« Go Back   « Go Back
Summary of Question 5

This proposed law would set up a state Health Care Council to review and recommend legislation for a health care system that ensures comprehensive, high quality health care coverage for all Massachusetts residents. Until the Council decided that such a system had been set up, the proposed law would prohibit the conversion of non-profit hospitals, health maintenance organizations (HMOs), and health insurance firms to for-profit status. The proposed law would also require health insurance carriers to provide certain rights to patients and health care professionals, starting January 1, 2001.

The Council would recommend laws to set up, and would decide whether laws had been passed to ensure, a health care system that provides:

• barrier-free access to health care services;

• patients' freedom to choose their health care providers, get second opinions, and appeal denials of care;

• health care professionals' freedom to act solely in the best interests of their patients;

• affordable coverage, with cost increases no greater than national averages;

• preserving and increasing the quality of care and encouraging research;

• at least 90% of all premiums to be used for patient care, public health, and training/research, and no more than 10% for administrative costs, with simpler paperwork and administration;

• a prohibition of financial incentives that limit patient access to health care, and limits on incentives for inappropriate care.

The Council would include 17 members representing health care and other organizations. It would hold public hearings, study proposals, and make recommendations to the state Commissioner of Public Health and the Legislature on laws and other steps needed to set up a system meeting the above requirements. The proposed law would also create a special legislative committee, including legislators and members of the Council, to make recommendations by September 30,2001, for laws to set up a system meeting the above requirements by July 1, 2002.

Starting January 1, 2001, the proposed law would require health insurance carriers to guarantee certain rights to their insured patients and to health care professionals. These rights would include;

• patients' right to choose all of their health care providers, subject to the approval of a freely chosen primary care provider who has no financial incentive to deny care, and subject to payment of a reasonable extra fee to see a provider outside the carrier's network;

• health care professionals' right to make medical decisions in consultation with the patients;

• patients' right to transitional insurance coverage when they are under going a course of treatment from a health care provider whose contract with a carrier is being terminated;

• patients' right to medically necessary referrals to specialists;

• limits on and disclosure of contracts between carriers and health care providers that create financial incentives to delay or limit care or provide inappropriate care;

• health care professionals' right to discuss health benefit plans with insured patients and to advocate on behalf of their patients;

• carriers could not terminate health care providers' contracts without cause;

• patients' right to receive emergency services, subject to authorization procedures, and to be reimbursed when they pay cash for emergency services from providers not affiliated with their carrier;

• utilization review procedures that meet specific standards, including patients' right to appeal to the Commissioner of Public Health;

• in any year at least 90% of a carrier's Massachusetts revenue must be spent on Massachusetts health care, and a carrier that spent more than 10% for non-health care purposes would have to refund the excess to its insured patients. Each carrier would have to report its revenues, premiums, and expenditures to the state Commissioner of Insurance every year.

The proposed law states that it would not interfere with any existing contract, including contract terms (such as automatic renewal or option clauses) that may go into effect after January 1, 2001. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the rest of the law would stay in effect.

2000 - Berkshire County - Question 5Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 3, 2000?

View as: # | %

Berkshire County Results
« Return to Aggregate Results

 
City/Town Ward Pct Blanks Total Votes Cast
Totals
33,727
21,711
4,976 60,414
Adams
 
2,121
1,511
301
3,933
Alford
 
142
104
19
265
Becket
 
416
306
62
784
Cheshire
 
949
638
95
1,682
Clarksburg
 
381
405
41
827
Dalton
 
1,840
1,227
183
3,250
Egremont
 
518
220
38
776
Florida
 
193
134
19
346
Great Barrington
 
2,014
1,124
321
3,459
Hancock
 
222
119
17
358
Hinsdale
 
530
277
68
875
Lanesborough
 
765
536
124
1,425
Lee
 
1,488
987
247
2,722
Lenox
 
1,520
1,073
280
2,873
Monterey
 
316
144
37
497
Mount Washington
 
53
26
4
83
New Ashford
 
89
44
16
149
New Marlborough
 
447
185
43
675
N. Adams
 
2,981
2,170
509
5,660
Otis
 
365
213
61
639
Peru
 
204
144
19
367
Pittsfield
 
10,386
6,676
1,766
18,828
Richmond
 
526
389
51
966
Sandisfield
 
234
88
36
358
Savoy
 
149
136
10
295
Sheffield
 
961
529
120
1,610
Stockbridge
 
766
401
117
1,284
Tyringham
 
123
77
18
218
Washington
 
173
126
7
306
W. Stockbridge
 
500
254
61
815
Williamstown
 
2,076
1,294
262
3,632
Windsor
 
279
154
24
457
County Totals
33,727
21,711
4,976 60,414