By Irene Card, NorthJersey.com -- Continuing on our them of long term care insurance, today's article will explain to you just how long term care policies are structured. Long term care insurance is designed to pay you a daily or monthly benefit when you need substantial assistance for 90 days or more with two out of six activities of daily living: Eating, bathing, dressing, toileting, transferring, or continence.
Or, if you have a cognitive impairment such as Alzheimer's Disease or senile dementia, you will go into claim and be eligible to receive benefits. Most policies will pay wherever you hang your hat – at home, in an assisted living facility, adult day care center, nursing home (all three levels of care, i.e., skilled, intermediate or custodial). Most people buy long-term care insurance to protect their assets. When you are looking at $300 a day for care, it doesn't take long to spend down your hard-earned savings.
Can you imagine yourself writing out a check for $9,000 EVERY month? How long do you think you will be able to do that before you run out of money? Other reasons people buy long term care insurance are because they don't want to be a burden on their children or other family members, they want to remain independent and choose where they get the care they need.
Most folks want to remain at home for as long as possible; long term care insurance will help pay for the care you need at home. You purchase long term care insurance from a reputable insurance agent who represents financially strong insurance companies.
You want to purchase a policy from an insurance company who consistently gets high financial ratings from independent rating firms such as Standard & Poors, A.M. Best, etc. You also want to make sure you are comfortable with the insurance agent selling you the plan.
Ideally, you should be able to develop a "reasonably high trust level with the person who presents a coverage plan to you," according to the Health Insurance Association of America (HIAA). Your agent will make suggestions as to combinations of benefits that he/she feels may best meet your needs but you should feel very comfortable to ask to see other combinations of benefits as well.
Your life and or health insurance agent may be able to sell you long term care insurance. I say, "may" because although their state insurance license qualifies them to sell long term care, not all life and health insurance agents sell this product. If you do not have an agent, you are certainly welcome to call our office or look in the yellow pages under "insurance."
Long term care insurance is custom designed to meet your particular needs. You choose how much money you want the policy to pay you. Do you want $200 daily, $300? The higher the daily benefit, the higher the cost.
Currently, $250 seems to be the average that people purchase in this part of the country. After deciding how much you want the policy to pay, you choose an elimination period. I don't like that word.
Think of it as a deductible. How many days will you be paying benefits out of your pocket before the policy kicks in? 20 days, 60 days, 90 days? Some companies will begin to pay benefits on the very first day of care if you receive that care at home and if you use their care coordinator.
You get credit for all of these days so that if you choose a 90 day waiting period, for each day you are getting care at home, you get the credit toward the 90 days. If you are home for three or four months and get transferred to a nursing home, or assisted living facility, the policy pays immediately because you used up the waiting period while receiving benefits at home.
Your next decision is to determine how long the policy will pay benefits. Standard choices are two years, three years, five years, six years, 10 years or unlimited. Again, choosing a policy with unlimited benefits over a policy with a three year pay out period will increase the premium. What is best for you? What is your family history?
While statistics tell us that the average nursing home stay is 2.76 years, you also need to look at your family history to see the other side of the story. Certainly if we had a crystal ball and knew what the end of our life looked like, we would know exactly whether or not we even needed a long term care policy, and if so for how long. That not being an option for us, we must make informed decisions given the information at hand.
For our clients who are purchasing long term care policies when they are in their 50s, unlimited lifetime benefits are often appropriate. For individuals wishing to purchase long term care that are in their 60s and 70s, a 3 or 5 year benefit may be fine. Now you have to look at inflation protection. If you purchase a policy today that offers a daily benefit of $250, and you don't start collecting on the policy for 15 years, will $250 still be adequate? Not at all likely. Therefore, the final component to a good long term care policy is the handling of inflation.
We are seeing more and more combinations of inflation protection but the top three still are 5 percent simple inflation protection which means every year your $250 daily benefit will increase by $12.50. Or, you may choose 5 percent compounded which means every year your daily benefit goes up by 5 percent compounded.
At the end of 20 years, the $250 should be worth approximately $632 per day based on a 5 percent compounded inflation rider. The third option is to choose no inflation protection whatsoever. People that are in their mid to late 70s will frequently opt for this benefit but they will start out by choosing a higher daily benefit, building inflation protection into the policy from the very start.
The premium that you pay is based on the inflation protection option that you choose. If you choose no inflation, some companies will allow you to increase the daily benefit every year or two, based on the current inflation rate. The premium for this additional benefit will be based on your attained age.
You can see that a substantial amount of study is needed to determine which combination of benefits is best for you. Your agent can be very helpful to you with making the right choices. In addition to the features I listed above, many companies offer other riders that can be added (and sometimes they are automatically included) such as a "survivorship benefit" which means if husband and wife each pay their premiums for 10 years and there are no claims in the 10 year period, they continue to pay their premiums but when one of them dies, the policy is paid in full for life for the surviving spouse. This is a nice benefit. Another option might be to choose a "shared benefit" whereby if one of the partners uses up all of their benefits, they can use benefits from their spouse's policy. There are a lot of exciting choices to make with long term care insurance. The government has made it very clear to us that they have no intention of paying for our care so we must take this very seriously.
Monday, February 14, 2011
What is long term care insurance?
What is long term care insurance?
By Irene Card, NorthJersey.com -- Continuing on our them of long term care insurance, today's article will explain to you just how long term care policies are structured. Long term care insurance is designed to pay you a daily or monthly benefit when you need substantial assistance for 90 days or more with two out of six activities of daily living: Eating, bathing, dressing, toileting, transferring, or continence.
Or, if you have a cognitive impairment such as Alzheimer's Disease or senile dementia, you will go into claim and be eligible to receive benefits. Most policies will pay wherever you hang your hat – at home, in an assisted living facility, adult day care center, nursing home (all three levels of care, i.e., skilled, intermediate or custodial). Most people buy long-term care insurance to protect their assets. When you are looking at $300 a day for care, it doesn't take long to spend down your hard-earned savings.
Can you imagine yourself writing out a check for $9,000 EVERY month? How long do you think you will be able to do that before you run out of money? Other reasons people buy long term care insurance are because they don't want to be a burden on their children or other family members, they want to remain independent and choose where they get the care they need.
Most folks want to remain at home for as long as possible; long term care insurance will help pay for the care you need at home. You purchase long term care insurance from a reputable insurance agent who represents financially strong insurance companies.
You want to purchase a policy from an insurance company who consistently gets high financial ratings from independent rating firms such as Standard & Poors, A.M. Best, etc. You also want to make sure you are comfortable with the insurance agent selling you the plan.
Ideally, you should be able to develop a "reasonably high trust level with the person who presents a coverage plan to you," according to the Health Insurance Association of America (HIAA). Your agent will make suggestions as to combinations of benefits that he/she feels may best meet your needs but you should feel very comfortable to ask to see other combinations of benefits as well.
Your life and or health insurance agent may be able to sell you long term care insurance. I say, "may" because although their state insurance license qualifies them to sell long term care, not all life and health insurance agents sell this product. If you do not have an agent, you are certainly welcome to call our office or look in the yellow pages under "insurance."
Long term care insurance is custom designed to meet your particular needs. You choose how much money you want the policy to pay you. Do you want $200 daily, $300? The higher the daily benefit, the higher the cost.
Currently, $250 seems to be the average that people purchase in this part of the country. After deciding how much you want the policy to pay, you choose an elimination period. I don't like that word.
Think of it as a deductible. How many days will you be paying benefits out of your pocket before the policy kicks in? 20 days, 60 days, 90 days? Some companies will begin to pay benefits on the very first day of care if you receive that care at home and if you use their care coordinator.
You get credit for all of these days so that if you choose a 90 day waiting period, for each day you are getting care at home, you get the credit toward the 90 days. If you are home for three or four months and get transferred to a nursing home, or assisted living facility, the policy pays immediately because you used up the waiting period while receiving benefits at home.
Your next decision is to determine how long the policy will pay benefits. Standard choices are two years, three years, five years, six years, 10 years or unlimited. Again, choosing a policy with unlimited benefits over a policy with a three year pay out period will increase the premium. What is best for you? What is your family history?
While statistics tell us that the average nursing home stay is 2.76 years, you also need to look at your family history to see the other side of the story. Certainly if we had a crystal ball and knew what the end of our life looked like, we would know exactly whether or not we even needed a long term care policy, and if so for how long. That not being an option for us, we must make informed decisions given the information at hand.
For our clients who are purchasing long term care policies when they are in their 50s, unlimited lifetime benefits are often appropriate. For individuals wishing to purchase long term care that are in their 60s and 70s, a 3 or 5 year benefit may be fine. Now you have to look at inflation protection. If you purchase a policy today that offers a daily benefit of $250, and you don't start collecting on the policy for 15 years, will $250 still be adequate? Not at all likely. Therefore, the final component to a good long term care policy is the handling of inflation.
We are seeing more and more combinations of inflation protection but the top three still are 5 percent simple inflation protection which means every year your $250 daily benefit will increase by $12.50. Or, you may choose 5 percent compounded which means every year your daily benefit goes up by 5 percent compounded.
At the end of 20 years, the $250 should be worth approximately $632 per day based on a 5 percent compounded inflation rider. The third option is to choose no inflation protection whatsoever. People that are in their mid to late 70s will frequently opt for this benefit but they will start out by choosing a higher daily benefit, building inflation protection into the policy from the very start.
The premium that you pay is based on the inflation protection option that you choose. If you choose no inflation, some companies will allow you to increase the daily benefit every year or two, based on the current inflation rate. The premium for this additional benefit will be based on your attained age.
You can see that a substantial amount of study is needed to determine which combination of benefits is best for you. Your agent can be very helpful to you with making the right choices. In addition to the features I listed above, many companies offer other riders that can be added (and sometimes they are automatically included) such as a "survivorship benefit" which means if husband and wife each pay their premiums for 10 years and there are no claims in the 10 year period, they continue to pay their premiums but when one of them dies, the policy is paid in full for life for the surviving spouse. This is a nice benefit. Another option might be to choose a "shared benefit" whereby if one of the partners uses up all of their benefits, they can use benefits from their spouse's policy. There are a lot of exciting choices to make with long term care insurance. The government has made it very clear to us that they have no intention of paying for our care so we must take this very seriously.
Health Law Provision Raises Antitrust Concerns
by Robert Pear, NYTimes.com -- The new health care law encourages collaboration by doctors and hospitals for cost savings, but a split has developed here as to just how far they can go without running afoul of antitrust laws.
An influential Republican member of the Federal Trade Commission, J. Thomas Rosch, said that without “vigorous antitrust enforcement,” the new alliances of health care providers could reduce competition and increase costs to consumers.
Mr. Rosch set forth his concerns in private letters to the White House and the federal Medicare agency. The letters, obtained by The New York Times, reveal a struggle between the Justice Department and the commission over who should police the market.The internal debate creates uncertainty about antitrust enforcement policy at a moment when scores of hospitals, clinics and doctor groups are eager to band together and test innovative ways of delivering care. That uncertainty threatens to slow collaboration by health care providers. President Obama and other proponents say such cooperation could cut costs and improve care for millions of people.
When competitors collaborate, economists say, they can produce enormous efficiencies, but they may also be tempted to engage in monopolistic practices. The risk tends to be greatest in small- and medium-size communities dominated by one or two hospitals or health care systems, experts say.
David A. Balto, a private antitrust lawyer with close ties to the Obama administration, said the disagreement between the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission was “extremely unfortunate.”
“The commission has demonstrated unreasonable skepticism toward collaboration by health care providers,” Mr. Balto said.
The antitrust division of the department, under Christine A. Varney, an assistant attorney general, is widely seen by hospitals as more sympathetic to their efforts to band together with doctors and negotiate jointly with health insurance plans.
Officials of the two agencies, which normally share responsibility for enforcing antitrust laws, are trying to devise a joint statement explaining how they will evaluate proposed collaborations by doctors and hospitals. The agencies said, in response to questions, that their goal was to have one consistent policy, but they refused to give details of their talks.
The new health care law encourages joint ventures, known as accountable care organizations, in which doctors and hospitals take collective responsibility for the care of Medicare beneficiaries.
“The creation and operation of accountable care organizations potentially conflict with the antitrust laws,” Mr. Rosch wrote. “The Supreme Court long ago prohibited competing providers from jointly contracting to provide their services, except in specified circumstances.”
Mr. Rosch, an antitrust lawyer for more than 35 years, said he was speaking only for himself. But his views on antitrust policy in the health care industry generally reflect the views of the commission’s nonpartisan professional staff, based on numerous advisory opinions issued to health care providers over the last 15 years.
Unless doctors and hospitals share some degree of financial risk, Mr. Rosch said, the new entities are unlikely to achieve the promised cost savings. In recent years, independent doctors and hospitals have often come together to coordinate care but have been reluctant to pool resources and share the risks of financial losses.
The fragmentation of the health care system, in which patients often shuttle from doctor to doctor, is widely seen as a major problem. Under the new health care law, doctors and hospitals can earn financial rewards if they improve the care of Medicare patients while holding costs below benchmarks set by the federal government.
Dr. Donald M. Berwick, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said he would soon issue rules for these groups of health care providers. If a group becomes so powerful in a market that it can raise prices without fear of losing business to rivals, it could be required to seek review from one of the antitrust agencies, administration officials said. The health care law does not displace the antitrust laws or provide any exemption for the new entities.
Mr. Rosch said the government must set clear goals for Medicare savings and measure the performance of accountable care organizations with respect to both Medicare and the private insurance market.
“Otherwise,” Mr. Rosch said, “there will be a real risk that the savings accruing to Medicare will just come at the expense of private insurers.” In other words, he suggested, a network of doctors and hospitals could offset a loss of Medicare revenue by charging more to privately insured patients.
In recent years, the Federal Trade Commission has taken the lead in analyzing joint ventures by health care providers. Citing this experience, Mr. Rosch said his agency should also be responsible for policing compliance with the antitrust laws by accountable care organizations. This approach, he said, would “avoid time-consuming turf battles” with the Justice Department.
Health care providers said Mr. Rosch and the Federal Trade Commission were making a power grab that could jeopardize the success of accountable care organizations. As part of the Obama administration, they said, Ms. Varney and the Justice Department have a bigger stake in the success of the new entities.
As a member of the commission in 1996, Ms. Varney said the government should be receptive to new types of collaboration among health care providers, a view she has voiced lately as assistant attorney general. In 2003, as a lawyer in private practice, she testified “on behalf of the American Hospital Association,” one of her clients, at a hearing held by the Justice Department and the commission.
by Robert Pear, NYTimes.com -- In discussions between the two agencies, Mr. Rosch said, the department has taken the position that health care providers should be free to choose which agency would review their plans. Such an arrangement, he said, could lead to “a lack of regulatory consistency,” with the two agencies applying different standards. Justice Department officials declined to comment.
Mr. Balto, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a liberal research and advocacy group, said: “The standards applied by the F.T.C. are out of date. For health care providers to get approval from the commission for a joint venture or other form of collaboration is an exhaustive, expensive process that typically takes more than a year.”
But another antitrust lawyer in Washington, Katherine I. Funk, said, “The commission has more experience and expertise analyzing the clinical integration of health care providers — a key goal of accountable organizations.”
GOP Seeks to Block Funding for Health Law
by Janet Hook, The Wall Street Journal -- House Republicans will use a stopgap spending bill coming to the floor next week as a vehicle to block money for the new health-care law, a top lawmaker said Tuesday.
The latest push to neutralize the legislation, confirmed by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, (R., Va.), comes on the heels of an earlier effort to repeal the law. That passed the House but fell short in the Senate.
The spending bill, needed to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, is being drafted by the House Appropriations Committee, which is seeking deep spending cuts. The current stopgap bill expires March 4.While the initial version isn't expected to include the health-law funding ban, Republicans plan to introduce it as an amendment to the bill, Mr. Cantor said. It is expected to block the use of money in the bill to carry out the law, for example by preventing the Department of Health and Human Services from hiring more workers to oversee the new benefits.
The House Republicans' strategy means President Barack Obama's health-care initiative will be a major hurdle to passing the government-wide spending bill. Democratic leaders in the Senate are unlikely to back any move to defund the new law.
With repeal of the health law dead for now, Republicans have also called for rolling back specific parts of the legislation, such as the requirement that most Americans carry health insurance or pay a fine.
That requirement has become politically sensitive for Democrats in swing states after two federal judges ruled it was unconstitutional. Lawmakers from both parties are calling for Congress to look into replacing the requirement.
At least two Senate Democrats who voted for the new health-care law—Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson and Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill—say they're looking at other ways to bring people into the insurance pool without mandating coverage.
Health-industry officials say one alternative would be to make insurance more expensive for those who wait before buying it—similar to an incentive in the Medicare program for the elderly. But Republicans may not come through with the votes for such a measure, given it could help Democrats salvage a law strongly opposed by the GOP.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Sen. Weinberg criticizes N.J. commissioner's delay of implementation of health laws
by Susan K. Livio, NJ.com -- New Jersey Health and Senior Services Commissioner Poonam Alaigh declined to testify before the Senate health committee today. Chairwoman Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen) said she would call a hearing based on the commissioner's schedule to discuss why a handful of laws have not been implemented.
Weinberg invited the commissioner a week ago to discuss why the state had failed to implement several laws on time. Among them, Weinberg cited the menu-labeling law that passed the day before Gov. Chris Christie took office 13 months ago requiring large chain restaurants to post calorie information, and the 3-year-old "Safe Patient Handling Practices Act," signed by Gov. Jon Corzine, that requires licensed health care facilities to train employees and buy equipment to avoid causing patient and worker injury."There is a long lag time between us passing a law, the governor signing it, and the regulation-writing that is necessary before a law can be implemented,'' Weinberg said. "I am not going to sit by quietly and pass laws that never get implemented.''
Alaigh was in Washington, D.C. today at a "long-standing" meeting with the U.S. National Institutes of Health, according to a letter she sent Weinberg last Thursday declining the invitation.
Weinberg asked Alaigh to send a deputy commissioner to the hearing in her place, "but due to the lateness of the request, it was not possible to accommodate'' the committee, Alaigh's spokeswoman Donna Leusner said.
In the letter to Weinberg, Alaigh wrote she had decided not to implement the law "prematurely'' because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration soon is going to release guidelines on how a similar federal law ought to be implemented. As for the safe handling act, the department released proposed rules January to enforce the law and is accepting public comments on them until March 4, according to the letter.
Sen. Joseph Vitale (D-Middlesex) said it was "frustrating'' no one from the health department attended the hearing. "What's important is we address these issues,'' he said.
Sen. Robert Singer (R-Ocean) questioned Vitale criticizing the Republican Christie administration for failing to implement laws when it's clear former Gov. Jon Corzine, a Democrat was guilty of the same thing when Vitale chaired the health committee during Corzine's term. "Amazing — maybe it was because it was Gov. Corzine,'' Singer said sarcastically.
Weinberg said she planned to contact Alaigh and ask her to name the date and time when she would be available to address the committee.
"We are not living in a monarchy yet, and there are three branches of government,'' Weinberg said. "The legislature branch is just passing laws, and no one in the executive branch has the right to ignore them.''
Senate rejects GOP-led bid to repeal healthcare law
By Noam N. Levey, LATimes.com -- Senate Democrats on Wednesday turned aside a bid by Republicans to repeal the new healthcare law, in the first Senate test of the sweeping overhaul that President Obama signed in March.
The 47-51 party-line vote on a procedural motion came two weeks after House Republicans pushed a repeal resolution through that chamber.
And it ended the first chapter of the GOP legislative attack on the new law, setting the stage for new battles over specific provisions of the law, including the controversial mandate that will require most Americans to get health insurance starting in 2014.
Republican leaders, who have pledged to go after the law "piece by piece," have not indicated what part of the overhaul they will target first.
With funding for the federal government set to expire in four weeks, the next battleground could be legislation to keep the government operating from March to September.
Short of shutting down the government, Republican leaders are working to peel off enough Democrats in the Senate to pass legislation taking out pillars of the healthcare law, such as the mandate or the funding needed to expand coverage to tens of millions of Americans.
Republicans are also considering proposals to allow states to opt out of parts of the law, as many GOP governors have said they want to do.
On Wednesday, the GOP repeal proposal did not win over a single Democrat, as 47 Republicans voted for it and 50 Democrats and one independent voted against it. Democrat Mark Warner of Virginia and Independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut missed the vote.
Even Democrats from conservative states who face reelection in 2012 staunchly rejected a repeal, though many have said they are interested in modifying the law.
"Who wants to go backwards and tell 220,000 Nebraskans they can't have health insurance?" Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson told reporters in his home state Wednesday.
"Who wants to deny children health insurance because they have preexisting medical conditions? Who wants to see Nebraskans forced into bankruptcy, or have to choose between selling their home, or paying for medical care?"
Republican lawmakers – backed by business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Retail Federation – said they would come up with an alternative to the law.
"We'd repeal this bill right now, and then we'd begin the work of achieving our common goal of delivering healthcare at a higher quality for lower costs," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told his colleagues on the Senate floor. "We'd put in place the common-sense reforms people actually want."
Republicans haven't yet offered an alternative, however, prompting warnings from consumer groups and patient advocates such as the American Cancer Society that Americans stand to lose new protections if the law is repealed.
The two parties agreed Wednesday to make a small change to the healthcare law to relieve businesses of a new tax reporting mandate. The provision required businesses to report purchases exceeding $600 to the Internal Revenue Service.
The Senate voted 81 to 17 to remove the widely reviled reporting requirement. The action was attached to an aviation bill being debated.
Elsewhere on Capitol Hill, the debate raged on over the healthcare law's insurance requirement, which a federal judge in Florida ruled Monday was unconstitutional.
At a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the mandate appeared to split even Republican legal scholars.
Michael Carvin, a former Reagan administration lawyer, called the mandate an unprecedented requirement that people buy a product, a line of reasoning offered by U.S. District Judge Roger E. Vinson.
"If Congress can require this of persons, there is literally no limiting principle to the government's power," Carvin said.
Harvard Law School professor Charles Fried, who served as President Reagan's solicitor general, countered Congress' well-established authority to regulate commerce gave it the clear right to require health insurance.
"I'm not sure it's good policy. I'm not sure it's going to make the country any better," Fried said. "But I am quite sure that the healthcare mandate is constitutional."
Friday, February 4, 2011
Christie vetoes bill to expand Medicaid to more women seeking family-planning services
By Susan K. Livio, NJ.com -- Gov. Chris Christie today vetoed a bill that would have expanded the Medicaid program to more women seeking family planning services, saying it would be "financially irresponsible'' to spend more on a program running a $1 billion deficit.
The veto sparked bitter remarks from female lawmakers and clinics operators who said the governor once again put his conservative ideology before women's health.
"On one hand he says he’s not opposed to birth control, but yet he shows up at a rally last week and joins a group speaking against women being trusted to make their own decisions about their reproductive health care,'' said Assemblywoman Linda Stender (D-Union) a bill sponsor. "He has also said that this issue is purely about money we don’t have, but all this bill would have done is leveraged the money already being spent in our Medicaid budget to obtain additional federal dollars to expand access to health care services for low-income women.”Christie last summer vetoed a bill that would have restored $7.45 million in grants to family planning clinics that he eliminated from the state budget. Although he does not support abortion rights, the governor said he made the decision to help plug an enormous budget hole.
The doomed bill, (A3273), would have directed the state to apply to the federal government to expand its Medicaid program to include women earning as much as twice the poverty rate -- $29,140 for a family of two -- to provide birth control, cervical exams and other family planning services. Abortions would not be paid with this money, sponsors said.
New Jersey cannot afford to expand Medicaid, which already serves 1.3 million people, according to Christie's veto statement. "In Fiscal year 2012, it is anticipated that the state's Medicaid program faces a budget shortfall of $1.1 billion,'' according to the statement. Expanding Medicaid to more people "does not make sense from an overall fiscal and health care policy perspective.''
PREVIOUS COVERAGE:
• N.J. lawmakers approve bill pushing Gov. Christie to submit federal application for family planning services
• N.J. Assembly approves restoring $5M for family planning services
• N.J. Senate fails to override Gov. Christie's veto of $7.5M in family planning funds
• N.J. Senate to hold family planning override vote
• N.J. Senate schedules vote to override Gov. Christie's veto of $7.5M family planning funds
• N.J. GOP lawmakers who voted to restore family planning funds refuse to override Christie's veto
• N.J. Democrats to launch campaign to override Christie's veto of $7.5M family planning funds
• Gov. Christie vetoes bill restoring $7.5M grant for family planning
The state would need to put up $1.1 million in order to qualify for $15.1 million from the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the bill said.
Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen), also a sponsor, said she's frustrated the governor continues to speak inaccurately about the bill and its budget impact. "He said it would contribute to the Medicaid gap and is outside the budget, but we could use money in the budget as a match. We've said that time and time again,'' Weinberg said.
Christie also said women can go to federal qualified health centers and emergency rooms for these services, Weinberg said. "The centers themselves have said they have some centers that do not provide ob-gyn services,'' Weinberg said. "And who goes to the ER for birth control?"
Michele Jaker of the Planned Parenthood Federation of New Jersey noted that 27 states, including New York, Pennsylvania, Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Texas, expanded their Medicaid program through this application process. "New Jersey can’t afford to walk away from new funding sources for women’s health.''
Assemblywoman Alison Littell McHose commended Christie for axing the bill — particularly this week, given the release of a video Tuesday that documented a Planned Parenthood office manager in Perth Amboy advising a couple posing as a pimp and prostitute on how to receive abortion and birth control for 14-year-old prostitutes.
"This disgusting footage shows why government should be shutting these clinics down, not propping them up with public funds,” McHose said.
Marie Tasy from New Jersey Right to Life, an anti-abortion advocacy group, also praised Christie's veto.
"In vetoing this bill, Governor Christie has ensured that New Jersey taxpayers will not be complicit in the sexual abuse and exploitation of poor women and minors under the pretense of ‘women’s health,’” Tasy said.
