By Peter Marcus, DENVER DAILY NEWS
Republicans and Democrats are at odds over a bill that is likely soon to be on its way to the governor that would require local health insurance companies to offer maternity and contraceptive coverage.
Democrats look at House Bill 1021 as providing necessary health coverage to women during such important life moments as pregnancy.
Republicans view the legislation through a fiscal eye, arguing that the bill would make coverage more expensive for everyone.
HB 1021’s Senate sponsors — Sens. Joyce Foster, D-Denver and Betty Boyd, D-Lakewood — say they are protecting mothers and their children by ensuring proper medical care and treatment through individual and group insurance policies.
“This really changes the paradigm of health care for women in Colorado,” said Foster. “Pregnancy will not be considered a pre-existing condition any longer. This is a huge step for women, their families and Colorado.”
The House bill passed through the Democratic-controlled Senate Thursday on second reading. It must pass through the Senate one more time before being sent off to the governor for his signature.

Would measure raise rates?
Republicans say the measure would only raise rates for all Coloradans because insurance companies would be forced to pass the mandated cost along to consumers.
“Whenever we put a mandate on medical insurance, we make it more expensive,” Sen. Nancy Spence, R-Centennial, simply stated in a news release.
Critics are also concerned that the measure would result in younger, healthy individuals dropping their coverage because they don’t want to pay higher premiums. They say that leads to a downward spiral in which costs increase while fewer consumers are covered.
But Democrats point out that health insurance providers in Colorado don’t provide a maternity package, which puts families at risk. Supporters of the legislation point to several statistics, including one in five women in Colorado did not receive prenatal care during their first trimester, making them three to four times more likely to die from complications; lack of proper care during pregnancy can lead to the decreased health of the child; the percentage of low-weight births has increased to 9 percent in Colorado; and one out of every eight babies born in Colorado is premature.
“Although women are making strong advances in something as complex as politics, they are not finding parity when it comes to something as basic as health care,” said Boyd.

In other coverage:

The Colorado Senate gave initial approval Thursday to a bill requiring individual health insurance plans to cover maternity care and contraception, sparking objections from Republicans who said the mandate would make health care more costly, The Denver Post reports. And state Sen. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, called the bill “morally repugnant” for requiring coverage of IUDs and so-called morning-after pills, both of which can prevent implantation of a fertilized human egg into the uterus. Lundberg called those contraceptive methods abortion-inducing.

By Debi Brazzale, COLORADO NEWS AGENCY

State lawmakers are poised to debate a bipartisan measure this week that supporters say will create incentives to stay healthy and opponents say will create yet another tier of winners and losers in the country’s much-debated health-care system.

House Bill 1160 expands current law to allow small-group and individual health-care markets to offer wellness incentive programs in exchange for a discount on insurance premiums that larger group markets, self-funded and government plans are already allowed to offer. Under the measure, an additional discount could also be allowed for individuals who actually participate in a wellness program.

Yet, Kelli Fritts, Colorado associate director for the American Association of Retired Persons, contended the bill is not about wellness programs but rather is another way for insurance companies to play gatekeeper. Fritts said the measure will exacerbate a market that needs more healthy people to join to stave off rising premiums.

“This bill is a way to segment the health insurance market—to cherry pick and lemon drop,” said Fritts.  “The goal that AARP is seeking is to bring everyone into the pool and this bill doesn’t bring everyone into the pool.”

House Sponsors of the bill, Rep. Joe Rice, D-Littleton, and Rep. Amy Stephens, R-Monument, say the proposal simply provides an incentive that creates a win-win for both the insured and the insurance company.

“We know that participation in an exercise program will reduce risk and reduce cost–which is where the self-interest of the insurance company comes in,” said Rice. “In order to induce people to (participate),  they are willing to give the discount.”

Wellness programs can include things such as smoking-cessation classes, gym memberships or nutrition programs that are voluntary for the insured, but the financial incentive, said Rice, is key.

“When you say, ‘Here’s an incentive,’ some people will participate that don’t now.  It’s good for their own health, but it kind of becomes a part of the office culture or in your own mind when participating in these programs,” said Rice

The market that the AARP is concerned about is the 50-to-65 year-olds who are too young for Medicare but old enough to have pre-existing conditions or emerging health needs.  The bottom line, said Fritts, is that financial incentives based on health outcomes should not be tied to premiums.

“We support community ratings where everyone is paying the same rate regardless of health status and claims history.  If the industry is given the ability to underwrite–or set the criteria—based on wellness programs the losers will be older people,” said Fritts.

The bill is scheduled for debate by the full House as early as Tuesday.

By Debi Brazzale, COLORADO NEWS AGENCY
A panel of four women and three men talked gender Thursday at the Capitol as they considered a measure that would tell health insurance companies that they can no longer charge women higher rates than men for their premiums.
The proposal passed, but only after a lively discussion on whether men or women ultimately get the short end of the stick from the insurance industry.
“The disparity in the cost of health insurance between men and women is unacceptable, and correcting this inequity should be one of our top priorities,” said Sen. Gail Schwartz, D-Snowmass Village, who introduced House Bill 1008 in the Senate alongside Sen. Morgan Carroll, D-Aurora.
Flying in from Washington D.C. to testify for the bill before the Senate Health and Human Services Committee, Lisa Codispoti from the National Women’s Law Center said the bill is needed because of the tenuous status of national health reform, a pending version of which also would ban gender-based rating for health coverage.
“Women and men of Colorado should not have to wait on Congress to remedy this harmful and discriminatory practice,” said Codispoti.
Skeptics of the legislation, however, have noted that women in key age groups simply are more expensive to insure given their health-care needs, and disparities in rates reflect that reality.
Under questioning by the committee’s Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield, Codispoti acknowledged that there is indeed a statistical difference between men’s and women’s health-care needs. However, she said the statistics are not fair to the individual.
“It is true that women throughout their lifetime do use more health care services than men, but what we find troubling about gender rating is that it makes an assumption that because you belong to a particular group that you will use more health care services,” Codispoti said. She also said rates charged to women varied greatly from state to state and policy to policy.
Sen. David Schultheis, R-Colorado Springs, said that dynamic also reflects market realities.
“We should allow the free market to find the price based on it’s own criteria … this is not the Soviet Union here,” said Schultheis.
Schultheis contended the bill would discriminate in reverse.
“What you’re doing is discriminating against men, and that’s not fair. Why should men have to pay a higher premium when on balance they require less health care … over their lifetime?” asked Schultheis.
Carroll contered that in a truly merit-based system, being gender-blind is more fair because it leaves it up to claims history and health status and that to add anything beyond that is a gender surcharge.
“Under this bill anyone that uses more will pay more and anyone that uses less will pay less,” said Carroll.
Erin Benett, the Colorado organizer of 9 to 5, the National Organization of Working Women, said the status quo is flat unfair.
“No one should be able to charge a person more for a product simply because of gender. Being a woman is not a pre-existing condition,” said Bennett.
Mitchell pressed Benett on her premise that gender should not be a factor in determining the price of an insurance product.
“Should auto insurance companies be allowed to charge more for boys than girls?” asked Mitchell, in reference to the much higher rates that are applied to the policies of teen-age male drivers than to teen-age female drivers.
Mitchell nevertheless was the lone Republican joining the Democrats on the committee in voting for the bill, saying that he will now consider introducing a bill that prohibits gender discrimination for auto insurance and that he anticipates their support. The other two men on the committee, both Republicans, voted against the bill.

Kristen Parker’s 30-year sentence for exposing nearly 6,000 people to hepatitis C wasn’t enough closure for one infected patient — Lauren Lollini, The Denver Post reports. On Sunday, Lollini joined state representatives outside the Capitol to announce legislation aimed at preventing another such incident. Reps. Sara Gagliardi and Debbie Benefield, both Arvada Democrats, announced two bills they plan to introduce this week with the goal of closing the gaps that prolonged the investigation into Parker’s case.

In other coverage:

TheDenverChannel.com: Colorado lawmakers announced new legislation to help keep patients safe from people like Kristen Parker, the surgical technician convicted of exposing thousands to hepatitis C at Rose Medical Center.

Colorado Republicans’ top health-care bill is coming before a House committee today. But don’t expect you’ll ever hear about it again this year, The Denver Business Journal reports. HB 1163, sponsored by Rep. Cindy Acree, R-Aurora, would authorize the Commissioner of Insurance to enter into multi-state agreements so that insurance policy issuers can offer individual health-care plans in Colorado that are regulated by other states. The issuer must be financially viable and ensure proper access to health care in Colorado through the plans, and Colorado would have the sole responsibility to ensure the plan complies with its insurance laws.

Lawmakers Monday passed a bill in the Colorado House that would require health insurance companies to include prenatal and birth control in all plans offered to women on the individual health care market, The Colorado Independent reports. Sponsored by Denver Democrats Beth McCann and Jerry Frangas, the bill was stripped of this strong provision in committee weeks ago in order to move it onto the floor. House watchers expected to see a fight on the floor but the bill passed on a voice vote, with only minimal questioning from conservative Monument Republican Amy Stephens, who asked if the bill would now cover so-called Plan B contraception, the “morning after” pill, which some see as akin to abortion.

By Peter Marcus, DENVER DAILY NEWS
U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet has become Colorado’s next Democratic delegate to encourage the Senate to use a parliamentary maneuver known as reconciliation to achieve a public option in health care reform legislation.
Bennet sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., urging the Senate to pass the public option through reconciliation, a parliamentary process that is not subject to filibuster and requires only 51 Senate votes for approval.
The Denver Democrat’s letter comes just weeks after Congressman Jared Polis, D-Boulder, sent a similar letter to Reid.
Supporters of the public option point out that the Congressional Budget Office has said that a public option could result in cost savings of more than $25 billion. Bennet says a public option would provide Americans with a “low-cost alternative” to private insurance and “improve market competitiveness.”
“Too many people in Washington believe that just saying you are for health care reform is a substitute for actually getting something done,” said Bennet. “While some choose to stall progress under the pretext of principle, more and more Americans are losing the health care coverage they need.”
While Bennet — who is facing a tough election to maintain his Senate seat appointed by Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter — says there is widespread public support for a public health insurance option, his Republican critics disagree.
Norton lashes out at Bennet
If Bennet is to win the Democratic primary against former House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, he would likely face Republican frontrunner Jane Norton. She lashed out at Bennet Tuesday for suggesting the “controversial tactic” of reconciliation.
“Sen. Bennet has reliably demonstrated a disconnect with Coloradans on the issue of health care, but today’s letter crossed the line into outright contempt for their wishes,” Norton said in a news release. “Reconciliation was designed for budget and tax issues, and to use it now to circumvent the legislative process is dishonest to the American people and, frankly, just plain wrong.”
Bennet, however, points out that there is “substantial Senate precedent” for using reconciliation for health care issues, such as was the case recently with passing an expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program.
“Coloradans deserve better than political leaders who care more about the special interests than the people we’re supposed to represent,” said Bennet. “They deserve a Washington that is more concerned about the thousands of dollars being lost by families struggling to pay for coverage than the millions being spent by special interests intent on stopping reform in its tracks.”
Norton fired back, taking a jab at Bennet’s appointment by Ritter.
“The only ‘public option’ I support is the public’s option to finally subject Michael Bennet to a vote of the people in November,” said the former lieutenant governor of Colorado. “He has said he is prepared to lose his seat over his health care vote, and he certainly moved one step closer today.”

Too many doses of medications are being dumped into Colorado’s water supply when they could be used to help needy patients in this state and beyond, two lawmakers and a nursing home administrator said Sunday morning on the west steps of the state Capitol, The Denver Post reports. “It’s just a colossal waste of money, and it’s damaging to our environment,” said Maxine Roby, administrator at the Rowan Community, a 64-bed nursing home in Denver.

Small businesses in Colorado won’t get a break this year on their health insurance premiums — or from new mandates that insurance brokers say are contributing to the higher rates, the Denver Business Journal reports. On Feb. 4, the House State Affairs Committee killed House Bill 1154 in a 6-5 vote.

Colorado First Lady Jeannie Ritter was in Montrose County Friday touring the school district’s two school-based health clinics and recognizing members of a mental health emergency response team. Ritter’s platform since her husband, Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter, was elected into office in 2006 has been to raise awareness and advocate for mental health issues, the Montrose Daily Press reports.