Showing posts with label Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Law. Show all posts

Monday, July 14, 2008

Harvard School of Public Health : Poll: More than 2/3 of Massachusetts residents support health reform law

Two years after the implementation of a health care reform law aimed at providing health coverage for nearly all Massachusetts residents, public support for the law remains high. According to a new poll by the Harvard School of Public Health and the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation, over two-thirds (69%) of Massachusetts residents support the law. Just over one in five (22%) oppose the law and approximately one in ten (9%) say they do not know enough about it to give an opinion. Since the law's passage in 2006, public support has increased slightly (69% in 2008 compared to 67% in 2007 and 61% in 2006). The poll was conducted June 10-23, 2008.

Other signs of public support for the law include the following:

  • 77% support providing subsidized coverage
  • 58% support requiring individuals to have insurance
  • 71% say the law has been successful at reducing the number of uninsured in Massachusetts

"The poll was taken during a time of much public discussion by legislators and policymakers about the high costs of the plan due to greater-than-expected enrollment numbers," said Jarrett T. Barrios, president of the Blue Cross Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation. "We think this shows the public's strong support for the law."

In the two years since the law's passage, approximately 350,000 Massachusetts residents have gained health insurance coverage.

A key component of the law is a mandate requiring all Massachusetts residents to have health insurance or pay a fine. A majority of the public support this individual mandate (58%) while slightly over one-third oppose it (35%). Support for the mandate has also increased slightly since the law was passed (58% in 2008 compared to 57% in 2007 and 52% in 2006).

The law requires businesses that employ more than 10 people to provide health insurance for their employees or pay a fine of up to $295 per employee per year. The public is highly supportive of this provision with three out of four expressing support (75%) and one in five opposition (21%). Support for this business requirement has also risen slightly since 2006 (75% support in 2008 compared to 70% in 2006).

Another key component of the law is providing free or subsidized coverage for Massachusetts residents whose incomes fall below 300% of the Federal Poverty Level ($63,600 for a family of four or $31,200 for an individual). Over three-quarters (77%) of the public support this subsidized insurance program while 18% oppose it.

Perceptions of Success of the Law

The poll finds that the public is aware of the law's success at reducing the number of uninsured in the state with 14% saying the law has been very successful and 57% somewhat successful. Fifteen percent say the law has been not very successful at reducing the number of uninsured while 4% say it has been not successful at all. Nine percent say they did not know enough to give an answer.

"These findings have implications for the national debate on guaranteeing health insurance for all Americans," said Robert J. Blendon, Professor of Health Policy and Political Analysis at the Harvard School of Public Health. "The poll shows that it is possible to cover most citizens and maintain public support. In most past cases of health reform, the public has become less supportive as it gained understanding of the trade offs involved. Massachusetts shows that this may no longer be true."

Perceptions of Who the Law is Helping and Hurting

The public is divided on whether the law is helping the uninsured. A little less than half feel the law is helping the uninsured (45%) while one-third (33%) feel the law is hurting them. Fourteen percent say the law is not having much impact on the uninsured. The poll finds a similar split between those who feel that poor people are being helped by the law (44%) versus those who believe the poor are being hurt (31%) or not being affected (14%).

The poll also asked about the impact of the law on other groups such as the middle class, young adults and large corporations. A majority of the public feel that these groups are not being affected by the law or are being helped. Small businesses are the only group that a majority of Massachusetts residents feel are being hurt (56%). This compares to 13% who feel small businesses are being helped or not impacted (19%).

Many Massachusetts residents report that the law has had a limited impact on them personally. Just over two-thirds (67%) say the law is not having much impact on them personally compared to 14% who feel they are being helped and 18% being hurt. In addition, most people do not believe that the law has caused their health care costs to increase. Just over a majority (54%) say that the law has not had an impact on what they pay for health care while 6% say their costs have gone down. One in three (33%) say their costs have gone up as a result of the law.

Perceptions of the Law Among Those Affected

The law is most likely to have directly affected people who lacked health insurance at some point during the past 12 months and those who have gotten insurance or changed their insurance due to the law. Among this group, the law in general and the mandate in particular receive less support (52% law, 37% mandate) compared to the total population (69% law, 58% mandate). Respondents directly affected by the law are also more likely to say the uninsured and themselves personally are being hurt by the law (50% uninsured, 44% you personally) compared to the total population (33% uninsured, 18% you personally).

Challenges for the Future

The success of the law at reducing the number of uninsured in Massachusetts has created financial challenges. More people than projected signed up for subsidized coverage through the state causing the program to be over budget. When asked about a number of ways to cover this budget shortfall, several funding options receive support from a majority of Massachusetts residents. Nearly three of four (74%) favor charging businesses that have numerous part-time employees receiving subsidized coverage. Seventy percent favor increasing the cigarette tax, while 61% favor requiring insurers to contribute to a fund for subsidized coverage. Just over a majority (53%) favor increasing the $295 penalty for businesses with more than 10 employees that do not provide insurance.

Several policy options for covering the budget shortfall would face strong public opposition including increasing the state sales tax (75% oppose). Two out of three Massachusetts residents (66%) are opposed to limiting the number of people who qualify for subsidized insurance and creating a waiting list. Just over a majority (56%) are opposed to cutting other government programs as well. A majority of the public (55%, with 33% strongly opposing and 22% somewhat opposing) oppose increasing premiums, co-pays, and deductibles for subsidized care. Forty percent (16% strongly favor and 24% somewhat favor) support such increases on consumers.

Despite these financing challenges, the poll finds that Massachusetts residents want the law to continue. When asked if they would like the law to be repealed, continued as it currently stands or continued but with changes made, almost three-quarters want the law to continue though most want changes made (70% continued with changes, 14% continued as is). The poll did not ask about how the public would like to see the law changed. Only 12% want the law repealed. This is true even among the 22% of Massachusetts residents who say they do not support the law (56% continued with changes, 39% repealed, and 4% continued as is).

Methodology

The Massachusetts Health Reform Survey was conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health and the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation. The survey was designed and analyzed by a team of researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health with input and review from the Foundation. This is the third survey in a series of surveys designed to measure the attitudes of Massachusetts residents towards the health reform law passed in 2006. The second survey also included the Kaiser Family Foundation as a research partner.

The instrument was approximately 15 minutes in length. Interviews were conducted with 1,015 randomly selected Massachusetts state residents, age 18 and older, via telephone by International Communications Research of Media, Pennsylvania. The interviewing period was June 10 to 23, 2008. The data were weighted to accurately reflect the demographics of the state's adult population as described by the U.S. Census.

When interpreting these findings, one should recognize that all surveys are subject to sampling error. Results may differ from what would be obtained if the whole Massachusetts adult population had been interviewed. The size of this error varies with the number of persons surveyed and the magnitude of difference in responses to each question. The sampling error is ±3.93 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.

###

About the Harvard School of Public Health

Harvard School of Public Health is dedicated to advancing the public's health through learning, discovery, and communication. More than 400 faculty members are engaged in teaching and training the 1,000-plus student body in a broad spectrum of disciplines crucial to the health and well being of individuals and populations around the world. Programs and projects range from the molecular biology of AIDS vaccines to the epidemiology of cancer; from risk analysis to violence prevention; from maternal and children's health to quality of care measurement; from health care management to international health and human rights. For more information on the school visit: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu.

About the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation

The mission of the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation is to expand access to health care. Through grants and policy initiatives, the Foundation works with public and private organizations to broaden health coverage and reduce barriers to care. It focuses on developing measurable and sustainable solutions that benefit uninsured, vulnerable and low-income individuals and families in the Commonwealth, and served as a catalyst for the pioneering Massachusetts health care reform law passed in 2006. The Foundation was founded in 2001 with an initial endowment of $55 million from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts; the endowment has since grown to $108 million. The Foundation operates separately from the company and is governed by its own 18-member Board of Directors. It is one of the largest private health philanthropies in New England and in 2007 was awarded the Paul Ylvisaker Award for Public Policy Engagement by the Council on Foundations.

Saturday, May 24, 2008

Law : The cost of repealing blue laws

Sarah H. Wright
News Office
May 21, 2008



Repealing America's blue laws not only decreased church attendance, donations and spending, but it also led to a rise in alcohol and drug use among people who had been religious, according to a new study by economists Jonathan Gruber of MIT and Daniel Hungerman of the University of Notre Dame.

Blue laws, or Sunday closing laws, refer to statutes that restrict certain activities on the Christian Sabbath. By the end of the 19th century, nearly every state had at least some law prohibiting certain activities on Sunday. The 1960s saw the beginning of push to repeal these laws in favor of commerce, although a few still remain on the books.

In their study, which appears in the May 2008 edition of The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Gruber and Hungerman show what happens when religious services must compete with shopping, hobbies and other activities.

To measure that competition, they studied the large number of states that repealed their blue laws over the past 50 years. (Massachusetts, for example, repealed its blue laws in 1994.)

"That policy-driven change in state laws allowed us to identify secular competition, as opposed to interreligious competition, which had been studied before," Gruber says. "We wanted to find out how people spent their time and money."

The economists used data from the General Social Survey on religious attendance and from the Consumer Expenditure Survey to show a very strong reduction in religious attendance and a decline in religious contributions once the blue laws were repealed. They found no change in other charitable activity, Gruber notes.

To confirm their findings and to complete the economic portrait, the authors also analyzed budget data for four major Christian denominations over the past 40 years. Church expenditures declined significantly since the repeal of the blue laws, they found.

Gruber and Hungerman did more than track how individuals chose to allocate their resources on Sunday once the malls were opened, a change widely celebrated from the early 1960s onward as freedom from old-fashioned ways.

They considered the negative consequences for individuals or society from loosening secular constraints and they found those consequences in behaviors associated more with Saturday night than Sunday morning.

Using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY) on consumption of alcohol and illegal drugs, the economists found that repealing the blue laws did lead to an increase in drinking and drug use.

What's more, they found that individuals who had attended church and stopped after the blue laws were repealed showed the greatest increase in substance abuse, Gruber notes.

Those effects have significant economic and social implications, the authors say.

The study, "The Church vs. the Mall: What Happens When Religion Faces Increased Secular Competition?" can be accessed online at http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/qjec.2008.123.2.831.


A version of this article appeared in MIT Tech Talk on May 21, 2008 (download PDF).