Advertisement

May 24, 2013

MA House Passes Health Care Cost Containment Bill

The Massachusetts House overwhelmingly approved its version of legislation designed to cut the cost of medical care, passing the measure 148-7 after a full day of debate on June 5th. After it initially released a bill on May 4th (see our prior alert), House leadership, including the original author, Representative Steven Walsh, accepted feedback and recommendations from various stakeholders. A minimally revised bill emerged from the House Ways & Means Committee on May 30th and House legislators then offered 275 amendments to that updated version.

One noteworthy provision included in the House Ways & Means Committee redraft bill would double the number of patients who can join an accountable care organization to 800,000, a change that would provide some relief for large networks. The redraft also places the independent authority that would set guidelines and monitor compliance envisioned in the original legislation under the Executive Office of Health and Human Services. House leaders say the bill will save our state health care system $160 billion over the next 15 years.

This week the House disposed of all 275 amendments in one day of debate but did not make significant changes to the provisions proposed in the original bill.

Highlights of the Floor Debate

  • Rejection of an amendment that would have eliminated the mandate in the bill that capped medical spending at a rate below the gross state product;
  • Rejection of amendments that would have expanded the excise tax on cigarettes to other tobacco products, and eliminated the sales tax exemption on soda;
  • Adoption of an amendment that would require accountable care organizations to serve children with specialty care needs;
  • Rejection of amendments that would have eliminated the so-called luxury tax and the surcharge on providers and insurers;
  • Adoption of an amendment that would have allowed small businesses to reduce their fair share assessments by excluding employees who have qualifying coverage from a spouse, parent, veterans’ plan, Medicare or Medicaid;
  • Adoption of an amendment that includes accountable care organization in the listed entities, as it pertains to unfair methods of competition;
  • Rejection of an amendment that would have required health plans to offer a basic health plan devoid of coverage mandates; and
  • Rejection of an amendment that would have created a task force to review health care executives’ compensation and bonuses.

The House and Senate bills (see our previous House and Senate alert) contain key differences, most notably over how much discretion and control the health care industry itself may have to contain costs. The House favors more oversight, albeit with a limited number of appointed boards, whereas the Senate approach allows for more leeway in the development of solutions to reduce and control costs but arguably creates more bureaucracy to monitor it. Senate President Therese Murray has also been clear that she will not support a luxury tax on hospitals.

What’s Next?

The House and Senate will appoint a six member conference committee in the coming days to negotiate these legislative differences. Ultimately, the House and Senate must give an up-or-down vote on the conference committee’s report and deliver that final product to Governor Patrick prior to the conclusion of the current legislative session on July 31st.

ML Strategies will monitor the work of the conference committee and provide updates as the legislation progresses.

* * *

Please click on the links below to see copies of the House and Senate bills.

House Bill 4070

Senate Bill 2260

©1994-2013 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Vice President of Government Relations and Counsel

George is Vice President and Counsel at ML Strategies, and an associate at Mintz Levin.

617-348-4722

About the Author

Vice President, Legislative Affairs

Julie is Vice President of Legislative Affairs at ML Strategies.

Julie has more than a decade of government affairs and legislative counsel experience. She clerked for several justices in the Superior Court of Massachusetts. Julie served as legal counsel to the Committee on Criminal Justice and as legal counsel to the House Committee on Ways and Means in the Massachusetts House of Representatives. Julie also served as general counsel, legislative liaison, and spokesperson for the Retailers Association of Massachusetts. Prior to joining ML Strategies, she held an of counsel position...

617-348-1885

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.