Senate advances bill to allow Christian heath coverage cooperative back into Kentucky

Without dissent, the state Senate approved a bill Wednesday, Feb. 13, that would grant Christian health cost-sharing organization Medi-Share an exemption from the state's insurance laws and enable it to resume operation in Kentucky.

The Florida-based health care ministry was forced out of Kentucky last year by Franklin Circuit Judge Thomas Wingate, who ordered Medi-Share to stop operating in Kentucky. He acted at the request of the state Department of Insurance, which said the organization didn't comply with insurance regulations.

Sen. Tom Buford, R-Nicholasville, chairman of the Banking and Insurance Committee and sponsor of the bill, said the legislation would allow about 800 Kentuckians to rejoin Medi-Share. It would remove Medi-Share and two similar ministries operating in Kentucky out from oversight of the insurance department.

"The Department of Insurance regulates insurance companies. This is not an insurance company," Buford told the committee. Medi-Share does not include any contractual agreement to pay medical bills, but users are matched with each other to help pay for medical expenses through community giving, according to its website.

Medi-Share's plans resembles secular insurance in some ways but only allows participation by people who pledge to live Christian lives with no smoking, drinking, using drugs or engaging in sex outside of marriage, reports Beth Musgrave of the Lexington Herald-Leader.

The bill would require Medi-Share to tell members it's not an insurance company and does not guarantee that all medical bills would be paid, notes Roger Alford of The Associated Press.

The Rev. Dewayne Walker, pastor of Mount Olivet Baptist Church in Lexington, told the committee Medi-Share paid about $250,000 in medical bills for his wife, who had cancer. Medi-Share President Tony Meggs testified in court last year that the group has helped arrange to pay for some $25 million in medical bills for Kentuckians over the past 10 years, Alford reports.

Judge rules University of Louisville's hospital is public and subject to Open Records Act; it may appeal

The University of Louisville's hospital is a public entity, a Jefferson Circuit Court judge has ruled in a lawsuit filed to get access to the university's deals with other health providers.

Judge Martin McDonald ruled yesterday in favor of The Courier-Journal, WHAS-TV and the American Civil Liberties Union, noting that the university makes or approves all appointments to University Hospital's board of directors. The university had argued that the board, and thus the hospital, was not a public agency under the state Open Records Act.

The hospital said it might appeal the ruling. McDonald gave it 30 days to give him the records being sought, along with arguments about why they should be exempt" under exceptions to the law, reports The C-J's Andrew Wolfson. "He gave the news organizations at the ACLU 20 days to respond to any claimed exemptions." The hospital has said revealing contracts would put it at a competitive disadvantage.

The suit began after the university refused to let the plaintiffs see records related to its proposed merger with Jewish Hospital & St. Mary's HealthCare and Lexington-based St. Joseph Health Care System. Gov. Steve Beshear vetoed the merger on grounds that a public hospital should not be bound by a religious organization's health-care policies. This month the hospital announced a new deal with KentuckyOne Health, which includes the faith-based entities, but said reproductive services would not be affected despite a policy of "respect" for Catholic health directives. (Read more)

Will birth-control mandate cost more or less? Yet to be seen

Will requiring insurance companies to provide contraception be cost-neutral, as the Obama administration claims? It is unclear, and so is whether insurance companies will make Catholic institutions pay more. These were the findings of FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan, nonprofit, consumer-advocate project funded by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.

In support of its claim, the administration cites data from Hawaii's birth-control mandate, which shows health insurance premiums "did not appear" to increase. The study also found the number of pregnancies increased after contraception coverage was required.

But when Pennsylvania considered imposing a similar mandate, a state agency found "the amount of possible savings relative to the cost of the legislation is unclear." Findings were also unclear in Connecticut when officials there looked at whether or not insurance plans saved enough because there were fewer pregnancies to offset the cost of providing coverage. A Texas study found insurance companies would not save enough because women would buy contraception on their own.

A recent survey of 15 insurance companies found six thought costs would increase and another three felt the move would be neutral in cost. None felt they would save money because of the mandate.

"Until better data are available, we're unable to conclude whether the Obama birth-control mandate is likely to result in a net cost increase or not," FactCheck reports.