Mass. lawmakers call for stronger health care regulation, action

This article was originally published on New England Public Media.

Massachusetts lawmakers put the spotlight on the health insurance system last week. Lawmakers concluded the system is falling apart and more regulation is needed of some providers, and regulators need more muscle to control rising costs.

State House News Service reporter Chris Lisinski teases out the important points lawmakers feel they should address.

Chris Lisinski, SHNS: Well, first off, let’s do just a touch of context setting. The latest annual report from the Center for Health Information and Analysis [CHIA] found that total healthcare costs per capita in Massachusetts grew 8.6% from 2022 to 2023, more than twice the benchmark rate that reflects the state’s goal.

So, prices are going up very, very fast, far faster than anyone in state government wants them to. How lawmakers responded to that was with, as you put it, a lot of dire language. Senator Cindy Friedman said the system is ‘falling apart’ and what she identified as some particular areas of focus moving forward, are things we already know about, things that have been in the headlines over the past year or so. Friedman told me that private equity, for profit healthcare are still a ‘huge issue’ suggesting that the Senate is going to take another pass at legislation to add more scrutiny and more regulation on those kinds of entities. She also wants to address primary care shortages, the delays created by prior authorization, and some more muscle for regulators like the Health Policy Commission, where officials from years and years have been saying that they just need more ability to enforce spending growth.

Carrie Healy, NEPM: This comes following the Legislature and Gov. Maura Healey enacting a pair of laws late last year, one aimed at reining in prescription drug costs and the other designed to boost hospital financial oversight. I guess those measures weren’t enough?

I mean, let’s be clear those laws were enacted late in 2020 for the 8.6% growth rate that everybody’s worried about was for 2023. So, the data that people are freaking out about predates those laws.

That’s not to say that those laws were completely ineffectual, but anecdotally, we’re still hearing in the few months since those have taken effect that folks are still struggling, still feeling the pressure. And lawmakers seem to think that while those two measures were significant steps in the right direction, they have more to do.

Moving on, lawmakers are getting pushback from municipal leaders across the state who want to keep remote and hybrid meeting options available to allow residents to participate in local government after the current pandemic era policy expires at the end of this month. Those who signed on to a letter include town administrators from Ashfield and Sunderland School Committee and Select Board chairs and others representing 45 communities. But there are some who say providing that accommodation is actually not fair. What’s going on?

You and I have talked about this a bunch, on the air or just between the two of us. But yeah, once again, we’re racing against the clock to see if lawmakers will keep remote public meeting access in place. The most recent extension only goes through the end of March. So, the clock is ticking, and once again, it’s set off a little bit of debate.

Some advocates think that allowing folks to tune into meetings remotely is a better way to boost public engagement, meet residents where they are, allow folks with jobs and appointments to have a better sense of what’s going on without trekking all the way to Town hall.

Some, though, are worried that the way that the law is written and the way that Governor Healey’s proposal is written still keeps it just an option, not an actual mandate for virtual access to be provided, therefore, could turn out that a certain city or town or a certain board is not living up to the goal that some folks have in mind.

And finally, briefly, Chris, how about a chat about politics instead of government in New Hampshire? That’s Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen’s decision not to seek reelection. It’s created some chaos! So, two Democratic representatives are thinking about running, and a former rep is contemplating the situation as well. But on the Republican side, 1982 cosmopolitan magazine America’s sexiest man, Scott Brown will likely run. Brown’s political roots were grown and nourished in Massachusetts. How will that play in the Granite State?

It’s a great question. What a fascinating campaign that would be for Scott Brown.

First of all, as we have seen repeatedly, Massachusetts can be quite a political punching bag up in New Hampshire. I think of [New Hampshire] governor, Kelly Ayotte, taking shot after shot against us in the Bay state during her most recent campaign.

So maybe being a former U.S. Senator from Massachusetts might not play that well. Another dynamic that folks are going to have to watch out for is, is Scott Brown right enough? Is he ‘Trumpy enough’ for today’s electorate in the Republican Party? Obviously, he did serve as an ambassador to New Zealand under Trump, but he might not have the same kind of MAGA bona fides that other candidates do.