ACA & CHIP
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Monday, Sept. 23, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
Brad Bumsted's news story “Affordable Care Act likely to end CHIP” (Sept. 11 and TribLIVE.com) leaves readers with the false impression that the Affordable Care Act is ending the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). For most CHIP kids, there will be no change.
The health law will modernize the process of qualifying for Medicaid health coverage — a good thing for Pennsylvania's low-income children and families. It will reduce confusion and provide more families with better coverage.
Today, there are different rules for parents and children, leaving many parents of kids in CHIP and Medicaid uninsured. Children with uninsured parents are less likely to receive checkups and preventive care than children with insured parents. This change will fix that. Further, Medicaid provides a broader range of benefits for children than CHIP, at a lower cost.
The Corbett administration can protect the health of children and families by working with lawmakers to ensure that none of the 50,000 kids who move from CHIP to Medicaid see disruptions in care. They can ensure that CHIP providers accept Medicaid and even boost Medicaid reimbursement rates to providers — something the Affordable Care Act does for all primary care doctors in 2013-14.
The writer is executive director of the North Side-based Consumer Health Coalition (consumerhealthcoalition.org).
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Corbett’s budget claim
- Apollo-Ridge excellence
- Orwellian redefinitions
- Keep Laurel Point
- Stalin, Hitler, now Putin