States weigh health cuts; Mass. considers student health 'revision'

News outlets report on budget squeezes in Oklahoma and Florida and a proposed overhaul of student health insurance in Massachusetts.

Tulsa World: "Thousands of Oklahoma Medicaid patients would see benefits reduced as the state agency that manages the federal program grapples with required 5 percent budget cuts, according to a spending-cut proposal presented Wednesday to a House budget subcommittee. Proposals include limiting paid emergency room visits to three a year, eliminating outpatient adult therapies, such as speech and physical therapy, eliminating reimbursement for newborn circumcision and reducing the number of brand-name prescriptions from three to two for adults, said Mike Fogarty, chief executive officer of the Oklahoma Health Care Authority" (McNutt, 12/3). 

Health News Florida: "State Senate budget chief J.D. Alexander says he'll push to end free health insurance for state officials next session. Now House budget chief David Rivera says 'everything is on the table' in the search for savings, including the perk for nearly 27,500 state workers and lawmakers. Alexander, the budget chief in the Florida Senate, floated the idea that state lawmakers and some state workers should start paying for their health insurance last session. It went nowhere. But lawmakers' resistance may be hard to sustain in coming months as they confront the need for budget cuts and a looming deficit in the fund that pays for state workers' health insurance" (Fineout, 12/2).

The Boston Globe: "The [Gov. Deval] Patrick administration is considering an overhaul of the college student health insurance market intended to improve coverage for thousands of Massachusetts students who now have plans with limited benefits. The administration is looking at several steps, including encouraging schools to band together to purchase higher quality plans at a significant discount, and requiring insurers to offer more generous benefits to college students, who are not receiving the care they should for the dollars they spend, said Stephen McCabe, interim commissioner of the Division of Health Care Finance and Policy" (Lazar, 12/3).


Kaiser Health NewsThis article was reprinted from khn.org with permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser Health News, an editorially independent news service, is a program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health care policy research organization unaffiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Comments

  1. Mark Lyndon Mark Lyndon United Kingdom says:

    "Eliminating reimbursement for newborn circumcision" is hardly a reduction of benefits.  Quite the reverse.  I'd have paid a year's salary for my son to be left intact.

    Cutting parts off children's genitals is not health care.

  2. Frank OHara Frank OHara United States says:

    Infant circumcision costs The US nearly $1 billion annually.  A recent report found that we spend almost half that amount to correct surgical complications and other problems such as infections and adhesions.  $1.5 billion dollars could certainly be put to better use when we are cutting back on health care for children.

    The US is unique in this aspect being the only nation in the world that routinely circumcises infants.  The other developed nations have insignificant infant circumcision rates and enjoy equal or better health.  The American Academy of Pediatrician's Taskforce in infant circumcision reviewed 672 research projects during their last general meeting and could not find sufficient reason to recommend infant circumcision.  This replicates the experience of other countries.  For instance, Sweden has an excellent public healthcare program that is reportedly better than that in The US.  This allows them to maintain excellent records on such things as infant, child and adult circumcisions.  In Sweden, 17,999 men will go to their graves with their foreskins still firmly attached.  This lays waste to the common myth and misperception that the foreskin is a troublesome part of the anatomy that needs to be removed immediately after birth.

  3. Jim Jim United States says:

    Bang on, Mark. It is hardly a reduction in any kind of benefit. The procedure should be banned and practioners shoudl be imprisoned.

The opinions expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of News Medical.
Post a new comment
Post

While we only use edited and approved content for Azthena answers, it may on occasions provide incorrect responses. Please confirm any data provided with the related suppliers or authors. We do not provide medical advice, if you search for medical information you must always consult a medical professional before acting on any information provided.

Your questions, but not your email details will be shared with OpenAI and retained for 30 days in accordance with their privacy principles.

Please do not ask questions that use sensitive or confidential information.

Read the full Terms & Conditions.

You might also like...
Trump’s White House return poised to tangle health care safety net