Community Catalyst Blog Post "States to Decide Medicaid Eligibility for Same-Sex Couples"

http://www.communitycatalyst.org/blog/states-to-decide-medicaid-eligibility-for-same-sex-couples    

States to Decide Medicaid Eligibility for Same-Sex Couples

Posted on: November 25 2013 10:48 am 

The Supreme Court’s decision on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was met with much elation by advocates pursuing marriage equality. The federal government has been working, since that momentous decision was released, to clarify just how it impacts various types of health insurance coverage. Most recently, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released guidance about how states should make most Medicaid eligibility determinations* for same-sex married couples. This guidance lets states choose whether or not to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples in determining adults’ eligibility for Medicaid.

In states already allowing same-sex marriage (regardless if passed by court ruling, legislative action, or popular vote), this should be a non-issue: states will likely recognize all married couples for benefit determination. The real question is whether states that do not allow same-sex marriage will recognize the marriages of couples who live in a state without marriage equality but were wed in a state that allows it.

It’s important to note that no matter what states do about Medicaid eligibility, the IRS will recognize marriages of same-sex couples regardless of where they live (as long as they were married in a state that allows it) when determining eligibility for tax credits in the Marketplaces for private health insurance. The CMS guidance essentially lets states decide whether or not to align their Medicaid eligibility rules with these Marketplace rules.

What’s at stake

Eligibility for Medicaid is based on two factors that could be influenced by whether a person is considered married: household income and household size. So in states that have not chosen to recognize legally-married, same-sex couples, those couples will sometimes be eligible for different insurance options than different-sex couples at the same income level. Also, some same-sex couples will be required to sign up for two different insurance plans rather than being on one plan together.

For example, imagine a legally-married, same-sex couple: John and Jeff. John earns $16,000 a year, or 139 percent of the federal poverty limit (FPL) if John were considered a household of one. Jeff earns $4,000 a year, or about 35 percent FPL for a household of one. They live in Arizona, where same-sex marriage is not legal. But, they were married in Massachusetts, where it is.

If they were a different-sex couple, Arizona would automatically treat them as a household of two with an income of $20,000 (or 129 percent FPL.) At that income, they would both be eligible for Medicaid; they would be able to enroll in a Medicaid plan without any premiums.

But, the CMS regulations allow Arizona to determine how to qualify this family. If Arizona chooses to recognize John and Jeff’s marriage from Massachusetts, they will qualify in the same way a different-sex couple does, and find them Medicaid-eligible. But, if Arizona chooses not to recognize their marriage, only Jeff would qualify for Medicaid (since he earns 35 percent FPL as an individual). John, who earns 139 percent FPL as an individual, earns just a bit too much for Medicaid when he’s considered a household of one. He may qualify for tax credits on the Marketplace, but he will be on a separate plan from his spouse and will likely have to pay premiums for that plan.

Even though in this example, John and Jeff’s marriage recognition resulted in lower costs, and Medicaid eligibility, there may be other circumstances where Jeff and John encounter higher health insurance costs as a married couple. But, this is not different from the various situations any married couple—gay  or straight—regularly  faces. At the end of the day, if we believe that all married couples at the same income level should be eligible for the same financial assistance, and if we believe that same-sex married couples should have the same opportunities as different-sex couples to be on the same plan as their partner, then we need state Medicaid departments to recognize the marriages of legally-wed same-sex partners.

Next steps

All states will have to submit a State Plan Amendment to specify whether or not the state recognizes same-sex marriages for the purposes of Medicaid and CHIP eligibility. Details about the timing of that State Plan Amendment are still forthcoming, but it’s never too soon to check in with your state Medicaid Department to figure out how it plans on handling this decision.

*An important caveat: This guidance only applies to Medicaid applicants whose eligibility is based on Modified Adjusted Gross Income, which is most low-income people applying as parents or childless adults. Guidance governing eligibility determinations for others (such as people who need long-term services and supports, people who qualify based on being blind, disabled or elderly, people in foster care, etc) is forthcoming.

ACA "Obamacare" Outreach Education presentations From NAPPR

Good Afternoon all,

As you may be aware Native American Parent Professional Resources (NAPPR) Inc., in Albuquerque, has been contracted, by NM HIX, as the Umbrella organization to provide outreach, education, and enrollment services to NM Native American Communities.

NAPPR has subcontracted with several Pueblos, Tribes and Consortium agencies to provide those services on their home communities. Part of the contract is to hire Native American Healthcare Guides that perform presentations in communities and provide onsite enrollment into Medicaid and NM HIX.  A Healthcare Guides role is to provide free impartial assistance in enrolling into the appropriate healthcare program, on an individual basis.

To set up an appointment with a Healthcare guide in your Community or from NAPPR call Toll Free 1-855-241-8137, or visit www.bewellnm.com

To schedule an outreach/educational event in your community contact Colinda Vallo 505-933-0079 or CVallo@nappr.org



Navajo Nation individuals for enrollment assistance contact:

Farmington:

Sheri Spencer
Irene Shorthair
Total Behavioral Health Authority
1615 Ojo Ct
Farmington, NM 87401
505-564-4804

Gallup:

Emily Wilson 505-863-6842
Stella Garcia 505-863-7266
Daisy 505-863-7130
College Clinic
2111 College Dr.
Gallup, NM 87301

NM HIX NA Advisory Committee Meeting UPDATED!

The Next NM HIX Native American Advisory Committee meeting will be on December 4th at the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center, starting at 1:00PM ending at 4:00PM

I believe that this is an open meeting.

For more information on NM HIX outreach activities visit www.nmhix.com and view the calender of events.

Feds extend Health Insurance Exchange enrollment by 8 Days

Health Law’s Enrollment Period Is Extended by 8 Days

By MICHAEL D. SHEAR and ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Friday that it would give people eight more days, until Dec. 23, to sign up for health insurance coverage that takes effect on Jan. 1 under the new health care law.
Julie Bataille, a spokeswoman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said officials recognized that consumers might need more time to compare and select health insurance plans because of the technical problems that have plagued the online federal insurance marketplace since it opened at the beginning of last month.
The administration also said it would delay the 2015 insurance enrollment period for the Affordable Care Act by a month, pushing it beyond the 2014 midterm elections.
The decision means that people who have not signed up for insurance by the end of March will have to wait until Nov. 15, 2014, to apply again. The second enrollment period was previously scheduled to begin on Oct. 15, 2014.
It also means that insurance companies will have an extra month to set their rates for 2015 after taking into account who has signed up for coverage during the current enrollment period. The companies will now have until the end of May to set their rates for the following year.
“This gives them more time to assess the pool of people who are getting insurance through the marketplaces and make decisions about what rates will look like in the coming year,” said Jay Carney, the White House press secretary.
The decision to move the 2015 open enrollment beyond the midterm elections, which will be held Nov. 4, could help Democratic candidates who have been worried that another debacle involving the health care law’s website, HealthCare.gov, would hurt them just as they are facing voters.
Officials said the reason for the change was to give insurance companies more time to evaluate the success of the new insurance marketplaces, which have been dogged by technical and public relations problems.
The more young and healthy people who sign up during the initial enrollment period, the lower the rates will be the following year. Officials said they expected those customers to wait until the last minute to sign up and wanted to give insurance companies more time to set their premiums.

Fact Sheet on allowing people to keep thier current policies

FACT SHEET: New Administration Proposal To Help Consumers Facing Cancellations

“I've assigned my team to see what can we do to close some of the holes and gaps in the law, because my intention is to lift up and make sure the insurance that people buy is effective, that it's actually going to deliver what they think they're purchasing. Because what we know is, before the law was passed, a lot of these plans people thought they had insurance coverage and then they'd find out that they had huge out-of-pocket expenses or women were being charged more than men. If you had preexisting conditions, you just couldn't get it at all.

“And we are proud of the consumer protections we've put into place. On the other hand, we also want to make sure that nobody is put in a position where their plans have been canceled, they can't afford a better plan even though they'd like to have a better plan. And so we're going to have to work hard to make sure that those folks are taken care of.” – President Barack Obama, November 7, 2013

Today, the majority of Americans have employer-based health insurance that is already providing them quality health care coverage. The Affordable Care Act strengthens employer coverage while creating new protections for people in the individual market – preventing them from being charged more because of a pre-existing condition or getting fewer benefits like mental health services or prescription drugs.

The new Health Insurance Marketplace will help millions of hard-working Americans find affordable health insurance. Premiums are, on average, 16 percent below what was originally projected. Nearly one in four insurers offering health plans through the Marketplace are selling to individuals for the first time. And a recent study found that an estimated 17 million Americans can get discounts on their premiums through the Marketplace, through tax credits.

The law aimed to make Marketplace coverage optional for the less than 5 percent of Americans who have individual market coverage that they want to keep. Health plans that consumers had when the law was passed in 2010 are “grandfathered” in and do not have to adopt most of the new consumer protections. But, in order to provide consumers with better protections and coverage, health insurers in the individual and small group markets have to adopt consumer protections for any new plans purchased after 2010. In some instances, they are adopting those protections by canceling current policies and replacing them with new and sometimes more costly plans.

Many consumers receiving these cancellation letters will be able to find a better deal with financial assistance or better coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplace, but we know a small slice of these consumers may not be eligible for a plan at a more affordable price. Last week President Obama directed his team to explore administrative actions that could be taken to help these consumers who are receiving cancellation letters.

To meet that commitment, today, HHS is using its administrative authority to:

·         Allow insurers to renew their current policies for current enrollees without adopting the 2014 market rule changes. This will give consumers in the individual and small group markets the choice of staying in their plan or joining a new Marketplace plan next year. HHS will consider the impact of this transitional policy in assessing whether to extend it beyond 2014.

·         Require insurers offering such renewals to ensure consumers are informed about their options. Specifically, insurers offering these renewals must inform all consumers who either already have or will receive cancellation letters about the protections their renewed plan will not include and how they can learn about the new options available to them through the Marketplaces which will offer better protections and possible financial assistance.

·         To protect against the potential impacts this change will have on premiums, HHS will adjust the temporary risk corridor program which is designed to stabilize premiums as changes are implemented.

Whether an individual can keep their current plan will also depend on their insurance company and State insurance commissioner – but today’s action means that it will no longer be implementation of the law that is forcing them to buy a new plan. Turnover is high in the individual market, with 50 to 67 percent of enrollees staying for a year or less. This means that the number of people in these bare-bones policies will decrease over time. As such, this action provides a smoother transition in a market that’s generally used as a bridge by most consumers. And, this action will not allow these older plans to be sold to new customers in 2014, which would undermine the Marketplace and drive up premiums for millions of hard-working Americans. In short, this administration solution will give consumers more information and choices, including keeping their old plans. As he has said since he signed the bill into law, the President is willing to work with members of Congress in either party on good-faith, constructive solutions that strengthen the law by pursuing the same goals as this Administrative action and do not seek to undermine or repeal the law as a whole

ABQ Journal Article "Canceled health plans bad idea from the start"

Canceled health plans bad idea from the start

By Winthrop Quigley / Journal Staff Writer | November 12, 2013

 

A nontrivial number of owners of individual health insurance policies will be compelled by the Affordable Care Act to purchase new policies that are more expensive and provide more benefits. The old policies don’t provide what the ACA defines as adequate coverage, and they allow insurance companies to refuse to sell insurance to people with pre-existing medical conditions, a practice Obamacare outlaws.

Some of these customers are angry they will pay more for coverage (though some will pay less), some don’t like a government that dictates to them the coverage they must buy, and some don’t like paying for coverage they don’t expect to need.

Many more are justifiably angry that they were repeatedly and inaccurately assured by the president of the United States that if they liked their insurance they could keep it.

Before we all rush to man the barricades, though, remember these are the same health plans that precipitated a different kind of outrage a few years ago when companies like Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Mexico and Presbyterian Healthcare Services proposed completely justifiable 20-plus percent premium increases.

I should also point out that owners of these plans periodically call the Journal to complain that they just found out their pregnancies, their cancers or their bum knees are not covered, and they now face horrendous medical bills.

As near as I can tell, individual plans were first offered in New Mexico by Blue Cross and Blue Shield in 2005, to be followed by Presbyterian and Lovelace Health Plan. Together, the companies cover about 54,000 people through individual plans.

A couple of retired industry executives told me a while back that the individual plans were a big mistake. They lose money and customers go ballistic when care is denied and prices are raised.

Unfortunately, to talk about individual insurance requires a detour into some pretty deep weeds.

Insurers need large pools of customers to control risk, by more accurately anticipating the costs they will incur and, therefore, the price they must charge. That’s just basic statistics. Most of us are in such big pools, through our employers, Medicare or Medicaid, or retirement systems.

Pre-ACA individual pools aren’t big or predictable. Individuals drop in and out of the pools all the time. They join when they lose a job or start their own company, and they drop out when they go to work for someone else. They join when they worry about being sick; they drop out when they are healthy. They join when they marry; they drop when they divorce.

The companies tried to mitigate the risk through medical underwriting, which ACA has made illegal. If you had a bum knee, the individual insurance policy you could buy would most likely exclude knee treatment, assuming the company would sell you insurance at all. Nobody covered pregnancy and childbirth, to my knowledge.

Now 54,000 people are enough to create a decent-sized insurance pool, but these folks aren’t in a single pool and won’t be until they are pooled through the Affordable Care Act. They are in dozens of different pools because of what is known as the durational effect.

Over a fairly short period of time, maybe two or three years, a pool of individuals starts consuming more care, medical costs go up, premiums follow, and younger, healthier customers start to drop coverage because they don’t use it and it’s starting to cost too much. With only older and sicker customers in the pool, the costs really start to climb.

The plans then open up new medically underwritten pools to attract what they hope will be less-costly customers. These pools start demanding more care over time, costs rise, premiums rise, younger and healthy people drop coverage, and the cycle begins again.

A Journal reader who complained about losing his individual insurance to the ACA was part of that cycle. He got his first Presbyterian individual plan in 2008 and paid $172 a month for it. It cost $240 in 2010. He dropped his old policy and bought a new one as part of a different pool in 2011. That policy cost him $133. It was up to $142 last year.

As much as some of these customers like their current insurance, even if the ACA allowed them to keep it, the premium inevitably would become unbearable. That is a simple actuarial reality.

The resentment individual plan members have that they now must have coverage they won’t use is a little hard for those of us with group insurance to credit. I have been helping to pay the cost of my colleagues’ medical care for years, and they have been helping to pay for mine.

Owners of individual policies have been paying other people’s bills, too, even if they don’t know it. The pregnant woman delivers her baby, the cancer patient seeks treatment, the heart attack victim is admitted to the hospital whether they have insurance or not.

What they can’t pay out of pocket, the rest of us – even people with individual policies – pay in the form of higher insurance premiums, taxes, a less efficient and more costly health care system, unsuccessful children and a less productive workforce.

Health care always has been a common cost and will be as long as we refuse to let people die in the street.

UpFront is a daily front-page news and opinion column. Comment directly to Winthrop Quigley at 823-3896 or wquigley@abqjournal.com. Go to abqjournal.com/letters/new to submit a letter to the editor.

ABQ Business first Article "Lovelace Health Plan selling to BCBSNM"

Reported by,
Dennis Domrzalski



Lovelace Health Plan, an institution in New Mexico health care, has agreed to sell itself to Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Mexico in a deal expected to close Dec. 31, Lovelace Health System President Ron Stern told employees Monday.
Lovelace Health System will continue to own its six hospitals and its physician network, Stern said. Additional details on the why and how of the deal continued to trickle out Monday.
In a letter sent to Lovelace Health Plan employees Monday that was obtained by Albuquerque Business First, Stern said the sale was necessitated in part by LHP’s failure earlier this year to win a contract to be one of the state’s Medicaid insurers.
“Earlier this year we learned that LHP was not selected to participate in New Mexico’s Medicaid program, Centennial Care,” Stern wrote. “As a result, we faced the loss of 84,000 Medicaid enrollees or 40 percent of our membership. We chose to work with Molina [Healthcare of New Mexico] to transition our members to their plan, which allowed Medicaid recipients continued access to our hospitals and clinics.
“Since that time we carefully evaluated all options that would allow us to continue serving our health plan members while minimizing the financial impact of not being included in Centennial Care. Without economies created by a larger membership, strategically working with Blue Cross and Blue Shield is the best option for our organization.”
Blue Cross and Lovelace officials have scheduled a 1 p.m. news conference to announce the sale, BCBSNM said in a news advisory. Officials from the two companies declined to comment before the news conference

NY Times "Under Health Care Act, Millions Eligible for Free Policies"

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/04/business/under-health-care-act-millions-eligible-for-free-policies.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hp

Under Health Care Act, Millions Eligible for Free Policies 11/4/13

Millions of people could qualify for federal subsidies that will pay the
entire monthly cost of some health care plans being offered in the online
marketplaces set up under President Obama’s health care law, a surprising
figure that has not garnered much attention, in part because the
zero-premium plans come with serious trade-offs.
Three independent estimates by Wall Street analysts and a consulting firm
say up to seven million people could qualify for the plans, but federal
officials and insurers are reluctant to push them too hard because they
are concerned about encouraging people to sign up for something that might
ultimately not fit their needs.
The bulk of these plans are so-called bronze policies, the least expensive
available. They require people to pay the most in out-of-pocket costs, for
doctor visits and other benefits like hospital stays.
Supporters of the Affordable Care Act say that the availability of
free-premium plans — as well as inexpensive policies that cover more —
shows that it is achieving its goal of making health insurance widely
available. A large number of those who qualify have incomes that fall just
above the threshold for Medicaid, the government program for the poor,
according to an analysis by the consulting firm McKinsey and Company.
The latest analysis was conducted by McKinsey’s Center for U.S. Health
System Reform, whose independent research has been cited by the federal
government and others.
“The whole point of the law was not only to cover the uninsured, but so
people didn’t have to make choices between food or drugs, or going to the
doctor or dentist,” said Karen Davis, a health policy expert at the Johns
Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “It’s what it is designed to
do.”
Many insurers tried to price their least expensive plans so they would
become free or nearly free with the addition of subsidies that are set
based on a person’s income and the cost of a midlevel, or silver, plan.
Independence Blue Cross in Philadelphia has four plans that are free to
some customers. But the company, along with other insurers, has been
careful not to publicize its free coverage for fear of alienating
customers who will need to pay more.
“We’re not advertising zero dollar,” said Brian Lobley, a senior vice
president at Independence Blue Cross. But the company is promoting monthly
premiums in the $20 to $30 range, he said.
The Obama administration has also stressed affordability over coverage
with no monthly charge, frequently saying that the cost of coverage will
be less than a monthly cellphone bill for many consumers. Officials at the
Department of Health and Human Services would not comment on the McKinsey
analysis, saying in a statement that the goal of the health law was to
provide a range of options for people with differing needs and budgets.
The analysis found that five million to six million people who are
uninsured will qualify for subsidies that will be greater than the cost of
the cheapest bronze or silver plan. A million more people with individual
insurance could also be eligible, according to McKinsey, although
estimates of the size of the market for private individual insurance vary
widely. None of the people in the analysis qualify for Medicaid.
The availability of zero-premium plans may make the deal especially
enticing to the healthy young people the marketplace needs to succeed,
said Mark V. Pauly, a professor of health care management at the
University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. “This is such a good deal
that you’d have to believe you were immortal not to really pick it up,” he
said.
Although they vary in their design, bronze plans generally cover about 60
percent of a person’s medical costs. All plans, including bronze, must
cover standard benefits like prescription drugs, maternity care and mental
health treatment.
The availability of the zero-premium plans varies across the country.
McKinsey found that about 40 percent of the uninsured in Missouri will be
able to select a no-cost bronze plan, for example, compared with 2 percent
of the uninsured in New Jersey.

It is impossible to know who will actually sign up, and whether they will
choose a zero-premium plan.
For many people, paying slightly more for a silver plan may be a much
better option, experts said. Ninety percent of those who will have the
option of buying the no-cost plans make less than 250 percent of the
federal poverty level, which is $28,725 for an individual, and $58,875 for
a family of four. People earning below those thresholds are eligible for
the most generous assistance, but only if they choose a silver plan.
About a million of those who will qualify for free coverage will be able
to buy a silver plan for no monthly cost. McKinsey, which is releasing a
report about the new insurance marketplaces, estimates that the cost of
silver plans for the people who qualify for a zero-premium bronze plan
will range from $40 to $50 a month.
“They may be getting zero premiums, but they’re also leaving a lot of
money on the table if they don’t enroll in a silver-level plan,” said
Sabrina Corlette, a professor at Georgetown University’s Health Policy
Institute.
All plans, including bronze policies, limit annual out-of-pocket costs to
$6,350 for individuals and $12,700 for families. But insurers and
advocates said out-of-pocket costs — even those under that limit — can be
daunting to people with low incomes.
For Mark and Elisabeth Horst, both artists in Albuquerque, the risks of
signing up for a bronze plan were outweighed by the prospect of getting it
free. The Horsts, who make $24,000 a year between them, qualified for $612
in monthly subsidies, but the cost of a bronze plan was $581 a month.
“We’re in good health,” Mr. Horst said.
Besides, he said, they can always switch to a better plan next year. “At
this point, it’s a little bit of a gamble.”
Not everyone selects the cheapest option. Dante Olivia Smith, a lighting
designer from Manhattan, learned that federal subsidies would allow her to
buy a bronze plan for $24 a month.
“It was astounding,” she said. “I almost started crying, and called my mom.”
In the end, however, she went with a silver plan for $91 a month that
included dental and vision coverage. Ms. Smith, who is 30, said she opted
for the more comprehensive plan because of her work, which requires her to
climb ladders and use power tools.
“If I had a different job, for 24 dollars a month I would have been like
‘Woo-hoo!' ” she said. “But the reality is, I know what my risks are in my
life.” Its estimate, based on an analysis of premiums for plans offered in
the marketplaces in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, is in line
with two other estimates, by Credit Suisse and Morgan Stanley.
The McKinsey researchers also found that about half of the people eligible
for zero-premium plans were under 39 and uninsured. The Obama
administration has been emphasizing the affordability of its plans for
young people, a critical group because their participation in the
marketplaces will help keep overall premiums low.
It is impossible to know who will actually sign up, and whether they will
choose a zero-premium plan.
For many people, paying slightly more for a silver plan may be a much
better option, experts said. Ninety percent of those who will have the
option of buying the no-cost plans make less than 250 percent of the
federal poverty level, which is $28,725 for an individual, and $58,875 for
a family of four. People earning below those thresholds are eligible for
the most generous assistance,

Washington Post Article "Healthcare.gov Troubles Don’t Change Public’s View Of Health Law, Poll Finds"

Healthcare.gov Troubles Don’t Change Public’s View Of Health Law, Poll Finds. – WASHINGTON POST. The public has a dim view of how the government has rolled out the health care law so far, but those stumbles have not changed people’s overall opinions of the law itself, a new poll finds.

By Jordan Rau | Kaiser Health News, Published: November 1

The public has a dim view of how the government has rolled out the health care law so far, but those stumbles have not changed people’s overall opinions of the law itself, a new poll finds.
The Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 48 percent of people think the federal government has done a poor job of implementing the law, and another 32 percent give the government an “only fair” review. (KHN is an editorially independent program of the foundation.)

Only 14 percent gave the federal government good or excellent reviews for the rollout of the law.  The public was slightly less critical about state government management of the law, but even there, 63 percent said their state had done either a poor or “only fair” job.
Republicans were overwhelmingly critical of the federal government efforts, but even a majority of Democrats gave the government bad or middling reviews.
The pollsters did not ask specifically about people’s views on the rollout of the online marketplaces where many people have had trouble enrolling in new plans since they opened at the start of October. More than half of the public was following the technical problems of healthcare.gov closely, but that was fewer than said they were closely following the government shutdown, the economy or efforts to track down Syria’s chemical weapons.
So far, the snags in those marketplaces have not altered the public’s divided view of the law, although the survey was concluded before the deluge of reports on people getting cancellation notices from their insurers. Forty-four percent said they oppose the health care law and 38 expressed support for it, reflecting the same split in previous monthly surveys. Forty-seven percent want to expand it or keep it as is, while 37 percent want to repeal it. The split remains highly partisan, with Democrats backing the law and Republicans opposing it.
The poll found that more people are reporting that they have seen or heard advertisements related to the law, A third of the public said they saw or heard advertisements explaining how people can get insurance, double the number that said they saw or heard that kind of ad in September. About the same percentage say they saw ads supporting the law or criticizing it.
The informational ads are considered an important component of the effort to get people to purchase insurance or to enroll in Medicaid, the joint federal-state health program for low-income people. Despite the increase in attention, 44 percent of people still say they do not have enough information about the law to understand how it will impact them and their families.
The pollsters interviewed 1,513 adults from Oct. 17 through 23. That was after the federal government shutdown had ended but before the Republican-controlled House started holding hearings on malfunctions in the healthcare.gov website. The poll’s margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.

Article "NM Fighting to Save Behavioral Health"

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – October 31, 2013

Contact: Christi Fields at (505) 604-0221, or Christi_Fields@hotmail.com.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->

                 

NEW MEXICANS FIGHTING TO SAVE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH

 

Arizona Firms Lay off New Mexico Behavioral Health Employees

 

The legacy of the shutdown of many of New Mexico’s behavioral health agencies by the State’s Human Services Department (HSD) continues to reap tragic results.  A former therapist with a Valencia County behavioral health agency has reported staff layoffs are causing trauma to mental health clients, at a time when New Mexico leads the nation with the highest rate of mental illness.

 

 Ed Church, who was hired by Valle del Sol, the Arizona firm chosen to take over operations of Valencia Counseling Services last summer, says Valle del Sol has “laid off three counselors, leaving effectively two others to see 380 clients.”

.

Nine layoffs are also reported in Raton and Espanola.  In Roswell, the employee count has diminished from 87 pre-takeover to 39 at present.  Therapists report that diminishing employee numbers statewide have severely impacted client service. 

 

Church says: “There are clients in substance abuse relapse, recently discharged from the hospital and those that will run out of meds on a daily basis who won't be seen for admittance into the services because there are even fewer therapists available to schedule new intakes.”

 

The former therapist says Valle del Sol states the reasons for the layoffs are “revenue shortfalls”.  He questions how this could be, since the NM Human Services Department has committed $18 million dollars to underwrite the transition to the Arizona firms, and is paying Arizona executives up to $300/hour to manage the transition.  He further states: “I thought we were guaranteed three month positions. I also believe Valle del Sol received state monies for a three month transition process.”

 

“This travesty,” says Church, “continues to create trauma and is a slap in the face to mental health clients who won't have any transition or termination interviews. Their appointments, I was told, would simply be cancelled.” 

 

The shutdown of New Mexico’s behavioral health agencies was triggered last summer by a $4 million audit alleging “possible fraud”, yet to be proven.  The action has affected 30,000 clients coping with mental illness, alcoholism and substance abuse. 
 
It is believed by behavioral health advocates that although HSD alleges a 90% rehire rate, the layoffs may be a precursor to similar actions in other agencies since many former employees, like Church, were hired on a 90-day basis.
 
For more information on the shutdown and its effects, go to YouTube/New Mexico Behavioral Health.