Managed Care In the Future For NH,

CONCORD – A pilot program that will spend nearly $9 million to bring managed care to the Medicaid program comes up for a vote tomorrow when Gov. John Lynch meets with the Executive Council.

Health and Human Services Commissioner John Stephen has proposed paying an Arizona company $8.9 million over three years to bring the managed care concept to Medicaid administration. Estimates are the program will save the state $5.2 million over two years after costs of running the program are deducted.

Medicaid is a program of state and federal medical benefits for low-income and disabled residents. The federal and state governments will split the cost of the contract, 50-50.

The pilot program would apply managed-care methods like those used in health maintenance organizations (HMOs) to Medicaid for families on welfare, known as TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) and the disabled. Annual spending on roughly 135,000 people enrolled in the two programs comes to $225 million, Stephen said in a letter to the council.

Schaller Anderson Medical Administrators of Phoenix was the winning bidder among three companies that expressed an interest in the state contract.

Other bidders were Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield and First Health Services Corp. of Glen Allen, Va.

"This is a program about keeping people healthy," Stephen said. "It gives people access to true medical homes. They'll have someplace to go whether it's a doctor or nurse practitioner, versus showing up at hospital in an emergency situation." Schaller faces hefty financial penalties if it does not succeed in cutting the state's spending on the Medicaid clients involved. Stephen said the company agreed to forego some or all of its administrative fees if the state does not save money under the contract.

The contract also allows the state to hold back 5 percent of its payments to Schaller Anderson. The company will earn rights to those retained payments as it meets performance targets set out in the contract.

Goals for the company include improving the state's delivery of care in a variety of areas, including vaccination rates among children, breast cancer screenings, prenatal and post-partum care for mothers, well-child and teen preventive care treatment, mental illness follow-ups and management of anti-depressant medications.

Stephen said that Medicaid clients involved in the pilot program would begin getting notices about changes in procedure within a few months.

Stephen has also proposed a $4 million, 18-month extension of its existing contract with First Health Services under which the company handles pharmacy benefits for Medicaid.

This is rapidly becoming Mass-lite. Look at what the 'Rats have introduced so far this year in addition to this horrific bill:

http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Amherst+ponders+%27The+Pledge%27+vs.+taxes&articleId=0e8ff577-1adf-4343-9edc-d8d56cd1f01b

"AMHERST – In March, voters in around a dozen New Hampshire communities will have an opportunity to let their elected officials know whether a broad-based tax is something worth discussing.
In Amherst, a petitioned article will appear on the warrant calling for a resolution to reject the "the pledge" to not support a broad-based tax that has been made by many elected officials in the state.
The text of the article will read:
"Resolved: We the citizens of Amherst, NH, believe in a New Hampshire that is just and fair. The property tax has become unjust and unfair. 'The Pledge' perpetuates a burdensome property tax. We urge our elected officials to reject 'The Pledge,' have an open discussion covering all options, and to adopt a revenue system that relieves the local property tax burden."
The resolution warrant article has been put forth by an organization called the Granite State Fair Tax Coalition, created by the New Hampshire Council of Churches, as part of its overall strategy to educate people about the problems associated with state's heavy reliance on property taxes."

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2006/12/26/poll_residents_oppose_gay_marriage/
"It's good timing to discuss this, in large part because of the changes in the Legislature" -- which recently switched from Republican to Democratic control for the first time in 130 years -- "but also because we've seen what has happened in Massachusetts," said Rep. James Splaine, the sponsor of one bill.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that gay couple had the right to marry. Splaine, D-Portsmouth, said the ruling has had none of the negative consequences predicted by its critics.
The poll numbers reflect attitudes similar to those in Vermont seven years ago before that state became the first to create civil unions and extend the rights and benefits of marriage -- but not the actual name "marriage" -- to same-sex couples, pollster Del Ali told the Monitor. Ali's Maryland-based firm conducted similar polls in Vermont in the late 1990s.
"The numbers are almost identical to where Vermont was," said Ali, who called New Hampshire voters "a little more tolerant on this issue" than Americans in general.
Splaine's bill would let same-sex couples register "domestic unions" that would give them the same rights as married couples. Splaine said his long-term goal is to have such unions recognized as marriages, but he does not think the state or the Legislature would support that now.

And let's not even get into the idiot from Exeter who already proposed a broad-based income tax (already withdrawn, but intends to reintroduce next year) or the marijuana legalization bill (by Rep. WEED, of all people).
God help us all.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.