Visitors from the Other Room

Welcome - Seriously, you are welcome here. So, while you're here checking me out, let's chat a bit about how we got to this point and why I feel so strongly about this issue.

Sometime in the late '90's insurance companies started to discontinue or severely limit prosthetic coverage with total disregard for transparency. It's easy to see how this slipped under the radar for a while, but then came the outrage.

We all know the importance of having health insurance. We pay premiums so that, in the event of a catastrophic illness or injury, there is a safety net. For amputees, some joker moved the net at the last second. Many people have to resort to loans, dipping into dwindling retirement savings, a second or third mortage or just doing without. Think of the trickle down effect this has on the economy and the long-term effects on health. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that I will generate more revenue for the state if I continue to work and stay active vs. going on the public dole and getting the proper prosthesis from state Medicaid. That's what's so crazy-making about all of this! It's this short-sightedness that has adds to the fiscal mess that's currently unfolding. Those states that have already passed parity laws have come to this realization.

So how did these parity laws come to be? How do insurance mandates happen? Sure, folks would like to blame the outraged amputee, the one-legged whiner stomping their singular foot - but - frankly, you brought it on yourself. When private insurance openly practices discrimination, you may save money in the short haul, but in the end, laws will be passed to mandate fairness.

Mandate fairness. It's kind of sad, isn't it?

More Obstacles

BCBS of KS sent me a letter last week saying they would expedite my second level appeal if I would "respond to this inquiry and send your reply to the expeditor." What inquiry? "This" inquiry. Was there a question, a query, a search for information or the truth? No. Word for word, that's what it said. I tried pressing the letter to my forehead but my Carnac the Magnificent skills have been lacking of late.

It's moot anyway when you consider the State of the State. (click link to read article and see video) There are some interesting numbers in this article - KS has the worst benefits dollar-for-dollar, 40th in the nation for pay and there's a State Employee Union? I didn't know that! Now there's talk of not getting paid. This looks more like attention-getting political wrangling but I'll let you know on Friday.

Fighting for parity is hard enough but during a recession is nearly impossible. It seems every small gain is countered by a mammoth setback.

A trip to Topeka

I went to Topeka, KS today to attend a meeting of the Health Care Commission. This should be mandatory for anyone trying to make sense of how health plans work (or don't) for you. The reason it should be mandatory is because you can see both sides of the problem. On the one hand, the state has X-dollars set aside to provide basic health care to the insured state employees. Given budget cuts and the dismal economic outlook, keeping money in the state coffers to cover health care costs is going to be a challenge. I can appreciate that even more after this meeting. But, let's cut to the chase.

Question: Should the state cover electronic prosthetic components? There was a lot of discussion surrounding this. It boiled down to either removing the electronic exclusion from the contract OR...putting a cap on prosthetics in general. That would have been the kiss of death. What about all those other whacky exclusions like comfort, convenience, etc.? They didn't come up. Some key questions that might give a person insight into the thought process are: Does Medicare and Medicaid cover this? (yes) Are there limits to who might receive such a prosthesis? (no direct answer here - that surprised me because there ARE) Is there an alternative approach, i.e., a limit (cap) on prosthetics? (strong arguments against this approach).

Cut! Rewind....

Prior to this discussion, it turns out that there was a KS Senate bill that required KHPA to conduct a study and determine whether to include bariatric surgery under medical coverage. A Senate bill (SB511) mind you! I don't know whether to stand here slack-jawed or pat myself* on the back for accomplishing the same thing for prosthetic parity without a Senate Bill. I'm not going to dwell on this except to say that there are now two issues concerning the 2010 health care contract - whether to include bariatric surgery and electronic prosthetic components. No decision was made today on either, but, to the credit of KHPA, they are going to convene a technology committee of prosthetists and medical doctors to learn more about prosthetics, how they operate, who needs them and why so they will no longer be in the "dark ages of coverage." (Their words, not mine.) Ultimately, the decision will be that of the Health Care Commission and I expect that decision will be made by May.

I know you might be thinking, "What's taking so long and how is that going to help you?!" Well, it's the government and look at the bright side - we didn't have to have a Senate Bill to get KHPA to do some research and convene a committee to look at fair coverage for amputees. As for me and my wonderful C-leg, it's probably too little, too late, to do me any good. Still, if we can accomplish prosthetic parity for state employees, then we've built the foundation for state wide parity.

I will say that I feel significantly less crazed, less like I'm trying to paddle up the Missouri river with a fly swatter. That's a good thing.

I'm going to go play some tunes now.

*this includes all of you - the friends, colleagues, senators, representatives and fellow amputees and above all, Dave, for giving up a perfectly good day to sit through a meeting!