Mar 022016
 

I am sure in the next few days, John Moorlach will be beating his chest about his short-sighted vote against MCO Financing Reform. No major group called this a tax increase, in fact, quite a difference. Once again, John Moorlach got it wrong.

WHAT THEY’RE SAYING:

MCO FINANCING REFORM PACKAGE

“… [T]here is no concrete evidence that any costs that may result from the MCO will be passed onto ratepayers.”

                – David Wolfe, Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association – February 18, 2016 Memo

 

“What we understand at this point is that the proposal has been crafted so as not to impact ordinary folks.”

– Jon Coupal, Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association – February 15, 2016 Blog Post

“[the proposed MCO deal would] preserve critical funding for the state’s Medi-Cal program without undermining the affordability of commercial health care purchased by employers, families, and individuals.”

                – California Chamber of Commerce – February 12, 2016 Letter

“Failure to adopt an MCO tax could undercut both HJTA and Republican positions on later tax battles likely to occur in 2016 including the highly charged issue of transportation funding and gas taxes…”

                – David Wolfe, Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association – February 18, 2016 Memo

“[L]egislators and Brown should make this deal, allowing developmental services to take one big step back from the brink of collapse.”

                – Los Angeles News Group – February 19, 2016 Editorial

“The taxpayers in this instance make out like bandits. … This is a tax hike in name only.”

                – George Skelton – February 22, 2016 Column

“This legislative package is critically important. The parts that help create doctors, provide care for the developmentally disabled and ease burdens on rural hospitals reflect priorities every one of our elected leaders should share.”

                – Fresno and Modesto Bee – February 27, 2016 Editorial

“The bill includes two tax relief provisions. These relief provisions, coupled with other safeguards, protect the affordability of health coverage while allowing the state to draw down considerable federal funding.”

                – Nick Louizos, California Association of Health Plans – February 10, 2016 Testimony

“It’s unfortunate that vulnerable people become the subject of horse-trading, but that’s the way of the Capitol.”

                – Sacramento Bee – February 22, 2016 Editorial

“[T]hese proposals reduce other industry taxes by an equal or greater amount, leaving no rationale for health plans to raise rates due to this legislation.”

                – National Federation of Independent Business – February 16, 2016 Letter

“However, it is more likely [Governor Brown] will cut programs drastically, including those priorities important to Republicans.  This would likely include funding for the important developmentally disabled community.  This will only lead to greater pressure on Republicans to increase taxes[.]”

                – David Wolfe, Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association – February 18, 2016 Memo

 

“This is a fair and balanced proposal that brings important revenue to the Medi-Cal program, won’t negatively impact the purchasers, and have an overall positive impact on the marketplace.”

                – Teresa Stark, Kaiser Permanente – February 10, 2016 Testimony

“This not only benefits Medi-Cal providers and recipients, but ensures additional cost shifting to commercial payers will not occur.”

                – Anthem Blue Cross – February 15, 2016 Letter

“In rural areas, where [distinct part skilled-nursing facilities] often provide essential infrastructure to the overall hospital operation, the loss in revenue attributable to these cuts will undermine the financial viability of the hospital as a whole.”

                – Barbara Glazer, California Hospital Association – February 19, 2016 Letter

[The proposed deal] also offer needed tax relief for employers and individuals purchasing health coverage.”

                – California Association of Health Plans– February 10, 2016 Letter

“This proposal will make a difference to people with disabilities and their families and to those who have dedicated themselves to this system.”

                – The Alliance– February 17, 2016 Letter

“After thoroughly analyzing the latest model and the accompanying legislative language, we are confident the proposal is a balanced approach that will not negatively affect our purchasers, while generating important revenue to support the Medi-Cal program.”

                – Kaiser Permanente– February 9, 2016 Letter

“This proposal stabilizes the [developmental disability] system by providing a funding increase, and lays the groundwork for reform by way of a rate study.”

                – Assoc. of Regional Center Agencies – February 17, 2016 Letter

 

“We are confident that the proposal represents a balanced approach that we believe will not negatively affect our purchasers[.]”

                – HealthNet– February 8, 2016 Letter

“[The deal preserves] critical funding for the state’s Medi-Cal program without undermining the affordability of commercial health care purchased by employers, families, and individuals.”

                – CA Chamber of Commerce, Bay Area Council, Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, North

Orange County Chamber of Commerce, Rancho Cordova Chamber of Commerce,

Southwest California Legislative Council – February 16, 2016 Letter

“[I]f a solution is not found for reforming the structure of this provider tax, health and human services programs will receive the brunt of the budget cuts that would result, as it is discretionary and developmental services historically receive the majority of those cuts.”

                – Lanterman Coalition – February 2016 Letter

Leave a Reply