2007 - Texas Border Coalition urges Lt. Gov. Dewhurst to support expansion of CHIP health insurance
By ELHIU DOMÍNGUEZ
and
DAVID A. DÍAZ
Efforts to make it easier to qualify for, and remain on, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) is in the hands of Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who is being urged by the Texas Border Coalition to support House Bill 109, a measure that could help reverse the increase in the number of uninsured children in Texas.
Rep. Aaron Peña, D-Edinburg, is a joint author of HB 109, which also in co-authored by the majority of the Texas border legislative delegation in the House.
CHIP is health insurance designed for families who earn too much money to qualify for Medicaid, yet cannot afford to buy private health insurance, according to the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. CHIP enrollment fees and co-payments are based on the family’s income. Enrollment fees are $50 or less per family for each six-month term of eligibility and most co-payments for doctor visits and prescription drugs range from $3 to $10.
The Texas Border Coalition is an alliance of elected leaders and economic development officials representing more than 2.1 million residents who live on the Texas side of the border with Mexico.
El Paso County Attorney José R. Rodríguez, chairman of TBC’s Committee on Border Health, has delivered a letter in behalf of TBC to Dewhurst requesting his support to expand medical coverage for children under the CHIP program.
In his letter, Rodríguez requested Dewhurst to “please lead the Texas Senate in passing comprehensive legislation this session that simplifies the CHIP enrollment process.”
The letter also suggest that, in exchange for the implementation of yearly renewals, a system could be set up to closely monitor those applicants with incomes near the limits imposed by the federal government, reducing the likehood of families with earnings 200 % above the poverty level from remaining enrolled in the program.
Rodríguez added that expanding coverage of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (“CHIP”) is a wise decision, because “it saves local tax dollars, helps education and improves our state’s economy.”
TBC contends that only Dewhurst’s strong support can assure that a similar bill filed in the Senate is brought up for a vote before the legislative session comes to an end. In the past weeks, Dewhurst has expressed his opposition to any bill that would allow children to apply every year instead of every 6 months as it is currently required.
However that particular change is considered key to increase the number of children enrolled in the program.
Since September 2003, when the 6 month re-enrollment provision was adopted, the number of children covered under the program declined more than 35 % of the total. The decrease affects particularly border communities such as El Paso, who now have the highest rates of uninsured children among all Texas counties.
Besides negatively impacting children’s health, high rates of uninsured hurts local communities in many ways, Rodríguez said. It costs counties and hospitals millions of dollars in paying for unnecessary emergency room services; it costs the school districts millions in absenteeism, and the state misses the opportunity to tap into hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding.
Dewhurst has expressed his willingness to work out a compromise to allow the annual renewals if a system is set in place to ensure that only eligible children are covered.
http://www.edinburgpolitics.com/2007/05/21/mike-allen-resigns-from-texas-border-coalition-to-battle-illness-will-remain-on-stc-board-of-trustees/
Showing posts with label House Bill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label House Bill. Show all posts
May 21, 2008
March 6, 2007
Nothing so onerous about proving CHIP eligibility Six-month renewal is no barrier to receiving benefit
Opinion-Editorial
Houston Chronicle
March 6, 2007, 9:33PM
Nothing so onerous about proving CHIP eligibility Six-month renewal is no barrier to receiving benefit
By BRENT CONNETT
Among the most outspoken critics of the six-month continuous eligibility requirement for the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) is state Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston. Coleman, a member of the House Public Health Committee, has argued that renewals every six months consttute a barrier to re-enrollment in CHIP.
A defense of six-month eligibility CHIP coverage, and the renewal process in general, is overdue.
The 326,231 individuals enrolled in CHIP as of December 2006 (the highest enrollment since September 2005) belie Rep. Coleman's argument. While that figure may not be as high as some would prefer, it is hardly the sign of a program plagued by barriers to enrollment.
Furthermore, statistics from the Health and Human Services Commission show that of all disenrollments in October 2006, almost one-fifth exceeded CHIP income limits. Another 17 percent had become Medicaid-eligible, which is indicative of income too low to qualify for CHIP.
While enrollment figures disprove arguments that more-frequent renewals are a barrier to receiving CHIP benefits, many CHIP advocates argue that the renewal application itself is a barrier.
In fact, most fields on the renewal application are precompleted for the applicant by HHSC with information that the applicant has previously provided. The applicant must complete only four sections of the form, including signature and date. The remaining three sections require applicants to list their home address, personal income and other assets such as vehicles.
To categorize this minimal effort as a barrier is nothing more than an attempt to tarnish a practical and necessary requirement to preserve the integrity of the program.
And what are critics of the program really saying about those who are required to complete the form? It is neither an aptitude test nor a skills test. It is a simple form that enrollees have completed in full once. Resubmitting a portion of the form every six months is an exercise in simplicity, especially since HHSC mails the mostly completed form to renewal applicants two months before its due date.
Nonetheless, the way some portray six-month eligibility, it's a wonder that any of the 300,000-plus participants were able to successfully apply for CHIP in the first place, much less renew their enrollment.
Thankfully, policy-makers have taken note of the flimsy arguments against six-month eligibility and allegedly complicated renewal forms. Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst has rightly stated that few Texans will "have a lot of sympathy for someone that can't fill out a two-page application form every six months."
By comparison, the state of Texas Application for Employment form necessary to apply for almost any job with a state agency is four pages long. None of it is filled in for the applicant, yet this form is not characterized as a "barrier" to public employment.
Furthermore, the CHIP-eligible are married, have driver's licenses and registered vehicles, and own homes, despite the paperwork requirements accompanying each. Tears wept for CHIP applicants are conspicuously absent for those filling out an application for, say, auto and homeowner's insurance.
Thirty-six percent of participants disenrolled last October no longer met the CHIP income requirement. That alone justifies asking beneficiaries of a taxpayer-funded program to verify their eligibility every six months.
This points to one of the guiding principles behind the 1996 welfare reform, instructive in the Texas CHIP debates: Public benefits should not be permanent entitlements, but temporary programs to help those with genuine and demonstrable needs. Six-month eligibility helps CHIP to target its intended beneficiaries' legitimate and pressing needs.
Connett is a policy analyst with the Texas Conservative Coalition Research Institute, based in Austin.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/4608159.html
Houston Chronicle
March 6, 2007, 9:33PM
Nothing so onerous about proving CHIP eligibility Six-month renewal is no barrier to receiving benefit
By BRENT CONNETT
Among the most outspoken critics of the six-month continuous eligibility requirement for the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) is state Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston. Coleman, a member of the House Public Health Committee, has argued that renewals every six months consttute a barrier to re-enrollment in CHIP.
A defense of six-month eligibility CHIP coverage, and the renewal process in general, is overdue.
The 326,231 individuals enrolled in CHIP as of December 2006 (the highest enrollment since September 2005) belie Rep. Coleman's argument. While that figure may not be as high as some would prefer, it is hardly the sign of a program plagued by barriers to enrollment.
Furthermore, statistics from the Health and Human Services Commission show that of all disenrollments in October 2006, almost one-fifth exceeded CHIP income limits. Another 17 percent had become Medicaid-eligible, which is indicative of income too low to qualify for CHIP.
While enrollment figures disprove arguments that more-frequent renewals are a barrier to receiving CHIP benefits, many CHIP advocates argue that the renewal application itself is a barrier.
In fact, most fields on the renewal application are precompleted for the applicant by HHSC with information that the applicant has previously provided. The applicant must complete only four sections of the form, including signature and date. The remaining three sections require applicants to list their home address, personal income and other assets such as vehicles.
To categorize this minimal effort as a barrier is nothing more than an attempt to tarnish a practical and necessary requirement to preserve the integrity of the program.
And what are critics of the program really saying about those who are required to complete the form? It is neither an aptitude test nor a skills test. It is a simple form that enrollees have completed in full once. Resubmitting a portion of the form every six months is an exercise in simplicity, especially since HHSC mails the mostly completed form to renewal applicants two months before its due date.
Nonetheless, the way some portray six-month eligibility, it's a wonder that any of the 300,000-plus participants were able to successfully apply for CHIP in the first place, much less renew their enrollment.
Thankfully, policy-makers have taken note of the flimsy arguments against six-month eligibility and allegedly complicated renewal forms. Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst has rightly stated that few Texans will "have a lot of sympathy for someone that can't fill out a two-page application form every six months."
By comparison, the state of Texas Application for Employment form necessary to apply for almost any job with a state agency is four pages long. None of it is filled in for the applicant, yet this form is not characterized as a "barrier" to public employment.
Furthermore, the CHIP-eligible are married, have driver's licenses and registered vehicles, and own homes, despite the paperwork requirements accompanying each. Tears wept for CHIP applicants are conspicuously absent for those filling out an application for, say, auto and homeowner's insurance.
Thirty-six percent of participants disenrolled last October no longer met the CHIP income requirement. That alone justifies asking beneficiaries of a taxpayer-funded program to verify their eligibility every six months.
This points to one of the guiding principles behind the 1996 welfare reform, instructive in the Texas CHIP debates: Public benefits should not be permanent entitlements, but temporary programs to help those with genuine and demonstrable needs. Six-month eligibility helps CHIP to target its intended beneficiaries' legitimate and pressing needs.
Connett is a policy analyst with the Texas Conservative Coalition Research Institute, based in Austin.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/4608159.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
