• Home
  • Practice Focus
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
    • How I Do It
    • TRIO Best Practices
  • Business of Medicine
    • Health Policy
    • Legal Matters
    • Practice Management
    • Tech Talk
    • AI
  • Literature Reviews
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
  • Career
    • Medical Education
    • Professional Development
    • Resident Focus
  • ENT Perspectives
    • ENT Expressions
    • Everyday Ethics
    • From TRIO
    • The Great Debate
    • Letter From the Editor
    • Rx: Wellness
    • The Voice
    • Viewpoint
  • TRIO Resources
    • Triological Society
    • The Laryngoscope
    • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
    • TRIO Combined Sections Meetings
    • COSM
    • Related Otolaryngology Events
  • Search

Covering the Uninsured-Searching for a Solution: Part 1 of a series

by Marlene Piturro, PhD, MBA • April 1, 2007

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Print-Friendly Version

But trouble was brewing; the dot-com bubble burst hard in Oregon, leaving the state scrambling to cover health care and other basic services. OHP’s rich benefits package became problematic. Oregon applied for a federal waiver to reduce benefits, which didn’t come through for a year. As state coffers shrank, Oregon couldn’t pay for its swelling number of OHP beneficiaries. It dropped those who didn’t pay premiums, raised premiums, and eliminated services. They cut reimbursement to doctors and hospitals and we tolerated that but gradually the program stopped working properly, says Dr. Richardson. Enrollment dropped from 104,000 in January 2003 to 49,000 in December 2003. In 2004 only 24,000 OHP beneficiaries remained.

You Might Also Like

  • The Private Sector Pitches In for the Uninsured: Part 3 of a series
  • State Efforts Toward Universal Coverage: Part 2 of a series
  • Why Being Uninsured Makes Sense for Many Americans
  • From Uninsured to Medicare Beneficiary-Who Suffers and Who Pays?
Explore This Issue
April 2007

Lessons from Tennessee

TennCare offers another cautionary tale. On January 1, 1994, Tennessee extended health care coverage to Medicaid eligibles, those uninsurable due to chronic illness or without access to employer-sponsored care, and catastrophic illness victims. By 1995 TennCare covered 1.2 million Tennesseans and contributed $99 million to a $225 million budget deficit. State officials collected only $11.1 million of $54.4 million in premiums owed by beneficiaries. In 1996 the state launched TennCare Partners, a $350 million program for mental health services for 1.17 million beneficiaries. In 1997 TennCare started enrolling uninsured children.

In 1998 TennCare’s national success story began its unhappy ending, done in by structural defects: Tennessee’s income tax revenue being limited to dividends and interest income only, and its failure to establish a separate SCHIP (the only state to do so). Advocates for the poor filed federal suits against TennCare for not covering children and for restrictions on adults’ benefits package. A federal judge ordered Tennessee to cover its 550,000 uninsured children in a separate program.

TennCare blithely soldiered on, with a $350 million budget boost in 2003. It added a formulary to curb pharmacy costs that had climbed to $1.8 billion annually. Its year of reckoning was 2004. Governor Phil Bredesen submitted a five-year plan to shrink benefits. The legislature approved it, but advocates for the poor sued to block the overhaul, which a federal judge upheld because of the state’s failure to fix its program for uninsured children.

Governor Bredesen tried desperately to save the $8.7 billion-a-year program but on January 1, 2006, 323,000 persons were dropped from TennCare; the remaining 396,000 got strict limits on doctor visits and prescription drugs. Jerome W. Thompson, MD, MBA, Chairman of the University of Tennessee’s Department of Otolaryngology, said that TennCare’s early reimbursement (80% of Medicare’s rate) was fair, and preapproval and disallowed services checked utilization. It was a good plan but it was bankrupting the state. Federal court actions made things worse, such as disallowing generic substitution for branded drugs, he said. The governor tried everything but Tennessee has no sales tax and low property taxes. It’s crazy to think you can offer a generous plan to the uninsured without sufficient tax revenues. When indigent patients disenrolled from TennCare became self-pay, and TennCare patients limited to three or four prescriptions a month, we knew it had failed, he concluded.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 | Single Page

Filed Under: Articles, Cover Article, Features, Health Policy Issue: April 2007

You Might Also Like:

  • The Private Sector Pitches In for the Uninsured: Part 3 of a series
  • State Efforts Toward Universal Coverage: Part 2 of a series
  • Why Being Uninsured Makes Sense for Many Americans
  • From Uninsured to Medicare Beneficiary-Who Suffers and Who Pays?

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Triological SocietyENTtoday is a publication of The Triological Society.

Polls

Would you choose a concierge physician as your PCP?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
  • Polls Archive

Top Articles for Residents

  • Applications Open for Resident Members of ENTtoday Edit Board
  • How To Provide Helpful Feedback To Residents
  • Call for Resident Bowl Questions
  • New Standardized Otolaryngology Curriculum Launching July 1 Should Be Valuable Resource For Physicians Around The World
  • Do Training Programs Give Otolaryngology Residents the Necessary Tools to Do Productive Research?
  • Popular this Week
  • Most Popular
  • Most Recent
    • A Journey Through Pay Inequity: A Physician’s Firsthand Account

    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment

    • Otolaryngologists Are Still Debating the Effectiveness of Tongue Tie Treatment

    • Is Middle Ear Pressure Affected by Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Use?

    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?

    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment

    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?

    • Is Middle Ear Pressure Affected by Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Use?

    • Otolaryngologists Are Still Debating the Effectiveness of Tongue Tie Treatment

    • Complications for When Physicians Change a Maiden Name

    • Excitement Around Gene Therapy for Hearing Restoration
    • “Small” Acts of Kindness
    • How To: Endoscopic Total Maxillectomy Without Facial Skin Incision
    • Science Communities Must Speak Out When Policies Threaten Health and Safety
    • Observation Most Cost-Effective in Addressing AECRS in Absence of Bacterial Infection

Follow Us

  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • Advertise
  • The Triological Society
  • The Laryngoscope
  • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookies

Wiley

Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 1559-4939