Parity Amendment Died with Close of Session Prosthetic Parity
Hello everyone,

Good news and bad news.

Good news was that the sponsors of the original bill added prosthetic parity language as an amendment to the Military Healthcare bill - SB 24.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/amd/s/2005SB-00024-R00SC-AMD.htm

Bad news was that they arbitratily capped, without consulting me or anyone who testified on behalf of the original bill, the "benefit" amount at 7500.00 per limb per year. Apparently the insurance industry lobbyists felt that since 7500 was the "average cost of a prosthesis" - that would be an appropriate benefit amount.

Now I know that anyone who currently has less than that as a benefit - or whose prosthesis costs less than 7500.00 may feel that that would have been a victory but it is patently unfair to Above knee amputees, Hip Disarticulation amputees, Upper extremity myo users, etc. It would have been extremely difficult if not impossible to come back next year and fight to get the amount raised if the amendment had passed.

Good news is that SB24 with the amendment died with the close of session.
http://www.senaterepublicans.ct.gov/press/herlihy/053105.htm

Bad news is that we will have to wait till next year but we will be able to start with a bill that does not include arbitrary caps.

I am looking for volunteers to meet with local legislators in the next few months, before the 2006 session starts. Please let me know if you would be interested in sharing your story, one on one with a local legislator.

Thanks for all your help and support.

Call me if you have any questions or concerns. 570-357-4416 or 860-232-8204

Elizabeth  ¶ 10:54 AM 3 comments

  Prosthetic Parity Prosthetic Parity

Senator Herlihy is working with members of the Insurance Committee and apparently, having discussions with the lobbyist(s) for Anthem. He has instructed me to provide the Office of Fiscal Analysis with copies of all relevant supporting documentation from the other states that have passed parity legislation. I guess it's up to us to prove that providing amputees with prostheses is a beneficial and cost effective use of insurance dollars. DUH! Of course, we (I) don't take this personally - it's all part of the game/dance.

Anyone who has information on their coverage - both past and present as I feel it is very important to show people that prostheses actually used to be covered by insurance - should email it to me asap. I am looking for specific benefit (ha!) guidelines and limits - i.e., 500 per year to be used for repairs or 1 prosthesis per lifetime, etc., stuff like that. You can also copy the benefit summary and fax it to me at 860-232-8204. The sooner the better, please!!!

Elizabeth  ¶ 10:12 AM 0 comments

  It's Amendment Time Good morning! Wallow time is over and it's time to regroup and focus! Spoke to Sen. Tom Herlihy this morning - he is the original introducer of SB 162. He has confirmed my belief that we (prosthetic parity effort) still have a chance by adding an amendment - to health insurance related bills on both the House floor and the Senate floor.

We will be providing the Office of Fiscal Analysis with all the pertinent information they might need to "put the issue of large cost to bed" (quote from Herlihy)

As we all know - this is not a cost issue since passing this legislation actually saves the state over 250,000 immediately (payments made by the state on behalf of amputees who ARE WORKING AND HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE but do NOT HAVE ADEQUATE PROSTHETIC COVERAGE!!!!)

If you are an amputee who is working and has had - at some point - to rely on assistance from the state to pay for your prosthesis - we need to hear from you! Email me at ctparity@sbcglobal.net

Just remember - there is no cure for amputation.

We are not seeking millions and billions of dollars searching for a cure to allow someone to live a useful, productive life.

We already have the answer! For people who are missing limbs - the answer is "access to appropriate prosthetic care" in other words....a prosthesis!!

What's so hard to understand about that?

check out these folks - talk about inspiring!

www.danabowman.com
http://www.usoc.org/73_28633.htm
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=302756&page=1



Elizabeth



  ¶ 11:46 AM 0 comments

  CT General Assembly Very disappointing (not to mention VERY educational) day!!! Many, many, many calls were made to the office of the Insurance Committee at the Connecticut General Assembly by concerned citizens (who VOTE) - to ensure that "An Act Concerning Health Insurance Coverage for Prosthetic Devices" (originally SB162 and now Committee Bill 162) made it on to the agenda for tomorrow.

Click link to view original proposed bill
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/tob/s/2005SB-00162-R00-SB.htm


THANK YOU TO ALL THE CALLERS AND TO THE PROSTHETISTS AND THEIR OFFICE STAFF FOR ASSISTING WITH THIS EFFORT - thanks to Leslie Duncan at the Amputee Coalition of America (www.amputee-coalition.org) for sending out an urgent advisory to the amputee members in CT.

The goal was to make sure that the drafted Committee Bill 162 was on the agenda for the IC for tomorrow, March 24th - the DEADLINE for the bill to be JF'd - if it doesn't get JF'd - the bill, as it is currently written is dead till next year.

Seems like everyone who called got a different answer - from "it was on the agenda yesterday (Tuesday)" to "we don't know what's on the agenda" to "I'll let the IC Chairs know that you would like this bill on the agenda for tomorrow" to the final call - made at 4:55 pm - the response was "we've gotten a lot of calls from people today and we're giving them to the chairman" to which the caller asked whether that meant that it was going to be on the agenda "not yet" was the reply - "blah, blah, blah - as it's written, it's not favorable - you can call your legislator and have them request that the language be taken out and tacked onto another bill that is already on the agenda"

Hmmmmmmmmm - that's interesting, since the Insurance Committee is the one that drafted the Committee bill - how is their language "not favorable" to themselves??
Click link to view Committee drafted bill
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/tob/s/2005SB-00162-R01-SB.htm

According to my source on the inside - the chairs of the committee - Democrats, mind you - felt that it would be "too costly to give people who need prosthetics unlimited coverage." Click on link to see the Insurance Committee members and chairpersons.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/MemberList.asp?comm_code=INS&doc_type=

Point of clarification - no one said, wrote, mentioned or in any way indicated ANYTHING about unlimited coverage - the bill was based on Medicare regs - and we all know that Medicare does NOT allow unlimited coverage AT ALL!!

I was deeply disappointed that the Insurance Committee chose to post the agenda at 5:01 p.m. effectively killing the bill and VERY effectively killing any last minute attempt (other than the many phone calls) to persuade, cajole, coerce, beg, etc., the chairpersons to ADD THE BILL TO THE AGENDA!

We are not down for the count quite yet. There is the (supposedly rare but I feel doable) possibility of adding the parity language as an amendment to a bill on the floor. Tomorrow's post will be how we go about getting an amendment added.

REMEMBER - as Paddy Rossbach, President and CEO of the ACA (www.amputee-coalition.org) always says - the GOAL is not necessarily legislation - the goal is COVERAGE!!

We live to educate another day. Speaking of which - we are planning an Amputees for Access to Care Day at the LOB. If you would like to participate or if you know anyone who would - send me an email at ctparity@sbcglobal.net and I will make sure that you are kept in the loop about the details. It will be sooner rather than later as time is of the essence. - Elizabeth  ¶ 10:25 PM 0 comments