-allentown-amazon-complaints-20110917_1_warehouse-workers-heat-stress-brutal-heat 2. http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Amazon.com_(AMZN)/Data/Gross_Profit/2010/Q4 3. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/25/amazon-hot-and-cold/ 4. Ibid 5. http://articles.mcall.com/2011-09-18/news/mc-allentown-amazon-complaints-20110917_1_warehouse-workers-heat-stress-brutal-heat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 52097 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wmspn at wmjwj.org Tue Nov 15 15:39:15 2011 From: wmspn at wmjwj.org (WMass Single Payer Network) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:39:15 -0500 Subject: [Health Care Action] FW: Citizens' Academy for Health Equity Message-ID: <02ca01cca3d6$a4497c70$ecdc7550$@org> From: Deb Albury debalbury at yahoo.com The Healthy Community Collaborative (HCC) with start up funds from the Mason Square Health Taskforce has launched the Citizens' Academy for Health Equity, designed as a ?learning community? intended to develop ?change agents? equipped to help change behavior, environment, practices & policy to reduce the impact of diabetes and premature cardiovascular disease in the Mason Square community. While the Citizens' Academy for Health Equity is focused on engaging HCC partners and community health advocates in learning & working to improve community health, the process is designed to enable community residents to learn from ?professional? experts, and to enable ?professional? experts to learn from the wisdom of community. Each of you is welcome to participate in any or all sessions. The Academy consists of a 10 session cycle (2nd & 4th Wednesdays of each month from 12-2PM at Springfield Partners for Community Action ) that will be repeated every six months. As an active & applied learning process, we?ll be reviewing the progress we?re all making to change behavior, environment, and practices and policy as we go along. Deborah Albury Healthy Community Collaborative -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wmjwj at wmjwj.org Wed Nov 16 09:17:37 2011 From: wmjwj at wmjwj.org (WMass Jobs with Justice) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 09:17:37 -0500 Subject: [Health Care Action] Verizon leafleting today Message-ID: <00ba01cca46a$83793870$8a6ba950$@org> Weather.com predicts rain at 1pm in Hadley today, so leafleting will start at noon and end when it starts to rain. GEO folks are ready to leaflet, so please stop by if it's dry. Original Message From: WMass Jobs with Justice [mailto:wmjwj at wmjwj.org] If this email was forwarded or copied to you, be sure to keep up-to-date on workers' rights campaigns by subscribing to the Workers' Rights List. To subscribe, send a blank email to workersrights-subscribe at lists.prometheuslabor.com or go to http://lists.wmjwj.org/mailman/listinfo/workersrights. Dear Workers' Rights Activists, Please let the Store Captains listed below know you are coming to leaflet about Verizon and corporate greed this week! See schedule below. If you tell us in advance that you're coming, we'll contact you if anything changes (tell us how to contact you). And please sign the online Message of Solidarity . We leaflet regularly at the door and stand out with the VeriGreedy banner at the street at 360 Russell St, Hadley , 1123 Riverdale St, West Springfield , 1420 Boston Rd, Springfield , & 555 Hubbard Ave, Pittsfield . This week's schedule: Wednesday, Noon to 2pm, at the Hadley store: Please let Ryan Quinn know you are coming: rep at geouaw.org, 413-545-0705. Graduate Employees Organization/UAW 2324 has adopted this shift. Saturday, Noon to 2pm, at the Hadley store: Please let Jon Weissman know you are coming: jon at wmjwj.org, 413-827-0301. Saturday, 11am to 1pm, at the Pittsfield store: Please let Brian Morrison know you are coming: brian.morrison at state.ma.us, 413-281-3223. Berkshire Central Labor Council has adopted this shift. Saturday, Noon to 2pm,, at the Springfield store: Please let Kathy Collins know you are coming: kathy7157 at hotmail.com, 413-734-0863. Saturday, Noon to 2pm, at the West Springfield store: Please let Patrick Burke know you are coming: patrick at wmjwj.org, 413-454-5692. Join us! Please wear your organization's apparel and/or a red shirt/jacket, as the strikers did. If it looks like rain or snow, we will make the decision to call it off by 9am and let you know by email. If we know you are coming, we can send the email to your cell phone as a text message if you send your phone number and name of carrier to wmjwj at wmjwj.org. You can call the Store Captains listed above to be sure, but it's better if you tell us in advance that you're coming and we'll call you. When we call off a planned leafleting shift due to weather, the captains will be there at the beginning to tell anyone who did not get the message, but we'll only wait 15 minutes. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jon Weissman, Coordinator Western Mass Jobs with Justice 640 Page Blvd #101 Springfield MA 01104 (413) 827-0301 Founded in 1987, Jobs with Justice's mission is to improve working people's standard of living, fight for job security, and protect workers' right to organize. We believe workers' rights are human rights and to be successful, we have to be part of a larger campaign for economic and social justice. To that end, "J with J" has created a national coalition and a network of local coalitions that connect labor, community, student, and faith-based organizations and activists on workplace and community social justice campaigns. Western Mass JwJ - founded June 5, 1993 - is now a coalition of almost 70 organizations. Let's keep in touch - please check out our mailing lists at http://wmjwj.org/our-lists. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From don at mccanne.org Wed Nov 16 15:23:33 2011 From: don at mccanne.org (Don McCanne) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:23:33 -0800 Subject: [Health Care Action] qotd: The Tufts/Blue Cross Blue Shield contract dispute that didn't have to be Message-ID: The Boston Globe November 16, 2011 Tufts, Blue Cross contract row threatens members By Robert Weisman and Liz Kowalczyk Tufts Medical Center and its doctors group say they will stop doing business with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts on Jan. 17 because the two sides can?t agree on a new contract. The move could force tens of thousands of Blue Cross members to change doctors and compel employers across Massachusetts to consider switching to another insurer. Blue Cross disclosed the termination notice yesterday as it prepared to send letters to about 55,000 employers and other customers alerting them to the Tufts threat, which came as increasingly tense contract negotiations stalled Monday night. "This is confusing and disruptive," said Amy Whitcomb Slemmer, executive director of Health Care for All, a Boston advocacy group. "We have essentially a train wreck that has nothing to do with the quality of health care, but is all about escalating costs. In their failure to reach agreement, Tufts and Blue Cross are affecting people?s care." Nancy Turnbull, associate dean at the Harvard School of Public Health, said Tufts? request for 3 percent increases seems "very much in line" with what other providers such as Partners HealthCare System and Children?s Hospital have received in recent contracts. And she noted that those providers already were getting higher reimbursements than Tufts. Turnbull said the dispute underscores why the government needs to get more involved in setting payment rates. http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2011/11/16/tufts-blue-cross-contract-row-threatens-members/nXlTQithkVWpK99zinq5FL/story.html And... The Boston Globe November 16, 2011 Blue Cross, Fallon post big earnings By Robert Weisman The state?s largest commercial health insurance companies, citing seasonal improvements in their business and a decline in medical claims tied to the sluggish economy, yesterday posted robust financial results for the three months ending Sept. 30. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, the state?s largest health plan, led the pack in the most recent quarter, ringing up net income of $78.9 million compared with the $75.8 million it earned a year ago. http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2011/11/16/health-insurers-post-third-quarter-gains/rrCFQiA8HtYTSGhf40ylCP/story.html Comment: By reading the first article in full (available at the link), you can learn some of the details behind the contract dispute between Tufts Medical Center and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts. But that isn't the important issue. What is important is that a very profitable, "non-profit" private insurer, that is able to restrict patient choices in health care providers, is using the threat of disrupting patients' care as leverage in negotiations over health care payment rates. Tufts Medical Center is also a party in this dispute. They are also in a position to make a decision that can be very disruptive to the care of their patients. The problem is in the way we finance health care. We continue to perpetuate a system in which we grant the power to control health care dollars to private financial intermediaries that must consider their own interests first. Health care providers are then placed in a position that a decision must be made on whether or not to participate in the proposed contract with the intermediary. Contrast that with a single payer system in which the government sets payment rates based on legitimate costs of providing health care. The government pays enough to maintain the operations of the providers, along with separate disbursements for appropriate capital improvements. The providers are not faced with a decision on whether or not to accept the government contract. The only decision they might consider would be whether or not they would want to shut down operations. The government single payer would not allow that to happen merely because of an actual shortage of funds for necessary expenses, as long as essential services were being provided. It really is time to get the private intermediaries out of our health care. They cost too much, and they take away our choices. An improved version of our own Medicare program would provide the necessary administrative services for us far more efficiently and at a considerably lower cost. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Quote-of-the-day mailing list Quote-of-the-day at mccanne.org http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/quote-of-the-day From don at mccanne.org Thu Nov 17 15:45:38 2011 From: don at mccanne.org (Don McCanne) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 12:45:38 -0800 Subject: [Health Care Action] qotd: Jonathan Gruber: "best... you know, short of single payer" Message-ID: Capital November 16, 2011 Architect of Obama's health care plan fears a 'political' decision by the Supreme Court, says Romney's lying By Reid Pillifant Jonathan Gruber, an M.I.T. professor and a key intellectual architect of President Obama's overhaul of the American health care system, said, "You know, I think basically, what they've constructed, the Affordable Health Act, is the best possible private-sector solution to our problem of the uninsured that we have available, you know, short of single-payer." "Basically, this is the last hope for a free-market solution for covering the uninsured. If this fails, then you either give up on the uninsured or you go to single-payer. Those are the only two options left. And the Republicans, if they're willing to stand up and say, 'We give up on the uninsured,' then great, let them say that and let the voters come to the polls and decide, but they won't say that." http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/culture/2011/11/4156059/architect-obamas-health-care-plan-fears-political-decision-supreme-c Comment: "Best possible solution... you know, short of single payer." If the Affordable Care Act fails (which it clearly will because it's only more of the same), then either we "give up," or we "go to single payer." It's too bad that Jonathan Gruber was distracted by concerns about feasibility when he was assisting with the design of the Romney and Obama plans. The only plan that's really feasible is one that works - single payer. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Quote-of-the-day mailing list Quote-of-the-day at mccanne.org http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/quote-of-the-day From calendar at wmjwj.org Fri Nov 18 15:57:59 2011 From: calendar at wmjwj.org (=?us-ascii?Q?Workers'_Rights_Calendar?=) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:57:59 -0500 Subject: [Health Care Action] Baystate VNA & Hospice pickets 11/28 & 29 Message-ID: <02e601cca634$c2021b90$460652b0$@org> From: Diane Scherrer DScherrer at mnarn.org Registered Nurses at Baystate Visiting Nurse and Hospice in Springfield (BVNAH) will be holding two informational pickets: Monday November 28 4:00 to 6:00 pm In front of the BVNAH Agency office, 50 Maple Street, Springfield and Tuesday November 29 4:00 to 6:00 pm At the site of the new "Hospital of the Future" on Springfield Street, Springfield MNA has been in protracted contract negotiations with the Hospital for 10 months. We have met with Baystate administrators for 19 sessions, the last 12 with a Federal mediator's assistance. Unfair Labor Practices: The Union has filed two Unfair Labor Practices (ULPs) during the negotiations. One charge is that the agency engaged in bad faith surface bargaining by refusing to even discuss some of the Massachusetts Nurses Associations (MNA) proposals. That ULP is currently being appealed to Washington. The second involved the agency's ban on the wearing of Union buttons. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) arranged a settlement of this ULP and there is currently an official NLRB posting at the BVNAH reasserting employees basic rights to wear Union insignia . Information Requests: The MNA has made various information requests throughout the process. One recent request was for the agency to provide the number of patients that the RN has serviced for the last 3 years at the agency. The agency did not outright refuse to provide that information but was willing to provide that at a cost of $173,460! They have been willing to bargain over that amount, but the Union still has not received the information requested. Issues: The overriding issue at the table is the agency's attempt to break the union by repeatedly making "final offer" proposals that would deny the unit basic collective bargaining rights - replicating the actions in Wisconsin, Ohio, etc., stripping collective bargaining rights from unions. As you know, we are a union, where wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment are negotiated into a contract by the union and the employer. Baystate, the employer, is proposing in their outrageous "final offer" that our union give up our right to negotiate and instead accept whatever they dictate. Specifically - the employer proposes that the "wage program" in year 2 be the same as the non-negotiated wages of the non-union hospital employees and similarly that the health insurance premium shares for family coverage and part-time employees be whatever the non-negotiated benefits are that the non-represented employees get. Then there is denial of retroactivity, and a proposal to undercut sick leave by incorporating into the contract their punitive "attendance policy" subject to change without bargaining. Please contact Joe Twarog, at 781-571-9959 if you have any questions and to let him know if you are able to join the BVNAH nurses on Monday November 28 and/or Tuesday November 29. Thank you for your support. MNA logo 01.wmf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 3037 bytes Desc: not available URL: From don at mccanne.org Fri Nov 18 16:02:57 2011 From: don at mccanne.org (Don McCanne) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 13:02:57 -0800 Subject: [Health Care Action] qotd: CDHP-induced death spiral in Indiana Message-ID: Stateline November 17, 2011 Indiana places a big bet on consumer-driven health insurance By Christine Vestal One thing Mitch Daniels believes with absolute conviction is that consumers need to pay more of the cost of their health care. ?The prevalent model of health plans in this country,? the Republican Daniels argued recently in a Wall Street Journal commentary, ?signals individuals they can buy health care on someone else?s credit card.? He called today?s health care system ?a machine perfectly designed to overconsume and overspend.? No one can say Daniels isn?t practicing what he preaches. Indiana has been using a version of consumer-driven health care for state employees since 2006. Starting next year, 90 percent of Indiana state workers will be covered by a consumer-driven plan with low premiums and high out-of-pocket expenses for actual care. Indiana has attracted customers to its consumer-driven system by adding quite a few sweeteners. Starting in 2006, Indiana state employees were given the option to sign up for a consumer-driven plan with no monthly premiums. The plan paid 80 percent of all doctor bills, but only after a $5,000 deductible was met. The maximum out-of-pocket exposure was $8,000. The traditional plan ? with a $1,500 deductible and $2,000 total exposure ? remained available at a cost of $3,500 in annual premiums for family coverage. To make the consumer-directed plan even more attractive, Indiana did other things that most states haven?t done. It paid 60 percent of the $5,000 deductible through a contribution to an employee-owned health savings account. The entire $3,000 contribution was deposited on January 1, reducing much of the risk that a catastrophic event early in the year would leave an employee with a huge medical bill and not enough money set aside to pay for it. At first, state employees were slow to adopt the scheme; only 4 percent signed up the first year. But it gradually caught on ? partly through word-of-mouth and partly through an intensive education program. By the third year, 30 percent of the state?s 28,000 civil servants had signed up, and the numbers have steadily increased. As more of the state workers opted for a consumer-driven plan, premium costs in the traditional plan started rising. An employee?s annual premium for family coverage in the traditional system started out at $3,500 in 2006, rose to nearly $5,000 within three years, and next year will exceed $9,000. The consumer option generated something of a snowball effect. The reason for the premium increase in the traditional plan is what is known as ?adverse selection.? When an insurance pool shrinks, fewer healthy people remain to cover the costs for those who have high medical bills. At this point, the math on the traditional plan no longer makes sense for anyone. ?It defies logic that anyone would continue to stay in the traditional plan,? says Indiana?s personnel director, Daniel Hackler. In Indiana?s case, the state contribution for health insurance is about $15,000 per employee for both consumer-driven and traditional plans. The savings come from reduced use of the health care system and from cheaper prescription drugs. In part, it is Indiana?s intensive education and outreach program that has overcome the barriers to acceptance that most states face. But Indiana?s generous health savings account contribution is likely the biggest reason for the plan?s extraordinary growth. So is it time to declare Mitch Daniels? experiment a success? Possibly. Experts say that the state?s traditional plan is close to what they call a ?death spiral,? in which the cost of covering a small pool of subscribers exceeds the price any given employee is able to pay. Once the remaining traditional plan subscribers are added to the consumer-driven pool, the price tag is likely to go up, and customer dissatisfaction is likely to go up with it. For now, though, it seems to be working. In addition to other advantages, each of Indiana?s current consumer-driven subscribers has a sizeable health savings nest egg to fall back on. Overall, the savings account fund exceeds $49 million, and many individual subscribers have more than $10,000 in their accounts. http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=614068 Comment: Although there has been continued slow growth in consumer-driven health plans (CHDP) - high-deductible health insurance plans (HDHP) paired with health savings accounts (HSA) - the take-up by public employees in Indiana has been phenomenal - 90 percent of state workers. What drove this success? Or is it a success? It is easy to understand why CHDPs would appeal to healthy, wealthy individuals. The high-deductible plans have significantly lower premiums than traditional plans. The money saved by purchasing these lower cost plans can be placed in an HSA, using pre-tax income. If the person remains healthy, the funds that accumulate in the savings account, including any tax-deferred earnings, can be drawn out in retirement without paying a penalty. It's a great plan for those who stay healthy and have the extra funds to deposit into these accounts. But what about those who rapidly deplete their savings accounts because of significant medical problems? They must then rely on a high-deductible plan that potentially subjects them to financial hardship because of high out-of-pocket expenses. Thus CHDPs are a poor choice for those who need more health care. This defeats the purpose of pooling risk in which the many who are healthy pay the bills for the few with greater needs. The funds from the HSAs that are drawn out in the retirement years of the many who are healthy have been omitted from the collective pooling of funds that are needed to take care of the sick (i.e., the lower premiums of the high-deductible plans underfund the collective need of everyone, and the difference is made up by shifting the responsibility for payment directly to the patients who need more health care). It is not only the HSA money that has been diverted from the pools, but also the money that was saved by paying lower premiums yet was never deposited into the HSAs (the most common circumstance). It is interesting what Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels did with the state employees' health benefit program. Most employers that switch to a CDHP do so to save money by paying the lower premium of the HDHP. Some employers will even use a portion of the savings, but not all, to provide seed money for the HSAs. Gov. Daniels decided to put all of the savings in the HSAs so that the cost of the CHDP (HDHP plus HSA contribution) was about the same as the traditional health plan. His ideological drive to make employees sensitive to health care costs was greater than his desire to save the state money. Imagine the response of the healthy employees, which is most of them. In exchange for agreeing to change to a high-deductible plan - a plan that they probably wouldn't use much anyway because they are healthy - they are given a cash contribution of $3,000 each year for their own savings accounts, which can be used for health care now or for their retirement later on. If they were to stay healthy and didn't draw on these accounts, they could have perhaps another $100,000 for retirement! The healthy employees were sold on the concept, and made the transition. Employees with medical problems in their families were more reluctant to change. They did not want to give up their established health care relationships, plus they didn't want to be exposed to high-deductibles with depleted HSAs. They stayed in the traditional plan. Most who have been following health policy recognize that this is "adverse selection." The healthy leave the insurance pool and the sick stay in. That can only drive premiums up. The employees share of the premium for a family plan went from $3,500 to $9,000. Ouch! Many of you recognize this as the "death spiral" of premiums. With higher premiums, more leave the plan, and then it eventually has to shut down because nobody could pay the even higher premiums that would have to be charged. So now this concentration of employees and their families with higher health care needs moves into the CHDPs. What will the insurers do when they have a large influx of expensive patients signing up with the high-deductible plans? Obviously, they'll have to jack up the premiums to levels that will displease everyone. Those hurt the most will be those with health care needs, who have depleted HSAs, who will have higher premiums, and who will have greater out-of-pocket costs because of the high deductibles - the very people who have the greatest need for insurance protection. This is hardly a "success." By now, you can write your own closing lines about how we can do it right. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Quote-of-the-day mailing list Quote-of-the-day at mccanne.org http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/quote-of-the-day From don at mccanne.org Fri Nov 18 16:13:18 2011 From: don at mccanne.org (Don McCanne) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 13:13:18 -0800 Subject: [Health Care Action] qotd: qotd typo - CDHP Message-ID: In today's qotd, when attempting to type CDHP (consumer-driven or consumer-directed health plan or program), a few times I reflexly typed CHDP. That's left over from my practice days when I used to see children in the Child Health and Disability Prevention (CHDP) program. At least not all of my clinical instincts have left me, and that's reassuring to me. Peace and Love, Don -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Quote-of-the-day mailing list Quote-of-the-day at mccanne.org http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/quote-of-the-day From calendar at wmjwj.org Fri Nov 18 19:53:38 2011 From: calendar at wmjwj.org (=?us-ascii?Q?Workers'_Rights_Calendar?=) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 19:53:38 -0500 Subject: [Health Care Action] Rally Against Any Turkey Deals 11/22 Message-ID: <03d801cca655$acd7da40$06878ec0$@org> From: Linda Stone lstone at masssenioraction.org Western Mass Organizer, Massachusetts Senior Action Council, 413-543-2334, www.masssenioraction.org MC900084458[1]Rally Against Any Turkey Deals Tuesday November 22 at Noon Sen. John Kerry's Office 1550 Main St., Springfield Tell Sen. Kerry: Stand Strong on Jobs and No Cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid!! Senator Kerry is one of 12 members of the powerful Super Committee in Congress charged with deciding how to cut the federal budget by $1.5 trillion by Nov. 23. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid may be on the chopping block if we don't stop it. These programs create countless jobs, and they have been crucial to the economic security of many generations of Americans. Call Sen. Kerry: 413-785-4610, and join us to tell Sen. Kerry to deliver the message to Congress: "Create Jobs! Hands off Social Security, Medicare, & Medicaid." For more information, contact Mass. Senior Action Council: 413-543-2334 or www.MassSeniorAction.org. MSAC_LOGO -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/x-ms-wmz Size: 11176 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 19724 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 12716 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 6609 bytes Desc: not available URL: From don at mccanne.org Mon Nov 21 12:55:20 2011 From: don at mccanne.org (Don McCanne) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 09:55:20 -0800 Subject: [Health Care Action] qotd: Experts try to define affordable health insurance Message-ID: Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law October 2011 We All Want It, but We Don?t Know What It Is: Toward a Standard of Affordability for Health Insurance Premiums By Peter Muennig, Bhaven Sampat, Nicholas Tilipman, Lawrence D. Brown and Sherry A. Glied Abstract The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148), or ACA, requires that U.S. citizens either purchase health insurance or pay a fine. To offset the financial burden for lower-income households, it also provides subsidies to ensure that health insurance premiums are affordable. However, relatively little work has been done on how such affordability standards should be set. The existing literature on affordability is not grounded in social norms and has methodological and theoretical flaws. To address these issues, we developed a series of hypothetical vignettes in which individual and household sociodemographic characteristics were varied. We then convened a panel of eighteen experts with extensive experience in affordability standards to evaluate the extent to which each vignette character could afford to pay for one of two health insurance plans. The panel varied with respect to political ideology and discipline. We find that there was considerable disagreement about how affordability is defined. There was also disagreement about what might be included in an affordability standard, with substantive debate surrounding whether savings, debt, education, or single parenthood is relevant. There was also substantial variation in experts' assessed affordability scores. Nevertheless, median expert affordability assessments were not far from those of ACA. In-Person Discussion The discussion started in earnest with a review of the vignettes, beginning with Sarah (age 25, single, no children, college graduate, working for a non-profit), a vignette character who earns $1,610 per month, just under 200 percent of the FPL. In the case of characters with very low earnings, such as Sarah, there was considerable agreement among the panelists. All but one of the experts thought that she should pay something for health insurance, and all agreed that it should be very little. The discussion heated up when participants considered Jessica, who earns $2,210 per month (age 25, single, no children, lives in Chicago, and pays rent of $1160 monthly). Here it was revealed that some participants interpreted affordability as what the person should pay and others as what they could pay. This provided a jumping-off point to a broader discussion of what affordability means. One participant suggested that Jessica could "literally" afford $800 per month, and denounced affordability as "a lousy policy where you impoverish people so they can buy a minimal set of other goods after they end up paying for health insurance." Another respondent who also gave a very high affordability threshold noted, "I'm not saying it would be worth it for her to pay this much, but she could still manage reasonably well if she [did] . . . so." Many others disagreed with this literal interpretation, noting, "I don?t think literal affordability is an interesting policy." One respondent described affordability as "asking really, 'How much could one reasonably pay for health insurance.'" Several others argued that a policy would be affordable for beneficiaries if there would "be no adverse consequences by pushing them to that limit." One participant, who argued that the standard should be $100 to $150, said, "I'm a low-ball guy because [I take into account] the real costs of living, the fact that the poverty line is too low, etc." Conclusion There is not a natural, objective standard of affordable health insurance coverage. Of course this is true for most (if not all) policies that require government subsidies. Reasonable people disagree about how much a given household can be expected to put aside to spend on health insurance and health care. That there is considerable disagreement even among distinguished experts in social policy on this issue suggests that the concept is mainly a subjective one and that any specific affordability threshold or subsidy structure is likely to be contentious and contested. In this area, as with many others, even highly qualified experts are unlikely to provide scientific answers to guide policy. http://jhppl.dukejournals.org/content/36/5/829.full.pdf+html Comment: This study was designed to demonstrate what well qualified policy experts, from across the political and academic spectra, would conclude should be the standard for determining affordability of health insurance premiums. So what is that standard? After analyzing a great many vignettes, each expert then devised their own rules of thumb for determining appropriate premium contributions. Although the rules were quite varied, the mean calculations for premium contributions were close to those specified in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Does this mean that members of Congress and their staffs were quite astute in their calculations of premium subsidies for the exchange plans? Although the mean calculations were close to those of ACA, there was a very wide variation in the experts' assessed affordability scores. In the vignette for "Jessica" ($2210 per month income with a Chicago rent of $1160, leaving $1050 for all of her expenses other than rent), expert estimates of affordable health insurance premiums ranged from $100 or $150 per month up to $800 per month. At $800 per month, that leaves $250 for all expenses other than rent and health insurance (e.g., food, clothing, utilities, transportation, education expenses, retirement fund, and "luxuries" such as a cellphone, TV, vacations, holiday gifts, etc.). That $250 must also cover out-of-pocket medical expenses such as deductibles, copayments, and out-of-network services. Even the "low-ball" estimate leaves only $900 to $950 per month for everything beyond rent and health insurance. The fundamental defect here is that we keep trying to match payment for a specified package of medical benefits to the incomes of specific individuals. Since a reasonable package is no longer affordable by median-income individuals, some form of subsidization is required for the majority of us. Yet recognized experts in the policy community have very different concepts as to how much and in what form the subsidies should be. Averaging these wide ranges of opinions on how much each person should pay is not a satisfactory solution since the averages or medians place too much of the burden of health care costs on those with modest incomes. These averages also would not satisfy those dispassionate experts who believe that individuals should pay dearly for their health insurance and health care, so they won't waste their money on things like flat-screen TVs (or really, "wasting" it on healthier foods, transportation to their employment, 401k plans, and so forth). Financing health care and providing health benefits need to be totally separated. The correlation between ability to pay and medical need is negative, not positive. Payments based on ability to pay should be made into a common risk pool covering everyone, most easily accomplished through the tax system. Health care benefits should be provided to everyone out of that risk pool based on medical need. That is sort of the way Medicare works now for selected populations, but it could be improved. That sounds like a good idea. Let's improve Medicare and then provide it for everyone. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Quote-of-the-day mailing list Quote-of-the-day at mccanne.org http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/quote-of-the-day From calendar at wmjwj.org Mon Nov 21 20:39:08 2011 From: calendar at wmjwj.org (=?us-ascii?Q?Workers'_Rights_Calendar?=) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 20:39:08 -0500 Subject: [Health Care Action] Tomorrow's Rally at Sen. Kerry's is ON Message-ID: <01bd01cca8b7$87a63500$96f29f00$@org> From: Linda Stone lstone at masssenioraction.org TOMORROW! 12 NOON! Old Federal Building, 1550 Main St. We'll acknowledge that the Super Committee didn't give away the store, but also send a message to Sen. Kerry and the rest of our U.S. Congressional delegation: Tax the 1% Create Jobs Invest in Programs (incl. SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE, MEDICAID) Even though Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid were let off the hook when the Super Committee failed to reach an agreement, there is no guarantee that there won't be more attempts to slash these programs in the future. We dodged a bullet this time, but we're still in the fight!! Join us tomorrow at Sen. Kerry's. Tues., 11/22, NOON, 1550 Main St., Springfield -- Linda Stone Western MA Organizer Massachusetts Senior Action Council 413-543-2334 www.masssenioraction.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wmjwj at wmjwj.org Mon Nov 21 20:56:12 2011 From: wmjwj at wmjwj.org (WMass Jobs with Justice) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 20:56:12 -0500 Subject: [Health Care Action] 350 March on Wall St Banks in Springfield as 15 Arrested Sitting-In at Bank of America! Message-ID: <024701cca8b9$ea73de60$bf5b9b20$@org> From: Springfield No One Leaves See also: Reuters: Police arrest 15 at Massachusetts foreclosure protest The Republican: Springfield police arrest 13 protesters at Bank of America in Monarch Place (the correct number is 15) WWLP: 15 arrested in protest at Spfld bank WGGB: Big Protest in Springfield WAMC: Protestors Arrested At Bank Of America Office In Springfield WSHM (CBS3): Bank of America protest gridlocks downtown Springfield FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE November 21, 2011 Contact: Malcolm Chu, Springfield No One Leaves/Nadie Se Mude 718-666-6872 Photos and Broadcast Quality Video Available Shortly at www.SpringfieldNoOneLeaves.org 350 Foreclosed Families & Allies shut down Downtown Springfield & 15 Arrested Occupying Downtown Bank of America Branch SPRINGFIELD, MA - 15 Protesters were arrested today in Springfield when they sat-in and occupied the downtown branch of Bank of America. Protesters sat-in and occupied the branch office solidarity with hundreds of families from throughout New England fighting foreclosure and eviction. 350 people took the streets leading up to the sit-in from throughout New England, shutting down Boland Way and part of Main Street downtown. Marchers included many families who are fighting foreclosure and eviction against Bank of America and other Wall Street banks. "I sat-in today at Bank of America because we are fed up with banks who care more about making profit than keeping our communities safe," said Springfield resident Jasmin Torrejon who was arrested at Bank of America today. "Millions of people are being thrown out of their homes because of the mess that Wall Street Banks created leaving our neighborhoods destroyed. Yet it's the banks who are now rewarded with billions in tax refunds. We're fighting back!" Today's march and sit-in signal growing outrage toward the mortgage crisis and Wall Street banks that continues to spread throughout the country including to mid-size cities like Springfield. With 595 foreclosures in 2010, Springfield had the highest rate of foreclosures in Massachusetts last year. About 350 people gathered in front of vacant and foreclosed houses in the South End near Morris and Central streets. The protesters than took to the streets marching on either side of Main Street. "I marched on the Wall Street Banks today and Bank of America so that my neighbors and I can stay in our homes," said Sellou Diaite whose home was foreclosed by Bank of America on November 9th, 2011, despite her ability to afford the house at its current market value - nearly half of the principal balance. "We are demanding that the Wall Street banks stop all no-fault evictions after foreclosure and reduce principal to current value." August 2010 marked the largest monthly increase since August 2007, right after the housing bubble burst. According to the Warren Group CEO, Timothy M. Warren Jr., recent increases in activity, "indicates banks are moving more aggressively against borrowers." "Across the country, predatory lending practices, the housing bubble created by the Wall Street banks, and the crash of that housing bubble are destroying our communities, causing alarming rates of unemployment and homelessness. Often, its communities of color and working class communities that have been hit the worst," says David Dunwell, a Springfield Bank Tenant Member fighting an eviction by Fannie Mae. "But it's our communities getting hit the hardest that organized today to take the fight to the Wall Street Banks!" Monday's actions were organized by Springfield No One Leaves/Nadie Se Mude and the New England Bank Tenant Alliance. ### -- Springfield No One Leaves/Nadie Se Mude Campaign www.springfieldnooneleaves.org nooneleavessspringfield at gmail.com 413-342-1804 Follow Springfield No One Leaves on Facebook -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ImmediateRelease.Nov21.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 328328 bytes Desc: not available URL: From don at mccanne.org Tue Nov 22 10:45:27 2011 From: don at mccanne.org (Don McCanne) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 07:45:27 -0800 Subject: [Health Care Action] qotd: Recoverable administrative waste is much greater than most realize Message-ID: The New York Times November 12, 2011 Billions Wasted on Billing By Ezekiel J. Emanuel The range of expert opinions on how much of (administrative costs) could be saved goes as high as $180 billion, or half of current expenditures. But a more conservative and reasonable estimate comes from David Cutler, an economist at Harvard, who calculates that for the whole system - for insurers as well as doctors and hospitals - electronic billing and credentialing could save $32 billion a year. And United Health comes to a similar estimate, with 20 percent of savings going to the government, 50 percent to physicians and hospitals and 30 percent to insurers. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/12/billions-wasted-on-billing/?scp=1&sq=ezekiel&st=cse And... The New York Times November 20, 2011 Letters Cutting Health Costs by Reducing the Bureaucracy To the Editor: Ezekiel J. Emanuel lowballs estimates of the current costs and potential savings on medical bureaucracy, and raises vain hope that health reforms short of a single-payer system will realize substantial savings ("Billions Wasted on Billing," Sunday Review, Nov. 13). Peer-reviewed studies in The New England Journal of Medicine by two colleagues and me document that administrative costs account for 31 percent of health spending in the United States versus 17 percent in Canada. The 14 percentage-point difference translates to $380 billion in potential savings in 2011. Other researchers have reached similar conclusions. A single-payer reform could realize these savings by eliminating insurance middlemen and radically simplifying payments to doctors and hospitals. The lesser measures that Dr. Emanuel champions - computerized and standardized billing - won?t do the job. Hospital billing has been computerized for decades, and bureaucratic costs have skyrocketed since the adoption of the standard hospital billing form in 1982. Combat over who pays and who profits underlies health administration?s overgrowth. A nonprofit single-payer system makes those issues moot. Steffie Woolhandler New York, Nov. 14, 2011 The writer, an internist, is a professor of public health at the City University of New York. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/21/opinion/cutting-health-costs-by-reducing-the-bureaucracy.html?ref=opinion NEJM - Costs of Health Care Administration in the United States and Canada http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa022033 Comment: The landmark 1991 and 2003 New England Journal of Medicine articles comparing health care administrative costs in the fragmented, multi-payer financing system in the United States with the single payer system in Canada were meticulous, peer-reviewed studies that confirmed that a massive amount of administrative spending in the United States is potentially recoverable - an estimated $380 billion for 2011 alone. Politicians and academics who believe that we need to support politically feasible models of reform, such as the Affordable Care Act, have attempted to ignore or discredit these numbers. Even the most noted attack on these numbers, by Brookings economist Henry Aaron, was based on a back-of-an-envelope calculation arbitrarily assuming health care wages to be one-tenth of what they actually are in the United States. There is some irony in this attack by the highly-respected and otherwise highly-credible Aaron when in the same article he states, "I look at the U.S. health care system and see an administrative monstrosity, a truly bizarre melange of thousands of payers with payment systems that differ for no socially beneficial reason, as well as staggeringly complex public systems with mind-boggling administered prices and other rules expressing distinctions that can only be regarded as weird." During the reform process, administrative inefficiencies were frequently brought up as a problem that needed to be addressed, but the perception of the extent of the problem always fell far short, at least by those who controlled the process. This led to grossly deficient suggestions such as merely streamlining insurance billing functions through computer systems (which already exist) and through a simplified universal billing form (which is already in use). This myopic thinking has led to grossly deficient estimates of potential savings, such as that of Ezekiel Emmanuel who suggests a savings less than one-tenth of the true potential. It is true that not much of the current administrative waste can be recovered as long as politically influential individuals, such as Ezekiel Emmanuel, insist the the private insurers must remain as an intermediary in our health care financing. Their business product is administration. As you watch the development of new innovations by the insurance industry, you will see that they all involve even more administrative products. As long as they are in charge, they will always try to capture a larger portion of our national health expenditures. However, since administrative costs will now be limited to 15 to 20 percent of their premiums, you will see these new administrative services being introduced as "health care." Only the label has changed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Quote-of-the-day mailing list Quote-of-the-day at mccanne.org http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/quote-of-the-day From wmjwj at wmjwj.org Wed Nov 23 09:02:51 2011 From: wmjwj at wmjwj.org (WMass Jobs with Justice) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 09:02:51 -0500 Subject: [Health Care Action] Verizon leafleting today Message-ID: <052101cca9e8$97e2ed00$c7a8c700$@org> Weather.com predicts rain at noon in Hadley today, so no leafleting. See you Saturday? Dear Workers' Rights Activists, Please let the Store Captains listed below know you are coming to leaflet about Verizon and corporate greed this week! See schedule below. If you tell us in advance that you're coming, we'll contact you if anything changes (tell us how to contact you; we can send an email to your cell phone as a text message if you send your phone number and name of carrier to wmjwj at wmjwj.org). And please sign the online Message of Solidarity . And have a happy Thanksgiving! We leaflet regularly at the door and stand out with the VeriGreedy banner at the street at 360 Russell St, Hadley , 1123 Riverdale St, West Springfield , 1420 Boston Rd, Springfield , & 555 Hubbard Ave, Pittsfield . This week's schedule: Saturday, Noon to 2pm, at the Hadley store: Please let Jon Weissman know you are coming: jon at wmjwj.org, 413-827-0301. Saturday, 11am to 1pm, at the Pittsfield store: Please let Brian Morrison know you are coming: brian.morrison at state.ma.us, 413-281-3223. Berkshire Central Labor Council has adopted this shift. Saturday, Noon to 2pm,, at the Springfield store: Please let Kathy Collins know you are coming: kathy7157 at hotmail.com, 413-734-0863. Saturday, Noon to 2pm, at the West Springfield store: Please let Patrick Burke know you are coming: patrick at wmjwj.org, 413-454-5692. Join us! Please wear your organization's apparel and/or a red shirt/jacket, as the strikers did. If it looks like rain or snow, we will make the decision to call it off by 9am and let you know by email. If we know you are coming, we can send the email to your cell phone as a text message if you send your phone number and name of carrier to wmjwj at wmjwj.org. You can call the Store Captains listed above to be sure, but it's better if you tell us in advance that you're coming and we'll call you. When we call off a planned leafleting shift due to weather, the captains will be there at the beginning to tell anyone who did not get the message, but we'll only wait 15 minutes. If this email was forwarded or copied to you, be sure to keep up-to-date on workers' rights campaigns by subscribing to the Workers' Rights List. To subscribe, send a blank email to workersrights-subscribe at lists.prometheuslabor.com or go to http://lists.wmjwj.org/mailman/listinfo/workersrights. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jon Weissman, Coordinator Western Mass Jobs with Justice 640 Page Blvd #101 Springfield MA 01104 (413) 827-0301 Founded in 1987, Jobs with Justice's mission is to improve working people's standard of living, fight for job security, and protect workers' right to organize. We believe workers' rights are human rights and to be successful, we have to be part of a larger campaign for economic and social justice. To that end, "J with J" has created a national coalition and a network of local coalitions that connect labor, community, student, and faith-based organizations and activists on workplace and community social justice campaigns. Western Mass JwJ - founded June 5, 1993 - is now a coalition of almost 70 organizations. Let's keep in touch - please check out our mailing lists at http://wmjwj.org/our-lists. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From don at mccanne.org Wed Nov 23 13:54:43 2011 From: don at mccanne.org (Don McCanne) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 10:54:43 -0800 Subject: [Health Care Action] qotd: OECD Health at a Glance 2011 Message-ID: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) November 23,2011 Health at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators Why is health spending in the United States so high? The United States spends two-and-a-half times more than the OECD average health expenditure per person. Rich countries spend more than poor countries. Chart 3 (at link below) shows that for nearly every country, if you know how rich they are, you can predict their health spending per person per year to within a few hundred dollars. The United States is an exception ? Americans spend nearly $3000 per person per year more than Swiss people, even though Swiss people have about the same level of income. Where does the money go? Hospital spending is higher than in the five other OECD countries, by over 60%. Spending on Ambulatory care providers ? that is, physicians and specialists as well as dentists, is much higher than in the other OECD countries ? almost two-and-a-half times the average of the other five countries. Spending on Pharmaceuticals and medical goods is higher in the US than in any other country, but overall accounts for a smaller share of total health spending than in the other countries. Spending on Public Health and Administration is particularly high ? more than two-and-a-half times the average. Are U.S. health prices high? Overall, the evidence suggests that prices for health services and goods are substantially higher in the United States than elsewhere. This is an important cause of higher health spending in the United States. Does the U.S. provide too much health care? (The United States) does not have many physicians relative to its population; it does not have a lot of doctor consultations; it does not have a lot of hospital beds, or hospitals stays, when compared with other countries, and when people go to hospital, they do not stay for long. All these data on health care activities suggest that US health spending should be low compared with other countries. On the other hand, the US health system does do a lot of interventions. Table 3 (at link below) shows that it has a lot of expensive diagnostic equipment, which it uses a lot. And it does a lot of elective surgery ? the sort of activities where it is not always clearcut about whether a particular intervention is necessary or not. Why is health spending in the United States so high? http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/12/16/49084355.pdf Health at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators (The entire publication can be accessed for free at this website.) http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/health-at-a-glance-2011_health_glance-2011-en Comment: The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has just released "Health at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators." It "provides the latest comparable data on different aspects of the performance of health systems in OECD countries." You should save the link above that provides free access to this publication since the data are frequently used by the policy community to compare the United States with other nations. When examining the tables, charts, graphs and text, keep in mind that the data are sometimes presented in a manner that does not always correlate with highly credible data from other sources. For instance, the category of public health and administration does not include the same administrative costs as measured by Woolhandler and colleagues in their landmark NEJM articles. Nevertheless, the OECD still reports that public health and administrative costs in the United States are more than two-and-a-half times the OECD average. Also, the OECD estimates of public spending for health care in the United States leave out two important categories. The tax deductibility of employer-sponsored plans amounts to a subsidy of taxpayer funds, plus taxpayers also pay for the employer component of health insurance premiums for employees of federal, state and local government agencies. Although the OECD reports the percent of government spending on health care in the United States as being one of the lowest, on a per capita basis our public spending on health care is actually higher than the public and private spending combined in almost all other nations. So when you hear others cite the OECD data, it would be helpful if you have a heads up on the actual data and how it compares to that of other reliable sources. Save the link above for future reference. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Quote-of-the-day mailing list Quote-of-the-day at mccanne.org http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/quote-of-the-day From don at mccanne.org Fri Nov 25 11:00:18 2011 From: don at mccanne.org (Don McCanne) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 08:00:18 -0800 Subject: [Health Care Action] qotd: Social consequences of segregation of the affluent Message-ID: US2010 Project November 2011 Growth in the Residential Segregation of Families by Income, 1970-2009 By Sean F. Reardon and Kendra Bischoff, Stanford University Report Abstract As overall income inequality grew in the last four decades, high- and low-income families have become increasingly less likely to live near one another. Mixed income neighborhoods have grown rarer, while affluent and poor neighborhoods have grown much more common. In fact, the share of the population in large and moderate-sized metropolitan areas who live in the poorest and most affluent neighborhoods has more than doubled since 1970, while the share of families living in middle-income neighborhoods dropped from 65 percent to 44 percent. The residential isolation of the both poor and affluent families has grown over the last four decades, though affluent families have been generally more residentially isolated than poor families during this period. Income segregation among African Americans and Hispanics grew more rapidly than among non-Hispanic whites, especially since 2000. These trends are consequential because people are affected by the character of the local areas in which they live. The increasing concentration of income and wealth (and therefore of resources such as schools, parks, and public services) in a small number of neighborhoods results in greater disadvantages for the remaining neighborhoods where low- and middle-income families live. >From the Conclusion During the last four decades, the isolation of the rich has been consistently greater than the isolation of the poor. Although much of the scholarly and policy discussion about the effects of segregation and neighborhood conditions focuses on the isolation of poor families in neighborhoods of concentrated disadvantage, it is perhaps equally important to consider the implications of the substantial, and growing, isolation of high-income families. Given that in 2008 the top 10 percent of earners controlled approximately 48 percent of all income in the United States (Piketty & Saez, 2010), the increasing isolation of the affluent from low- and moderate-income families means that a significant proportion of society?s resources are concentrated in a smaller and smaller proportion of neighborhoods. As we argued above, this has significant consequences for low- and middle-income families, because the isolation of the rich may lead to lower public and private investments in resources, services, and amenities that benefit large shares of the population, such as schools, parks, and public services. http://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/RussellSageIncomeSegregationreport.pdf Comment: As the more affluent members of our society continue to concentrate themselves in their upscale neighborhoods, they take our resources with them, including some of the best of our health care services. Not only do they leave behind fewer resources for low- and moderate-income families, they also leave behind the political will to do something about it. Can we convince those in the affluent communities that most of them are still a part of the 99 percent? Or will their guileless but infelicitous complacency perpetuate inertia? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Quote-of-the-day mailing list Quote-of-the-day at mccanne.org http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/quote-of-the-day From wmjwj at wmjwj.org Fri Nov 25 11:14:56 2011 From: wmjwj at wmjwj.org (WMass Jobs with Justice) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 11:14:56 -0500 Subject: [Health Care Action] Vote Walmart's Rob Walton as Poster Child of the 1% Message-ID: <00b001ccab8d$605f2b90$211d82b0$@org> From: Jobs with Justice National jwjnational at jwj.org Vote Rob Walton poster child of the 1%! Rob Walton As you enjoy a reflective and restful Thanksgiving weekend, we want to share the following opportunity to undermine the 1% and the Walton Family quickly from your computer. According to Forbes Magazine, 4 of the 11 wealthiest people in America are Waltons. The Waltons control 48% of Walmart stock, and are predicted to gain a controlling share in the next 12 months. In fact, the Walton's combined net worth is $93 billion. Yet they still won't address the concerns of those who work for them such as scheduling (especially over holidays like this). And just last month, Walmart--the company that made them their billions slashed health care for hundreds of thousands of families. As the leader in the retail and logistics industries, if Walmart was more accountable to its workers and the communities where it builds--it would change the floor for the entire economy. At Jobs with Justice , we believe that if we Change Walmart, we Change the Economy! Brave New Films, the group that brought us the movie "Walmart: The High Cost of Low Price", has committed to making videos exposing the worst of the 1% in an effort to expose them to the rest of us as we take our democracy back! Click here to vote for Rob Walton now! Voting ends on December 6th. Know the Facts In just the last generation, the richest 1% almost quadrupled their incomes. The average wealth of the 1% is 225 times bigger than the wealth of the typical household ? the highest it?s ever been. Three decades ago, CEOs made about 40 times as much as an average worker ? now CEOs make almost 200 times as much as regular employees. Last year, half of Americans earned less than $26,000 while CEOs at top 500 companies raked in an average of $11 million. Over the past decade, earnings for middle-class Americans actually fell. In fact, working Americans? wages are now a lower percentage of our economy than they?ve ever been. The divide between the richest and the poorest is worse in America than it is in nearly all of Europe and Asia and much of Africa. It?s about as bad as in Rwanda and Serbia ? and it?s bad for our economy. The 1% is not an accident ? it is the result of policies our government chose to pursue. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 11328 bytes Desc: not available URL: From calendar at wmjwj.org Sun Nov 27 11:17:55 2011 From: calendar at wmjwj.org (=?us-ascii?Q?Workers'_Rights_Calendar?=) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 11:17:55 -0500 Subject: [Health Care Action] ServiceNet Rally 12/2 Message-ID: <02fc01ccad20$1f429e00$5dc7da00$@org> From: Ron Patenaude ronpatenaude at hotmail.com United Auto Workers Local 2322 and our ServiceNet members invite you to a Hope for a Fair Contract Rally for the Employees and Clients of ServiceNet Inc. Friday December 2, 2011 - 5:30-7:30pm Look Park entrance Route 9 Northampton {And contact ServiceNet CEO Sue Stubbs at (413) 585-1300 x2501 or sstubbs at servicentinc.org. Tell her to bargain a fair contract for ServiceNet workers NOW!} ServiceNet is sponsoring an "Evening of Hope" dinner to raise funds for its homeless shelters. We would like this to also be an "Evening of Hope" for the low wage, front line, direct care employees who provide the majority of the services to ServiceNet clients. While we support donations to the ServiceNet shelters, we are asking that the ServiceNet management respect the direct care workers by bargaining a fair and equitable contract with our members. We have been in negotiations with ServiceNet for 8 months with little to show for it. CFO Bruce Barshefsky said at the start of negotiations, "We bargained 4 months last time, we're willing to go 4 months this time". Does that sound like someone who wants to bargain a fair contract or someone who's willing to stall and frustrate bargaining? It has taken ServiceNet management almost 6 months to give us a counter-proposal to our original wage proposal (they increased their "bonus" proposal by $10 a year). Now they want to bring in a Federal mediator. Mediation only works if both parties' are willing to bargain. ServiceNet has not been and has been using a known antiunion law firm at great expense to avoid their obligation to bargain. FAIR TREATMENT FOR SERVICENET WORKERS After 8 months of contract bargaining, ServiceNet continues to demand: Vacation Take Backs - ServiceNet not only wants to reduce vacation time for future employees, but wants to take back vacation time from current employees. Health Insurance - Low-wage, direct care workers pay double what highly paid administrators pay for the health insurance plan. Yet ServiceNet seeks to cut back further. ServiceNet CEO Sue Stubbs and other upper management pay 10% of the cost of their insurance while our members and other direct care staff pay 20%. How can they think that's fair? ServiceNet Refuses to provide information about Management salaries - An unfair labor practice charge has been filed. What are they trying to hide, more raises to management? Wage freeze - ServiceNet is proposing 0% raises for the next 4 years ($260/year bonus). No cost-of living, or anniversary raises. The starting wage ($11.30/hr) would be the same in 2015 that it was in 2008! At the same time the highest paid ServiceNet administrators have enjoyed very large raises - 13% per year from 2006 to 2009. ServiceNet CEO Sue Stubbs received $168,782 in wages and benefits for fiscal year ending 6/30/2010 according to the ServiceNet's 2010 IRS 990 tax returns. Ending Promotions - ServiceNet wants to eliminate the Senior Counselor position which is often the only promotion available for long-term staff. With no career ladder or opportunities for advancement, senior staff members leave and services suffer. We are asking ServiceNet to honor its employees with a fair contract. That would include No take backs on vacation & health insurance! Fair & Reasonable wage increases! Transparency about Management Salaries! Join our rally on December 2, 5:30-7:30PM, at the Look Park entrance, Route 9, Northampton! We are also asking that you Contact ServiceNet CEO Sue Stubbs at (413) 585-1300 x2501 or sstubbs at servicentinc.org. Tell her to bargain a fair contract for ServiceNet workers NOW! For more information contact Brooks Ballenger, UAW Local 2322, (413) 534-7600, brooksball at rcn.com. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jon at wmjwj.org Mon Nov 28 11:36:01 2011 From: jon at wmjwj.org (Jon Weissman) Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:36:01 -0500 Subject: [Health Care Action] Next WMSPN Meeting 1/21/12 Message-ID: <05c401ccadeb$d1343080$739c9180$@org> Hi folks, In case you have the next Western Mass. Single Payer Network meeting in your calendar for this coming Saturday, please note that at the last meeting (Sep. 17) we changed the schedule. WMSPN now meets on the Third Saturday three times a year: January, April, and September. (Members of the network meet monthly or more so.) The 2012 dates are January 21, April 21, and September 15. Here's the calendar item for the next one (and you'll get notice again as we get closer): Saturday January 21 (Third Saturday in January, April, and September) WESTERN MASS SINGLE PAYER NETWORK MEETING 9:30-11:30am, Lathrop Village Community Room, 1 Shallowbrook Ln, off Bridge Rd, Northampton. WMSPN is a nonpartisan, nonprofit coalition of organizations and individuals committed to achieving a universal single payer health care system. . Please send agenda items to wmspn at wmjwj.org. . Please email wmspn at wmjwj.org if you are definitely coming or your organization will definitely be represented. Top of the agenda: Winning Massachusetts Medicare for All. Please visit http://masscare.org/ma-single-payer-bill/. Info: (413) 827-0301 x1, wmspn at wmjwj.org. In solidarity, Jon ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jon Weissman, Coordinator Western Mass Jobs with Justice 640 Page Blvd #101 Springfield MA 01104 (413) 827-0301 Founded in 1987, Jobs with Justice's mission is to improve working people's standard of living, fight for job security, and protect workers' right to organize. We believe workers' rights are human rights and to be successful, we have to be part of a larger campaign for economic and social justice. To that end, "J with J" has created a national coalition and a network of local coalitions that connect labor, community, student, and faith-based organizations and activists on workplace and community social justice campaigns. Western Mass JwJ - founded June 5, 1993 - is now a coalition of almost 70 organizations. Let's keep in touch - please check out our mailing lists at http://wmjwj.org/our-lists. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From don at mccanne.org Mon Nov 28 15:48:35 2011 From: don at mccanne.org (Don McCanne) Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:48:35 -0800 Subject: [Health Care Action] qotd: Hospital consolidation and the Affordable Care Act Message-ID: National Institute for Health Care Management November 2011 New Evidence of the Association between Hospital Market Concentration and Higher Prices and Profits By James C. Robinson, PhD, University of California, Berkeley After a swell of hospital mergers and acquisitions in the 1990s, the industry has again been experiencing significant consolidation as large hospital systems have bought up smaller systems and stand-alone hospitals left vulnerable by the recession. The local and regional chains resulting from consolidation typically wield greater bargaining leverage than do stand-alone facilities. The evidence from several decades of research on this topic shows higher hospital prices following consolidation and recent work documents how large hospital systems serving multiple markets are able to extract higher prices for all facilities in their chain, not just in markets where they are dominant. Two provisions of the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) have brought new attention to the issue of hospital market power. First, because the ACA coverage expansions will be financed in part by slowing the rate of increase in Medicare payment updates, there is concern that hospitals with as yet unexploited pricing leverage will attempt to recoup some of the lost Medicare revenue by raising prices to private insurers. Second, the integration of hospitals and physicians into the accountable care organizations (ACOs) encouraged by the health reform legislation is expected to accelerate provider consolidation in local markets. Indeed, hospitals are already consolidating with physicians at a fast clip, and many observers are asking whether this integration will give hospitals (and physicians) additional pricing power vis-?-vis private payers. In this essay I present findings from a new study that adds another piece of evidence to support concerns over hospital consolidation and market power. Specifically, using individual level data from 61 hospitals for patients treated during 2008 for any of six high-cost inpatient cardiac or orthopedic procedures, I show that hospitals in concentrated markets charge significantly higher prices to private payers than do their peers in more competitive markets. Furthermore, these prices are significantly above their direct costs of providing care. The work reported here confirms earlier studies showing that hospitals are able to extract higher private payments when they hold more market power. Public policy has been ambivalent with respect to the ongoing consolidation within hospital markets. While antitrust regulatory agencies have challenged a number of hospital mergers in the past few decades, these challenges rarely culminated in decisions to disallow a merger. Now provisions of the ACA are encouraging further consolidation of hospitals and physicians, and the final antitrust review regulations from the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission have eliminated the proposed mandatory review of certain prospective ACOs. It will take some time to see what types of ACOs are allowed to form and how they will affect the competitive structure within their markets. It is clear, however, that the ongoing consolidation of local hospital markets is already frustrating the efforts of employers and private insurers to moderate the growth of health care costs. While the use of administered pricing systems largely insulates public payers from the effects of provider market power, the higher reimbursement rates that dominant providers can extract from private payers during rate negotiations put significant upward pressure on private premiums. In response, employers and other purchasers of private coverage have begun demonstrating a new willingness to accept limits on their health plan?s provider network, and private insurers are developing new products using tiered networks that exclude or disadvantage providers judged to not deliver value commensurate with their higher prices. http://nihcm.org/images/stories/NIHCM-EV-Robinson-Final.pdf Comment: The increase in hospital market concentration has resulted in higher prices with enormous profits, simply due to the boost in leverage that consolidation of hospitals has had in price negotiations with private insurers. How will the Affordable Care Act impact this? The Federal Trade Commission will be relaxing antitrust review of provider consolidation in order to allow greater freedom for accountable care organizations to experiment with delivery system reform. Consolidation will likely increase. To counter this, private insurers are already developing new products such as those with tiered networks which will penalize patients financially if they use the dominant providers in their communities. So the intent is to improve quality and the cost effectiveness of health care by encouraging integration of the health care providers, as through accountable care organizations, yet we will be seeing higher costs and higher profits as a result. That inevitably means that premiums for the private health plans will be higher - a problem that the Affordable Care Act was supposed to address. What is the link that causes this unintended perversity? It is the insistence of our policymakers that the private insurers be included as the financial intermediaries. Plenty of studies have now shown that the private insurers do not have negotiating clout in markets with provider consolidation. So why should we continue to include them, especially when they waste so much in imposing a huge administration burden, while taking away patients' choices of health care providers? The government does have the leverage to get the pricing right. We should have it representing all of us in obtaining the best value for our national health expenditures. An improved Medicare for everyone is the vehicle that we need. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Quote-of-the-day mailing list Quote-of-the-day at mccanne.org http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/quote-of-the-day From wmjwj at wmjwj.org Mon Nov 28 21:18:21 2011 From: wmjwj at wmjwj.org (WMass Jobs with Justice) Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 21:18:21 -0500 Subject: [Health Care Action] Verizon Solidarity Calendar this week Message-ID: <074d01ccae3d$2ecbd490$8c637db0$@org> Verizon workers are still trying to get a labor contract that keeps 45,000 good jobs in the US. The bargaining is going slowly. Verizon still wants give backs despite huge profits and tax breaks. (Check out http://www.jwj.org/verizon/vz_fact_sheet.pdf.) During this busy buying season, we'll be putting extra pressure on Verizon nationwide to settle. Please sign up for a leafleting shift - if not this week, then December 7, 10, 14, 17, 21, 24?, 28, 31? Or suggest another shift. You can also join community delegations going into stores to deliver our message and weekly workplace stand-outs. Reply to wmjwj at wmjwj.org to volunteer. Wednesday November 30 (Every Wednesday) SUPPORT WORKERS AGAINST VERIGREEDY Noon to 2pm, leaflet customers at the door of the Verizon Wireless store at 360 Russell St, Hadley . Please let Ryan Quinn know you are coming: rep at geouaw.org, 413-545-0705. Graduate Employees Organization/UAW 2324 has adopted this shift. Join us! Please wear your organization's apparel and/or a red shirt/jacket, as the strikers did. If it looks like rain or snow, we will make the decision to call it off around 9am and let you know by email. If we know you are coming, we can let you know by phone, text, or the email sent to your cell phone as a text message (if you've sent your phone number and name of carrier to wmjwj at wmjwj.org). Friday December 2 (Every Friday) VERIZON STREET HEAT COMMITTEE 9:30-10:30am, IBEW Local 2324, 281 Cottage St, Springfield . Planning actions against Verizon, the poster child for corporate greed. Info: 827-0301, wmjwj at wmjwj.org. Saturday December 3 (Every Saturday) SUPPORT WORKERS AGAINST VERIGREEDY We leaflet customers every Saturday at the doors of the four Verizon Wireless stores in Western Mass: 360 Russell St, Hadley ~ Noon to 2pm ~ please let Jon Weissman know you are coming: jon at wmjwj.org, 413-827-0301. 1123 Riverdale St, West Springfield ~ Noon to 2pm ~ please let Patrick Burke know you are coming: patrick at wmjwj.org, 413-454-5692. 1420 Boston Rd, Springfield ~ Noon to 2pm ~ please let Kathy Collins know you are coming: kathy7157 at hotmail.com, 413-734-0863. 555 Hubbard Ave, Pittsfield . ~ 11am to 1pm ~ please let Brian Morrison know you are coming: brian.morrison at state.ma.us, 413-281-3223. Berkshire Central Labor Council has adopted this shift. Join us! Please wear your organization's apparel and/or a red shirt/jacket, as the strikers did. If it looks like rain or snow, we will make the decision to call it off around 9am and let you know by email. If we know you are coming, we can let you know by phone, text, or the email sent to your cell phone as a text message (if you've sent your phone number and name of carrier to wmjwj at wmjwj.org). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jon Weissman, Coordinator Western Mass Jobs with Justice 640 Page Blvd #101 Springfield MA 01104 (413) 827-0301 Founded in 1987, Jobs with Justice's mission is to improve working people's standard of living, fight for job security, and protect workers' right to organize. We believe workers' rights are human rights and to be successful, we have to be part of a larger campaign for economic and social justice. To that end, "J with J" has created a national coalition and a network of local coalitions that connect labor, community, student, and faith-based organizations and activists on workplace and community social justice campaigns. Western Mass JwJ - founded June 5, 1993 - is now a coalition of almost 70 organizations. Our mailing lists: [Workers' Rights] The Western Mass. Jobs with Justice Workers' Rights list posts opportunities for you to learn about and show solidarity with workplace and working class struggles. And these events are opportunities for JwJ members to fulfill their pledge: " I'll be there for workers' rights at least five times a year!" This is the core mission of Jobs with Justice, affirming that workers' rights are human rights. To subscribe, send a blank email to workersrights-subscribe at lists.prometheuslabor.com or go to http://lists.wmjwj.org/mailman/listinfo/workersrights. [Health Care Action] posts events and information that support the large and vibrant Western Mass. movement for health care justice. Nationwide, Jobs with Justice has prioritized Health Care as a basic human right. To subscribe, send a blank email to healthcareaction-subscribe at lists.prometheuslabor.com or go to http://lists.wmjwj.org/mailman/listinfo/healthcareaction. [People's History] posts events and other information related to a people's history of Western Mass, inspired by Howard Zinn. To subscribe, send a blank email to peopleshistory-subscribe at lists.prometheuslabor.com or go to http://lists.wmjwj.org/mailman/listinfo/peopleshistory. WMJwJ sponsors [WMSLAP], the Western Mass. Student Labor Action Project mailing list. SLAP engages student organizations in economic justice campaigns. To subscribe, send a blank email to wmassslap-subscribe at lists.prometheuslabor.com or go to http://lists.wmjwj.org/mailman/listinfo/wmassslap. WMJwJ co-sponsors [GreenWork], the mailing list of the Western Mass. Green Economy Working Group of advocates of a Green Economy which serves local communities; guarantees workers' rights to organize; and promotes community-owned sustainable projects. To subscribe, send a blank email to greenwork-subscribe at lists.gaiahost.coop or go to http://lists.gaiahost.coop/mailman/listinfo/greenwork. WMJwJ is a founding member of the Western Mass Coalition for Immigrant & Worker Rights, organizations and community members who advocate, educate, organize, and mobilize to protect the Human, Civil, and Constitutional Rights of all workers and residents in our communities. To subscribe to its mailing list, send a blank email to wmciwr-subscribe at lists.riseup.net or go to https://lists.riseup.net/www/info/wmciwr. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From don at mccanne.org Tue Nov 29 14:59:42 2011 From: don at mccanne.org (Don McCanne) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 11:59:42 -0800 Subject: [Health Care Action] qotd: Scorpion antivenin: $100 in Mexico, $12, 000 in U.S. Message-ID: Kaiser Health News November 28, 2011 Treating A Scorpion Sting: $ 100 In Mexico Or $ 12,000 In U.S. By Jenny Gold Say you're trekking through the desert in Mexico, minding your own business, when all of a sudden a scorpion scrambles up your boot and stings your leg. You hobble over to a nearby clinic, where you?re given a dose of anti-venom that brings you fast relief. The charge for the serum is about $100. Now imagine instead that you happen to be hiking in Arizona, and the same type of scorpion stings you. You make it to the emergency room, where the charge for a dose of the same anti-venom costs can cost as much as $12,000, according to a survey by The Arizona Republic. Since patients need three to five doses, the cost can reach about $50,000. The drug, called Anascorp, has been available for years in Mexico, but was just given FDA approval in August for the U.S. market. Anascorp is designed to treat the sting of the Bark Scorpion, a particularly poisonous species. Milton Ellis, president of Rare Disease Therapeutics, a Tennessee-based company that has the rights to Anascorp in the U.S., told The Arizona Republic that the cost of the drug is based on a number of factors, including the expensive clinical trial the company sponsored to get FDA approval and the expected demand for the serum. The company sells the drug for $3,500 to another firm that provides it to Arizona hospitals for about $3,780, The Republic found. Hospitals mark up the drug to cover other costs, including the expenses of patients who are uninsured and the heavy discounts it gives to insurers. Dr. Leslie Boyer, director of the Venom Immunochemistry, Pharmacology and Emergency Response (VIPER) Institute and the principal investigator of the Anascorp study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, says she was surprised and "a little saddened" by the high cost of the drug. "It's priced at a level where we can only use it for the very sickest patients, when I know that people with more moderate symptom would also benefit but might not be able to afford it," she explains. If the drug were "priced for the walking miserable," instead of only those patients with the most severe symptoms, more of the drug would be sold and the price could be lower, she explains. As it is, she worries that rural Arizona hospitals, which tend to be the least wealthy, will not be able to stock the anti-venom and will still have to send critically-ill patients on a long helicopter or ambulance ride instead. The high prices, she says, are "a public health problem." **** Response Don McCanne says: (Comment is awaiting moderation as of this posting.) November 29, 2011 at 12:38 PM Results of a quick Internet search: Study posted yesterday at ClinicalTrials.gov: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT00624078?term=Anascorp&rank=1 Sponsor: Instituto Bioclon S.A. de C.V. (Mexico Collaborator: University of Arizona R&D at Instituto Bioclon: http://www.bioclon.com.mx/bioclon/html/investigaciond_en.html "The Bioclon Institute's technology plan has been implemented through a financing strategy that combines the Institute's own investments with resources from governmental institutions through agreements with: The National Science and Technology Board (El Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia) (Mexico), The Commerce Secretary (La Secretaria de Econom?a) (Mexico), and The Food and Drug Administration (United States)." Comment: The fact that government-supported research (United States and Mexico) can result in a product that sells for $100 in Mexico and $12,000 in the United States, says much more about how health care is financed in the United States than it does about government and private roles in research. All other wealthy nations have controlled health care spending much more effectively, while covering everyone, by using financing systems that require considerable government oversight. We rely on a fragmented system of private plans, public programs (and no programs at all for far too many), that has allowed runaway spending without a commensurate improvement in quality and outcomes. It really is time to dump the administratively wasteful but expensive private insurers which have been ineffective in slowing cost escalation. We should improve Medicare, and then provide it for everyone. We might not be able to get the price of Anascorp down to $100, but negotiations through our own public Medicare administrators would set pricing based on legitimate costs and fair profits ? a price that would undoubtedly be a small fraction of the $12,000 being charged. http://capsules.kaiserhealthnews.org/index.php/2011/11/treating-a-scorpion-sting-100-in-mexico-or-12000-in-u-s/comment-page-1/#comment-19404 And... The New England Journal of Medicine May 14, 2009 Antivenom for Critically Ill Children with Neurotoxicity from Scorpion Stings By Leslie V. Boyer, M.D., et al Among critically ill children with neurotoxic effects of scorpion envenomation, intravenous administration of scorpion-specific F(ab?)2 antivenom resolved the clinical syndrome within 4 hours, reduced the need for concomitant sedation with midazolam, and reduced the levels of circulating unbound venom. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00685230.) Supported by grants from the Food and Drug Administration (FD-R-002385-01) and the Arizona Biomedical Research Commission (0001). http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0808455#t=abstract Comment: Instead of administered pricing, our government depends more heavily on the market for the pricing of our health care when payments are made through private insurers. Only the magic of the marketplace can price a $100 vial of antivenin at $12,000! Obviously we do not have nor ever will have a functioning free market in health care. It's time to abandon this myth and move on with an effective method of controlling costs through fair pricing - a single payer national health program. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Quote-of-the-day mailing list Quote-of-the-day at mccanne.org http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/quote-of-the-day From wmjwj at wmjwj.org Tue Nov 29 20:56:54 2011 From: wmjwj at wmjwj.org (WMass Jobs with Justice) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 20:56:54 -0500 Subject: [Health Care Action] December Single-Payer Activist Call Message-ID: <012c01ccaf03$57ae86c0$070b9440$@org> From: Healthcare-NOW! email at healthcare-now.org Can't read this email? View it in your web browser. Healthcare-NOW! Sunday, December 4th at 8pm Eastern time is Healthcare-NOW!'s monthly single-payer activist call. Join activists from across the nation to give and hear updates on what we can do to build the movement for single-payer universal healthcare. The dial-in number is 1-218-862-1300 and conference code 441086. To mute and unmute your line, please dial *4. Proposed agenda: - Occupy Wall Street movement and healthcare - Super Committee results - Organizing for single-payer in an election year - Healthcare-NOW! Strategy Conference Email vanessa at healthcare-now.org with suggested agenda items or questions. In solidarity for single-payer, Francesca, Jeff, and Vanessa Healthcare-NOW! National Staff Healthcare-NOW! survives on the generosity of our supporters. Please consider making a donation or joining Healthcare-NOW! to support our efforts on our secure server. donate store - Follow us on - Facebook Twitter RSS Healthcare-NOW! - 800-453-1305 - 1315 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107 empowered by Salsa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From don at mccanne.org Wed Nov 30 14:06:21 2011 From: don at mccanne.org (Don McCanne) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 11:06:21 -0800 Subject: [Health Care Action] qotd: Office visits down 17% for privately insured Message-ID: Kaiser Family Foundation November 15, 2011 The Economy and Medical Care By Gary Claxton and Larry Levitt Various market watchers have reported that the use of health care services has not been growing recently as it had in the past, resulting in lower than expected health care claims for people with private insurance and higher than expected earnings for insurers. A look at physician office visits by nonelderly patients with private insurance over the past decade illustrates the change in the use of services. Although the total number of visits jumps around somewhat from quarter to quarter, the analysis shows generally that the quarterly number of office visits by privately insured patients increased from about 140 million visits per quarter at the beginning of the decade to 160 million visits early in 2005. The number of non-elderly people with private insurance changed hardly at all over that period, increasing by about 1% according to our analysis of the National Health Interview survey. So, the increase was driven by people with private insurance going to the doctor more often. >From 2005 through 2008, the trend in physician visits was largely flat as the number of people with private insurance dropped slightly (about 1.7%). Then, as the economic downturn deepened, the number of physician visits among the privately insured started a downward trend, which has continued even as the recession technically ended in June of 2009. The number of visits fell to a low of 129 million in the 2nd quarter of 2011, a decline of 17% from 156 million visits in the 2nd quarter of 2009. The number of people with private insurance declined over this period as well as many people lost their jobs and their insurance along with them. But, the decline in the number of people with private insurance is much smaller than the decline in visits ? about 2% between 2009 and 2010. Even people who are insured are going to the doctor less. Likely, consumers are reacting to the severe economic downturn and significant job-loss which has defined the economy over the last several years by cutting back on health spending. Higher deductibles, copays and coinsurance increase the cost of care, and their impact may be magnified in these tough economic times. The Kaiser/HRET Annual Survey of Employer Health Benefits finds that the share of workers covered on the job by plans with a deductible of at least $1,000 grew from 18% in 2008 to 31% this year. In some cases people may be foregoing unnecessary care, meaning that health costs are reduced with little or no effect on health. In other cases people are likely cutting back on necessary care, potentially endangering patients' longer term health and leading to higher costs over time. http://healthreform.kff.org/notes-on-health-insurance-and-reform/2011/november/the-economy-and-medical-care.aspx KFF - Increase in employer-sponsored high-deductible plans: http://ehbs.kff.org/?page=charts&id=2&sn=22&ch=2257 Comment: In the past two years, office visits by privately insured patients under age 65 decreased by 17 percent. Although the insurers attribute this lower utilization to the economic downturn, it does correlate very closely to the increase in enrollment in employer-sponsored high-deductible plans. Although it is difficult to predict future trends, it is very likely that the diminished utilization will persist since other studies have confirmed that high out-of-pocket expenses deter access to health care. It is also clear that many of the forgone services are beneficial. Every reasonable person in the policy community agrees that patients should have access to beneficial services, but some believe that financial disincentives to care are important because they will encourage patients to forgo unnecessary services. The problem with this reasoning is that a person with symptoms cannot know without a consultation whether or not the visit is unnecessary. Even if it turns out that no intervention is required other than reassurance, even reassurance itself provides an important medical outcome in the form of reduced anxiety. The consumer-directed advocates are winning the battle. The increase in high-deductible plans has placed financial barriers between patients and the care that they should be receiving. By making patients more sensitive to the costs of office visits, they are using fewer. But is this wise? Studies such as the RAND Health Insurance Experiment suggest that there is not much harm done. But those studies do not measure certain endpoints such as symptom relief or simple reassurance. They also do not measure longer term consequences such as complications from inadequate management of chronic disorders - diabetes, hypertension, consequential hyperlipidemia, and many others. They do not measure the benefits of preventive screening in this under 65 population, which may prevent or ameliorate disorders that might occur only decades later. Most of these office visits are for primary care services and constitute only a very small percentage of our national health expenditures. Reducing office visits by 17 percent does not save much overall because 17 percent of a small number is a very small number. Since primary care is essential in improving value in health care, we should be adopting policies that encourage primary care access, not discourage it as these high out-of-pocket costs do. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Quote-of-the-day mailing list Quote-of-the-day at mccanne.org http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/quote-of-the-day