newsobserver.com projects - physical therapy - Comments

Re: Chiropractors benefit is back

sci22 — Fri, 08 May 2009 12:28:37 -0400

Hopefully the amendment will be changed back to the way it was before so this problem can be fixed.

Re: Chiropractors benefit is back

Isaac136 — Fri, 08 May 2009 12:19:17 -0400

Then it should die.

Re: Chiropractors benefit is back

sci22 — Fri, 08 May 2009 12:12:25 -0400

Unfortunately an amendment was added to this bill on Thursday that changed the limit of the co-pay to the same as the state health plan which was $55 and removed the language that would have allowed it to be the same as primary care physician (usually $25-30). The $55 chiropractic / physical therapist co-pay in the state plan was better than the original $70 proposed but still too high for most people to afford. We all realize the state plan still needs a massive overhaul so this may have not been a good template to work a bill amendment from.

So where it stands now with this amendment the chiropractic co-pay will remain high and individuals that elect to utilize this care will continue to pay for virtually 100% of their "health benefit".

The entire purpose of this bill was to set the co-pay to a reasonable amount that people can afford.

Many feel the high co-pay tactic is simply a way for insurers to discourage their insured from using a benefit. BCBS noted that it would cost them 20 million dollars. Even if that number was true we all know they have plenty of profit margin to pay for it.

If this bill passes as is, it is yet another win for insurers and loss for chiropractic and physical therapy patients.

Re: Chiropractors benefit is back

Isaac136 — Fri, 08 May 2009 08:52:24 -0400

We need this benefit. This is about affordable health care. With the care of a chiropractor I am back on the job almost immediately -- without having to fill an expensive prescription -- whereas if I turn to more conventional medicine, I'm out for days and can accomplish nothing because of the painkillers.

Re: Chiropractors benefit is back

sci22 — Fri, 08 May 2009 08:36:35 -0400

I for one am glad to see co-pays will be set to a reasonable fee for chiropractic care. What most don't realize is that co-pays have gone so high($50-$60) for chiro care that the amount is almost the same as the visit. That means that chiropractic patients are asked to pick up almost all of the cost of the visit and the insurer pays virtually nothing. We must keep in mind that chiropractic is a different type of specialty. Whereas a visit to a cardiology specialist may require one or two visits that may cost over thousands of dollars in testing a chiropractic patient may require five or six visits that cost fifty or sixty dollars a visit. In these poor economic times who should we be more concerned about, high profiting insurance companies or people that need health care to be affordable?

Re: Chiropractors benefit is back

tboard47 — Thu, 07 May 2009 20:44:34 -0400

terrible and in these poor economic times

bad timing vote NO

Re: Health Plan narrowly passes key vote

johnmayer76 — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 02:00:30 -0400

If you are uninsured and does not have insurance, you should check out the website http://UninsuredAmerica.blogspot.com - John Mayer, California

Re: Health Plan narrowly passes key vote

mcmillf — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 09:03:25 -0400

Totally absurd. You must rally together to investigate and re-organize the planning and administrative handling of state health insurance. This plan is unacceptable, overpriced and minimizes healthcare for selective groups. I am retired and cannot afford continued increases each year, while insurance coverage decreases. If you keep on, no one will want to work for the State. Freezing longevity, adding monthly premiums, and increasing premiums, co-pays and deductibles add to the budget of families. Many of these families are trying to put food on the table, pay power bills, cloth kids and buy medicines. We cannot afford to pay these outrageous prices. You are pricing your health plans out of business, and also out of state employment. Many families don't have a 2nd partner working for the state, and many of those spouses are unemployed. And the government wants us to spend money to boost the economy. RIGHT? No longer does the state offer incentives to recruit good hardworking employees. You get what you pay for too. Those incentives, affordable incentives, are what draws the better employees. Could be you're killing it. Please reconsider other ways to re-write this before it is too late for the current employees who have given dedicated years of service and for the younger employees who may be considering other lines of employment because they see no future in the STATE.

Re: Health Plan narrowly passes key vote

beachbum474 — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 21:04:11 -0400

So what will you do when you FIRE 700 TAX PAYERS from the State Government and the younger state employees who survive the onslaught get priced out of the health care plan and turn to private insurance? Are you counting on losing all that revenue going into the SHP in future years? How will that lost revenue be made up? Will you just raise the premiums and co pays again? THINK THINK THINK! Plan you know at least 3 or 4 moves ahead instead of getting stuck at the first move. I'm a state employee (if my bias has not given me away by now) and I am a young one with a family. I can not afford the SHP any longer and the state WILL be losing my premiums and co pays. I pay around ~$500 per month x 12 = ~$6000 per year lost revenue to the SHP from just 1 employee. On top of that because I am paid so little (college degree professional paid poverty wages), we qualify for state government programs which we will start taking advantage of. Now add that into your cost for your seemingly inability to plan.