Connect with us

Health

Coverage Worries Persist Amid Relief Over Health Care Ruling

Published

on

Affordable Care Act participant Kim Jones poses for a photo in her home in Wake Forest, N.C., Thursday, June 25, 2015. Jones said the Affordable Care Act has been a blessing to her who could not have otherwise afforded the medical care she has received during treatment for a tumor on her brain. The Supreme Court decided Thursday to uphold the Affordable Care Act subsidies. (AP Photo/Gerry Broome)

Affordable Care Act participant Kim Jones poses for a photo in her home in Wake Forest, N.C., Thursday, June 25, 2015. Jones said the Affordable Care Act has been a blessing to her who could not have otherwise afforded the medical care she has received during treatment for a tumor on her brain. The Supreme Court decided Thursday to uphold the Affordable Care Act subsidies. (AP Photo/Gerry Broome)

CARLA K. JOHNSON, Associated Press

CHICAGO (AP) — Throughout the country, relief was the dominant emotion among consumers who get help from the government to lower their health insurance costs following Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling upholding the subsidies underpinning President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.

Many consumers expressed somewhat conflicting views: They were happy their monthly premiums would continue to be affordable but exasperated by the coverage the policies purchased on the new health care exchanges provide.

“I don’t particularly care for Obama. I didn’t vote for him,” said Salt Lake City resident Paige Preece, whose subsidy allows her to buy insurance for $137 a month. “But, honestly, if it weren’t for this, I would be absolutely lost.”

The court’s 6-3 ruling upheld the federal financial assistance to millions of low- and middle-income Americans to help pay for insurance premiums regardless of where they live. An estimated 6.4 million people in the 34 states that used the federal health care exchange were at risk of losing the subsidies because their home states did not set up their own insurance exchanges.

The case turned on just a few words in the mammoth Affordable Care Act that suggested the federal subsidies could go only to consumers in states that operated their own health insurance marketplaces. Consumers in those states or in ones that fell back on the federal exchange when their own exchanges faltered were not affected by the case.

“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,” Chief Justice John Roberts declared in the majority opinion.

Polls taken before Thursday’s ruling suggested that most Americans wanted the court to uphold the subsidies. In an April Associated Press-GfK poll, 56 percent preferred that the court rule in favor of the Obama administration, while 39 percent wanted the court to rule for the other side.

Lydia DeJesus, who helps people sign up for coverage in Dickinson, North Dakota, said she has noted that division among consumers concerning the health care law, even among those receiving significant subsidies that make their policies more affordable.

“There are people who have services who never had services,” she said. “But there are people who were forced to have insurance and really don’t consider it affordable. Some people have told us they’d rather pay the fine as opposed to having health insurance.”

In Gresham, Oregon, Anna Mar, 28, said she is still no fan of what she calls “Obamacare.” She is a stay-at-home mom with two young boys. Her husband works in construction.

“The plan hardly covers anything, so I avoid going to the doctor,” Mar said. “I love the idea of everyone having health care, but it’s not affordable for us.”

For herself, Mar bought the cheapest plan on the exchange she could find: $134 a month, with a high deductible and high co-pays. Her government subsidy is $40. The couple’s children qualify for Medicaid, the state-federal health program for those with lower incomes.

Other consumers said they were grateful for the health care reforms and for Thursday’s ruling allowing the subsidies to continue.

Kim Jones, a substitute teacher in Wake Forest, North Carolina, said she once used the emergency room for her care. With the health insurance plan she purchased on the federal exchange, she now can afford follow-up treatment after surgery last summer to remove a brain tumor.

Jones, 60, said she was without health insurance for about a decade because of the part-time jobs she took to allow her to care for an elderly parent. Her current coverage costs her about $27 a month, after the government subsidy of more than $500. She continues to take medication and had worried about losing coverage.

“I know it helped so many people, and a lot of folks like myself who had fallen through the cracks were finally getting some kind of help with health issues,” Jones said after the ruling.

In Norman, Oklahoma, Kelli Nicole Smith, a 26-year-old baker who earns $11 an hour at a candy shop, said she was relieved to learn she would still receive the $99 monthly subsidy that she used to purchase a health plan. Without it, Smith said she probably would have considered buying less healthy food or downgrading her mobile phone plan.

“I would have choices, but they wouldn’t be comfortable,” said Smith, who ends up paying about $60 a month for a plan with relatively high co-pays, including $500 for an emergency room visit. “Or I would have to consider finding a job that maybe pays more that I don’t really want to do.”

Advocates such as Walter Davis of the Tennessee Health Care Campaign, used the Supreme Court decision to urge lawmakers in Tennessee to increase Medicaid access, an expansion that was made optional by an earlier Supreme Court ruling.

“Tennessee has failed to expand Medicaid and is falling further behind, leaving thousands of people unnecessarily uninsured and without access to affordable health coverage,” he said in a written statement. “Now Tennessee policymakers should recognize health reform is working, abandon efforts to undermine it, and instead take advantage of the opportunities that health reform offers to improve lives.”

Those with medical issues took the most comfort in the Supreme Court’s ruling and Obama’s assertion afterward that “the Affordable Care Act is here to stay.”

“I’m starting to cry just talking about it,” said Susan Halpern, a 55-year-old breast cancer survivor from Columbus, Ohio, who immediately posted the news to Facebook.

With an irregular income as a freelance contractor, she said the subsidy makes a huge difference. Without it, she said the only way she could continue to pay the premium would be to drain her retirement savings.

“This has saved my ability to retire someday,” Halpern said. “I know tens of thousands of Americans were looking at it the same way.”

___

Associated Press writers Emery P. Dalesio in Raleigh, North Carolina; Travis Loller in Nashville, Tennessee; James MacPherson in Bismarck, North Dakota; Sean Murphy in Oklahoma City; Michelle L. Price in Salt Lake City; and John Seewer in Toledo, Ohio, contributed to this report.

Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

California Black Media

Stakeholders Warn Lawmakers of Expanding Aging Population; Older Black Californians Included

The California Commission on Aging (CCoA) hosted its second annual forum focused on challenges facing Californians over 65 years old. Titled “Aging and Disability Issues: What Legislative Staff Need to Know for 2024,” the virtual event was organized to bring awareness to lawmakers that California’s aging adults are living longer and to emphasize the importance of developing policy to support this growing population, according to organizers.

Published

on

The discussion encompassed a range of topics including planning for long-term care, assisted living, enhancing healthcare quality, technology use, services for senior adults with disabilities, state budget considerations, and the best policies and practices to help aging adults stay healthy, active, independent, and confident.
The discussion encompassed a range of topics including planning for long-term care, assisted living, enhancing healthcare quality, technology use, services for senior adults with disabilities, state budget considerations, and the best policies and practices to help aging adults stay healthy, active, independent, and confident.

By Antonio Ray Harvey, California Black Media 

The California Commission on Aging (CCoA) hosted its second annual forum focused on challenges facing Californians over 65 years old.

Titled “Aging and Disability Issues: What Legislative Staff Need to Know for 2024,” the virtual event was organized to bring awareness to lawmakers that California’s aging adults are living longer and to emphasize the importance of developing policy to support this growing population, according to organizers.

This year’s meeting included the perspectives of gerontologists and other subject-matter experts who provided data and insights critical to informing policy.

Former Assemblymember Cheryl Brown (D-San Bernardino), who chairs the CCoA’s Executive Committee, began the discussion.

“The landscape of California is changing. Aging is changing and it’s changing California,” Brown said. “Older adults are living longer, and the cohort is becoming more ethnically diverse, underscoring the need to develop culturally, appropriate services.”

The discussion encompassed a range of topics including planning for long-term care, assisted living, enhancing healthcare quality, technology use, services for senior adults with disabilities, state budget considerations, and the best policies and practices to help aging adults stay healthy, active, independent, and confident.

The CCoA acts as the principal advocate for older Californians and as a catalyst for change that supports and celebrates Californians as they advance in age. The CCoA advises the Governor and Legislature, along with state, federal, and local agencies on programs and services that affect senior adults.

Statewide organizations that participated in the event included LeadingAge California, Disability Rights California, California Foundation for Independent Living Centers, and California Collaborative for Long-Term Services and Supports.

In addition, representatives and staff members of Choice In Aging, Age Watch Newsletter, California Elder Justice Coalition, California Association of Area Agencies on Aging, and the California Long-Term Care Ombudsman Association were presenters during the 90-minute discussion.

“In California, we know that older adults are underserved and unserved relative to their needs,” CCoA Executive Director Karol Swartzlander said. “In stark terms, we know that 4% of older adults who need service actually receive services.”

According to the California Department of Aging (CDA), California’s aging population is expected to reach an estimated 4.5 million individuals ages 60 to 69 and 4.2 million senior adults ages 70- to 79 by the year 2040, based on information from CDA’s Master Plan for Aging. 

Recognizing that the state’s 65-plus population is projected to grow to 8.6 million by 2030, Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order calling for the development of the MPA.

Debbie Toth, from ChoiceInAging, said the MPA is a model of “how we can do better” to service the needs of older adults. ChoiceInAging, Toth said, “is going to be shopping accessible transportation and rate increases for adult day healthcare.

“But we need to have legislation to do it,” Toth told legislative staff members.

A 2016 California Health Report (CHR) revealed that by 2030, 18% of the state will be 65 or older. Projections in that study also indicated that 52% of these older adults would be from diverse minority groups but “no population is expected to be harder hit than African Americans,” the report stated.

Continue Reading

California Black Media

Asm. Akilah Weber Introduces Bill to Protect Terminally Ill Californians

On Feb. 7, Assemblymember Akilah Weber (D-La Mesa) introduced legislation, Assembly Bill (AB) 2180, designed to ensure that terminally or chronically ill people living in California can afford their life-saving medications.
If passed, the law would require California health plan providers, insurers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to count the value of financial assistance provided by subsidy programs towards a terminally ill patient’s deductible and out-of-pocket expenses.

Published

on

Dr. Akilah Weber (File Photo)
Dr. Akilah Weber (File Photo)

By California Black Media

 On Feb. 7, Assemblymember Akilah Weber (D-La Mesa) introduced legislation, Assembly Bill (AB) 2180, designed to ensure that terminally or chronically ill people living in California can afford their life-saving medications.

If passed, the law would require California health plan providers, insurers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to count the value of financial assistance provided by subsidy programs towards a terminally ill patient’s deductible and out-of-pocket expenses.

“When insurers and PBMs do onto count the value of copay assistance toward cost-sharing requirements, patients often experience “a copay surprise” at the pharmacy counter and may be forced to walk away without their needed medication because they cannot afford it,” wrote Weber in a statement.

Over 80 patient advocacy organizations, medical foundations and other groups applauded Weber for introducing the legislation.

“The All Copays Count in California Coalition commends Dr. Weber for championing legislation that will improve patient access to medications and protect the most vulnerable Californians from harmful and deceptive insurance schemes that raise patient costs,” said Lynne Kinst, Executive Director of Hemophilia Council of California (HCC), which is a cosponsor of the bill.

According to the HCC, an estimated 70% of patients “abandon their prescription medications when their out-of-pocket costs reach $250 or more.

Continue Reading

Bay Area

Who Are the Top Donors in the Alameda County District 5 Supervisor’s Race?

District 5 covers West and North Oakland and includes Emeryville, Berkeley, Piedmont and Albany. The five-member Board of Supervisors sets the county’s budget, governs its unincorporated areas, oversees the sheriff, Alameda Health System, and the mental health system. Voting in this election has already begun. Most of those living in the district will have been mailed paper ballots. Residents can also vote in person on March 5, the last day voting is open. If no candidate gets more than half of the votes, the top two candidates will face off in the general election in November.

Published

on

A ballot drop box sits in West Oakland. Feb. 12. Photo by Zack Haber 
A ballot drop box sits in WesA ballot drop box sits in West Oakland. Feb. 12. Photo by Zack Haber t Oakland. Feb. 12. Photo by Zack Haber 

About $342,500, a little less than half of the approximately $705,000 raised in the race so far, has come from just 30 sources.

By Zack Haber

Nine candidates are running to represent District 5 on the Alameda County’s Board of Supervisors.

District 5 covers West and North Oakland and includes Emeryville, Berkeley, Piedmont and Albany.

The five-member Board of Supervisors sets the county’s budget, governs its unincorporated areas, oversees the sheriff, Alameda Health System, and the mental health system.

Voting in this election has already begun. Most of those living in the district will have been mailed paper ballots. Residents can also vote in person on March 5, the last day voting is open. If no candidate gets more than half of the votes, the top two candidates will face off in the general election in November.

Candidates in Alameda County are required to report all of their campaign donations. The public can search these filings through an online portal.

Looking through the county’s campaign finance reports, we found that residents, businesses and other organizations, such as unions, have donated around $705,000 in total to all candidates as of Feb. 13. In three cases, candidates donated to their own campaigns, but we excluded these figures.

Of the nine candidates, John Bauters, the former Emeryville Mayor and current City Councilmember, has raised the most, about $167,500. Alameda County Board of Education Trustee Ken Berrick has raised about $157,500. Piedmont resident and East Bay Rental Housing Association board member Chris Moore has raised about $129,000. Oakland City Councilmember Nikki Fortunato Bas has raised about $130,000; and Berkeley City Councilmember Ben Bartlett raised about $103,500.

The other candidates, Omar Farmer, Gregory Hodge, Gerald Pechenuk and Lorrel Plimier have all raised much less than the other candidates. So far, Hodge has raised about 11,500 and Plimier has raised about $5,500. Farmer and Pechenuk haven’t reported receiving any campaign donations.

While there were over 525 donations to candidates in total, of these, about $342,500 or a little less than half of the about $705,000 in total donations, came from just 30 sources. For the purposes of this article, we’ve defined these 30 donations as large donations—$5,000 or more. Bartlett, Bas, Bauters, Berrick, and Moore have received large donations, while Farmer, Hodge, Pechenuk and Plimier have not.

Below is a listing of each reported large donation, and information we could find about its source. We ordered the list in alphabetically by candidate name.

Large donations to Ben Bartlett:

Mukemmel ‘Mike’ Sarimsakci of Millbrae donated $10,000. Sarimsakci is a real estate developer and the CEO of Alterra Worldwide, a commercial real estate company. Man Hao Chen of San Francisco, CEO and founder of crop farming company Sunbber, inc., donated 5,000. Bao Le of Fremont, CEO of medical marijuana company Hemp.co, donated $5,000. Retired Berkeley resident Frank Brown donated $5,000.

Large donations to Nikki Fortunado Bas: 

Alameda Labor Council AFL-CIO Unitywhich represents about 135,000 healthcare, construction, service, education, and manufacturing workers, donated $20,000. Building and Construction Trades Council of Alameda County donated $20,000. Quinn Delaney of Piedmont, founder and the board chair of Akonadi Foundation, donated $20,000. Wayne Jordan of Piedmont, husband to Delaney, Akonadi Foundation board member, landlord and founder and president of Jordan Real Estate Investments, donated $20,000. California Working Families Party, a “grassroots party for the multiracial working class,” donated $10,000. Bas also received a $5,000 donation from the San Francisco crop farming company, Sunbber, inc. Man Hao Chen, who donated to Ben Bartlett’s campaign, is the CEO of Sunbber. IBEW Local 595, a union representing about 2,000 electric workers in Alameda and San Joaquin/Calaveras counties, donated $5,000. UA Local 342, a union representing around 4,000 workers in the pipe trades industries in Contra Costa and Alameda counties, donated $5,000.

Large donations to John Bauters:

Maryam Asefinejad of Orangevale, board member of Teranomic Software, donated $20,000. Fred J Bauters of Lisle, IL, relative of John Bauters, donated $20,000. The International Association of Firefighters Local 55 donated $11,000. State Assemblymember Buffy Wicks donated $10,000 from her reelection campaign. Nick Josefowitz of San Francisco, commissioner with the Metropolitan Transportation Commissionand co-founder of the nonprofit Permit Power, donated $10,000. Daniel Golden of Santa Monica, who works in sales at the pharmaceutical company Bausch Healthcare, donated $5,000. Marc Hedlund of Berkeley, founder of the investment company Tenuki Moves LLC and board treasurer of the nonprofits Bike East Bay and Code 2040, donated 5,000. The California YIMBY Victory Fund donated $5,000. Steven Berger of Berkeley, president of the company NYF Properties, inc. donated $5,000.

Large donations to Ken Berrick:

Megan Salazar of Richmond, director of advocacy for the Bay Area based nonprofit, Just Advocates which Ken Berrick founded, donated $13,520. Christopher Ciauri of London, England, CEO of the software company Unily, donated $17,500. Betsy Maushardt, unemployed resident of Santa Cruz, donated $10,500. Christopher Seiwald of Alameda, member of the University of San Francisco’s Board of Trustees and investor with the Berkeley Angel Network, donated 5,000.

Large donations to Chris Moore:

Quintin Anderson of Redwood City, Chief Operating Officer with Granite River Labs, donated $20,000. Madeline Moore, retired resident of Walnut Creek and relative of Chris Moore, donated $20,000.  Philip Dreyfuss of Oakland, partner with Farallon Capital Management, a San Francisco based hedge fund, donated $20,000.  Fred Morse of Piedmont, landlord with Morse Management, donated $15,000 through individual and company donations.

Justin Wallway of Oakland, landlord with JDW Enterprises, donated $10,000.

Continue Reading

Subscribe to receive news and updates from the Oakland Post

* indicates required

CHECK OUT THE LATEST ISSUE OF THE OAKLAND POST

ADVERTISEMENT

WORK FROM HOME

Home-based business with potential monthly income of $10K+ per month. A proven training system and website provided to maximize business effectiveness. Perfect job to earn side and primary income. Contact Lynne for more details: Lynne4npusa@gmail.com 800-334-0540

Facebook

Trending

Copyright ©2021 Post News Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.