H.B. 5535 BILL PROVIDES HEALTH INSURANCE FOR WOMEN AFTER DIVORCE! IT'S TIME TO PASS THIS BILL, FOLKS!

I am particularly lucky that my ex-husband lives in a state that has passed legislation requiring that the earning spouse who has health insurance continue to provide that health insurance to the other spouse after divorce at no cost or minimal cost.  Were it not for this legislation, my health insurance payments would be crushing and I simply could not afford health insurance.  This could affect my ability to parent, since if I were in ill health I couldn't function fully in my role as a mother.  Also, it could affect my life span as well as the quality of life that I have remaining. 

We in the State of Connecticut have yet to put this kind of common sense legislation in place even though it has been proposed frequently in the past decade, more recently in H.B. 5535 in March 2012 by Representative Geoff Luxenberg of the 12th district, God bless him!  It is legislation whose time has come.  

The fact that it so essential to the wellbeing of women and children is so self-evident, that I have to call into question the intelligence and integrity of those who oppose it. 

There is a good description of H.B. 5535 on the website of the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women (PCSW) here in Connecticut which fully supports such legislation.  It goes as follows: 

"H.B. 5535 would allow the Court to order a party who is insured under a group health insurance policy or plan in the state to maintain health benefits for the benefit of the other party.  This bill is significant for women because they are likely to be covered under their husband's health insurance policy." 

The discussion continues on to explain why such health insurance coverage is important,

"According to a study by the University of Michigan, this is due in part to women's higher likelihood relative to men to work part-time, or in low-wage occupations, non-union settings, or smaller companies.  The study also found that if health insurance coverage is terminated post-divorce it has a long-term impact on a woman's economic and physical health.  Rates of insurance remain depressed for divorced women for two years after their divorce has been finalized.  This means that many women likely delay getting the health care they need due to costs or face significant challenges in paying their medical bills (potentially leading to an increase in medical debt).  PCSW supports efforts to ensure that all women have access to comprehensive health insurance coverage." 

Clearly, providing health insurance is a fairly inexpensive way for an earning spouse to provide thousands of dollars in benefits for a former spouse and ensure the health of that spouse for years to come, which ultimately is beneficial to the interests of the children.  This is why the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women (PCSW) supports this effort. 

So, why hasn't this happened yet?  Why hasn't this legislation been passed when other more enlightened states have already gotten this task done?  Do we have to continue living in the dark ages here?  What the heck is going on that this legislation wasn't passed years ago? 

For one thing, I know that the legal profession here in Connecticut has not gotten behind this bill and, in fact, has previously testified against it.  Well, that's not a surprise, is it? 

Another group that opposes the bill is The Connecticut Association of Health Plans.  Some of the concerns this group presents are understandable.  The costs for premiums could be quite difficult to pay for small employers, those who have 50 or less employees.  But I am sure that could be addressed in some manner such as providing tax breaks for small employers that participate or even excusing them from participation altogether. 

Other concerns that the Association expresses, such as the difficulties of implementing such plans, are really pure fiction.  As I have said, I have coverage from health insurance provided by my spouse and it works out just great.  The fact that the employer paying for this "has little ability to promote or encourage wellness activities" is just amusing.  I'm sure such an employer can promote and encourage wellness activities with me the same way he does with my ex, which is not at all.  But if he does want to, flyers, letters, phone calls, all of that works for me the same as it does for my ex.  I mean, seriously. 

I was shocked to find that Ms. Victoria Veltri of the State Healthcare Advocate's Office spoke against this bill.  Talk about being stabbed in the back!  Hello, Ms. Veltri you are supposed to be advocating FOR us, not AGAINST us. 

In her testimony, Ms. Veltri stated that it could be a former spouse might not wish the subscriber spouse to know where they live.  Well, that's OK.  I am sure there are many ways to deal with that other than not providing essential health care. 

Ms. Veltri also says that the Explanation of Benefits would be sent to the subscriber and not the member receiving the care.  This is simply NOT TRUE.  I receive all the Explanations of Benefits.  

Ms. Veltri also expressed concern that there isn't enough clarity regarding when such coverage would end.  However, Item #1 of the bill states that it would limit the coverage to "The period of time specified in the decree" which gives litigants the opportunity to state exactly how long they want the coverage to last.  If litigants fail to put these specifications in their agreements, I am sure they could return to Superior Court for clarification or come to an agreement outside of Court.  Ultimately, this seems to me to be a very sensible approach because it puts the power to make such a decision in the hands of the Parties themselves.  

There is also the problem of what to do when there are multiple ex spouses.  Would all of them receive coverage? From what I see in the bill, it looks as though they could be, but the Trial Court could could apportion the costs of maintaining such coverage between the parties to the decree. 

Nonetheless, these are minimal concerns and could be addressed quickly by legislators who are disposed to resolve such problems.  What bothers me is that instead of urging these legislators to correct the problems quickly and pass this legislation as soon as possible without delay because the need is so great, Ms. Vetri spoke without real conviction and with little concern for the importance of getting health insurance in place for vulnerable women right now, right away, without any further delay. 

It seems to me that there is no perfect wording to a bill and that the wording in place now pretty much addresses all possible scenarios.  At a certain point, you have to just go with what you have got and trust the common sense, and discretion of the people involved. 

The bottom line, to my way of thinking, is that legislators and state agencies who are basically against this bill because they dislike women but don't have the guts to say so are preventing the passage of this bill by fussbudgeting over nonsense and failing to clean up minor problems in this bill which could be resolve with a bit of straight talk. 

SHAME ON THEM!

Do we seriously have time to wait another year?  Haven't we waited long enough?  Take the time to review this bill at the link below and contact your State Legislator.  Tell him or her that we have waited long enough and the time to pass this bill is NOW.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/TOB/H/2012HB-05535-R00-HB.htm