Home » News » Politics
Impassioned opposition to weakening health mandates
CONCORD — Near tears, a Merrimack woman pleaded with Senate budget writers yesterday not to end state health insurance mandates that have helped her 4-year-old autistic son regain his functions.
“Please. Stand up for me and my children, and do not touch what little hope and security we have left,” said Christine Mostrom, who has two autistic children. “Do not turn away from New Hampshire's mothers. I urge you to stand in the gap, as we do for our children.”
Mostrom and many others testified against Senate Bill 150, which would allow out-of-state insurance companies to sell health insurance in New Hampshire.
The bill's prime sponsor, Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley, R-Wolfeboro, said he shares the concern about maintaining state insurance mandates, but is also concerned about the limited competition in New Hampshire among insurance providers.
“We have among the highest insurance rates in the country,” Bradley said. “We need to get more people into the system in order to lower rates.”
He said businesses and individuals are being priced out of the market and dropping their health insurance.
Bradley, along with Sen. Andy Sanborn, R-Henniker, refined their proposal to address concerns raised last session, which include eliminating mandates, consumer protections, cherry picking and discrimination.
Under the plan presented Thursday, a three-year pilot program would allow out-of-state insurers to offer low-cost, stripped down plans in the state if they also offer plans that include the 43 state mandates such as mammograms, diabetes education and supplies, prosthetics and midwife services.
The companies would have to be licensed by the state Insurance Department, which would have oversight and collect the state's insurance premium tax.
Sanborn, a business owner, said he offers his employees health insurance but the premiums increased 38 percent last year and 17 percent this year.
“I may be to the point where I can no longer afford to do it,” he said. “At the end of the day we need to get everyone some level of coverage.”
But most of the people in the hearing room, opposed the bill, saying it would put the companies currently selling health insurance in the state at a disadvantage and hurt those covered by the state mandates.
Lobbyist Robert Blaisdell, representing Next Step Orthotics and Prosthetics Inc. of Manchester, said the proposal would eliminate all the mandates currently in law. “Every mandate we have today has a story behind it,” he said.
Next Step president, Matthew Albuquerque, said most business owners will choose the cheaper coverage and that will increase taxpayer cost. If the program does not cover prosthetics, he said, his experience is that person will not go back to work and instead will have to go on Medicaid, although they never wanted to do that.
Richard Smith, a 72-year old diabetic from Hancock, also opposed the bill. He and others in the room said the low-cost plans may look like the best bargain, but they will cost much more if people have to turn to emergency rooms and hospitals for services because preventive care is not covered.
People can only effectively manage their diabetes if they have the education to do so, Smith said.
Mostrom told the committee she came before the lawmakers several years ago to support establishing Connor's Law, which requires insurance companies to cover applied behavioral analysis treatment for children with autism.
She told the committee her son's functions have improved 250 percent with the treatment, which would not be included in the low-cost insurance plan.
“Mothers of children with autism live in a state of grief: it is so hard to contend against the odds,” Mostrom told the committee. “Please. Connor's Law offers us a very small element of security: do not take away our protection.”
The Finance Committee is expected to continue to work on the bill.
“Please. Stand up for me and my children, and do not touch what little hope and security we have left,” said Christine Mostrom, who has two autistic children. “Do not turn away from New Hampshire's mothers. I urge you to stand in the gap, as we do for our children.”
Mostrom and many others testified against Senate Bill 150, which would allow out-of-state insurance companies to sell health insurance in New Hampshire.
The bill's prime sponsor, Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley, R-Wolfeboro, said he shares the concern about maintaining state insurance mandates, but is also concerned about the limited competition in New Hampshire among insurance providers.
“We have among the highest insurance rates in the country,” Bradley said. “We need to get more people into the system in order to lower rates.”
He said businesses and individuals are being priced out of the market and dropping their health insurance.
Bradley, along with Sen. Andy Sanborn, R-Henniker, refined their proposal to address concerns raised last session, which include eliminating mandates, consumer protections, cherry picking and discrimination.
Under the plan presented Thursday, a three-year pilot program would allow out-of-state insurers to offer low-cost, stripped down plans in the state if they also offer plans that include the 43 state mandates such as mammograms, diabetes education and supplies, prosthetics and midwife services.
The companies would have to be licensed by the state Insurance Department, which would have oversight and collect the state's insurance premium tax.
Sanborn, a business owner, said he offers his employees health insurance but the premiums increased 38 percent last year and 17 percent this year.
“I may be to the point where I can no longer afford to do it,” he said. “At the end of the day we need to get everyone some level of coverage.”
But most of the people in the hearing room, opposed the bill, saying it would put the companies currently selling health insurance in the state at a disadvantage and hurt those covered by the state mandates.
Lobbyist Robert Blaisdell, representing Next Step Orthotics and Prosthetics Inc. of Manchester, said the proposal would eliminate all the mandates currently in law. “Every mandate we have today has a story behind it,” he said.
Next Step president, Matthew Albuquerque, said most business owners will choose the cheaper coverage and that will increase taxpayer cost. If the program does not cover prosthetics, he said, his experience is that person will not go back to work and instead will have to go on Medicaid, although they never wanted to do that.
Richard Smith, a 72-year old diabetic from Hancock, also opposed the bill. He and others in the room said the low-cost plans may look like the best bargain, but they will cost much more if people have to turn to emergency rooms and hospitals for services because preventive care is not covered.
People can only effectively manage their diabetes if they have the education to do so, Smith said.
Mostrom told the committee she came before the lawmakers several years ago to support establishing Connor's Law, which requires insurance companies to cover applied behavioral analysis treatment for children with autism.
She told the committee her son's functions have improved 250 percent with the treatment, which would not be included in the low-cost insurance plan.
“Mothers of children with autism live in a state of grief: it is so hard to contend against the odds,” Mostrom told the committee. “Please. Connor's Law offers us a very small element of security: do not take away our protection.”
The Finance Committee is expected to continue to work on the bill.