The Indiana Law Blog cites to a New York Times article about negotiating medical prices. “[M]edical care is often priced with the same maddening, arbitrary opacity as airline seats and hotel rooms.” The uninsured get charged the full sticker price. It’s very difficult to know what a medical procedure will cost before agreeing to get it done, and it’s very tough to determine what the fair market value of the procedure actually is.

House Bill 1047 HB 1047 – Disclosure of health care spending. Rep. Dickinson. Passed the House on Third Reading 51 to 46 along party lines.

Now here is a really interesting bill. It requires an applicant for or a recipient of medical assistance from the state to disclose the person’s employer or the employer of a person who provides them with support. If a particular employer gets listed on by 50 or more recipients of state medical assistance, the Family and Social Services Administration (FSSA) has to include the employer in a report to the legislative council, along with information about how many of the employer’s employees are relying on state medical assistance and how much that assistance costs the state. In addition, an employer with more than 1,000 employees is required to disclose to the Department of Labor the total dollar amount the employer spent on health care benefits for employees during the previous calendar year, the percentage of the payroll spent on health care benefits, and the average amount spent per employee.

To me, the part of the bill seeking to identify the employers of recipients getting state medical assistance is more interesting than the health care expenditures of large employers. What percentage of people in Indiana work for an employer with over 1,000 employees? Will such reporting tell us much about health care for Hoosier workers generally?

But, identifying employers who, for whatever reason, have a non-trivial number of employees or employee families who still need medical assistance should tell us quite a bit about how beneficial a particular kind of job is to the community generally. For example, this sort of information could be useful when state or local government is deciding whether it is getting its money’s worth out of an incentive package.

Of course, it’s something of a band-aid for the larger problem. I don’t think it makes much sense for health care to be tied to employment in any case.

[tags]HB1047-2007, health care[/tags]

For whatever reason, an Elvis Costello lyric jumped to mind when I read, Bil Browning’s post entitled The politics of personal destruction. Following his leadership of a protest against SJR 7 which would amend the Constitution to prevent gay marriage and limit the potential rights of non-married couples, Bil was subjected to some troubling responses: Phone calls to his unlisted number telling him he was a sinner, he was going to burn in hell, and he should be run out of town. That, and someone busted out the window of his car in a way that looks a lot like it’s related to his advocacy for gay rights.

It’s this kind of thing that ratchets up my interest in gay rights. As a policy matter, I know what I think. But, I have no real visceral interest in the subject because it doesn’t really affect me much. But when a guy like Bil gets harrassed personally and privately for advocating his political views publicly, it puts a much less abstract face on the whole debate. Hang in there Bil.

Technorati Tags: SJR7-2007, civil rights

House Bill 1074 Earned income tax credit. Rep. Day. Repeals the expiration date (currently December 31, 2011) for the earned income tax credit, and increases the credit to 9% (from 6%) of the federal earned income tax credit. This bill passed 83 to 17.

Technorati Tags: HB1074-2007, taxation

The House unanimously passed House Bill 1044 amending the provisions related to the Purple Heart license plate. First of all, my obligatory comment that the legislature spends far too much time on license plates. I think there are 30 of them at this point.

This bill will expand eligibility to motorcycles in addition to passenger motor vehicles. It also makes an interesting change to the people who are eligible. Currently, an individual is eligible if “the person has received a Purple Heart decoration that is awarded to a person who suffers an injury while serving as a member of the armed forces of the United States.” Under the new law, eligibility would be limited to “an individual who has received a Purple Heart decoration that is awarded to an individual who is wounded in action against an enemy of the United States or as a result of an act of an enemy of the United States if the wound necessitates treatment by a medical officer.”

I don’t know whether, under this definition and under the military’s Purple Heart rules, there are those who have been awarded a Purple Heart who will be ineligible. To me, the way to draft the statute would be to say that an individual who has received a Purple Heart is eligible for the license plate, and leave it at that.

[tags]HB1044-2007, license plates[/tags]

House Bill 1376 Services performed by dental hygienists. Rep. Mays. Passed 86-0. Allows a dental hygienist employed by the local health department to to perform basic dental services to school children without the supervision of a dentist if the dentist has prescribed a treatment plan in writing for the child within the past 90 days.

Technorati Tags: HB1376-2007

https://www.masson.us/blog/1987/

Bilerico and Advance Indiana take Sen. Brandt Hershman to the woodshed on SJR 7 – the amendment that would prohibit same sex marriages and prohibit any marriage rights from being extended to unmarried couples. According to those entries, Hershman’s past statements and attempts at legislation cast doubt on his credibility when he suggests that subsection (b) of the Amendment — the provision limiting the potential rights of unmarried couples — actually wouldn’t change anything. Once again, I think it’s useful to post the actual text of subsection (b):

(b) This Constitution or any other Indiana law may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

Breaking that down to its broadest reading, it says: Indiana law may not be construed to require that the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples. I don’t know how proponents of the measure get around the interpretation that, if the General Assembly passes a law that conveys a right which is an incident of marriage to an unmarried couple, a court cannot enforce that law. That’s not only a change. That’s a big change.

Technorati Tags: SJR7-2007, culture wars

DSC_0004.JPG

Originally uploaded by amasson.

We like to read in the Masson household.