THE MASSACHUSETTS Legislature is entering a danger zone: three days of fast-paced, high-pressure, sleep-deprived action before the session's clock runs out Thursday night. Past history suggests that such conditions can create a feeding frenzy that serves special interests, but leaves the public frustrated. The legislators must be careful to avoid passing bills in the dark of night that could fuel voter discontent in November.
Already, House members were in such a self-imposed rush last week that they agreed to adopt amendments to a $3 billion bond bill without even reading the amendments out loud, much less debating them. Yesterday, in an extraordinary morning session, the Senate passed a poorly-conceived bill - with no recorded vote and no debate - that would strike gender neutrality requirements in certain life insurance policies.
Meanwhile, good legislation can get lost in the crush. Here are several bills we believe would advance a progressive agenda for Massachusetts - and avoid tarnishing the reputation of a legislative session that can otherwise claim real accomplishments.
One way to curb health costs
The Legislature has before it two bills that would limit the pharmaceutical industry's ability to coax physicians into prescribing new drugs, which are often more costly but not demonstrably more effective than older ones. Gifts, free meals, and other inducements to doctors create obvious conflicts of interest. The Senate version of the bill would prohibit such practices, while the House version relies on industry-sponsored codes of ethics and would still allow drug company sales representatives to bring free lunches into medical offices. The Senate bill is a better choice.A modest pension fix
Another drain on state and local coffers - not to mention the public's patience - are pension abuses that beef up the salaries of public employees with costly add-ons. The House has a worthy proposal to clarify what can be counted in the base pay of officials for pension purposes. It eliminates overtime, housing allowances, travel reimbursements, tuition and other fringe benefits that can be used to enhance "regular compensation," and where state law has been murky. The entire public pension system may be ripe for an overhaul, but this bill would take steps to curb the most obvious abuses.Parity in more than just name
Without full insurance coverage for mental illnesses, the state's eight-year old mental health parity law cannot deliver on its promise. A Senate bill creates more access to treatment for autism, eating disorders, substance abuse, or post-traumatic stress disorder. Currently, insurers can limit treatment of these conditions to 24 outpatient sessions and 60 days of hospitalization per year. The Senate bill would lift this cap, and make it easier for the state's mental health commissioner to add other illnesses to the list of required coverage.Easing the housing crunch
Real estate interests and tenant advocates have settled on a clever strategy to preserve thousands of below-market-rate apartments in subsidized housing developments. Many low-income families can't cope with the rent hikes after landlords prepay their federally-subsidized mortgages or abandon rent subsidy programs. The Senate wisely passed a bill that gives the right of first refusal to developers or municipalities willing to purchase the so-called "expiring use" developments and stabilize rents. The House should follow suit.Fairer, fuller elections
Same-day voter registration should not be an onerous requirement for city and town clerks. Secretary of State William Galvin puts the cost of hiring and training additional poll tenders at about $1 million - a small price for boosting voter turnout. Additionally, a proposal to have Massachusetts join other states in delivering its 12 electoral votes to the presidential candidate who gets the most popular votes would eliminate the (admittedly rare) problem encountered in 2000, when the person "elected" president did not have the most votes. And it would expand the number of "battleground states" with a stake in the outcome.Equal means equal
It is time to turn back the discriminatory 1913 law that prevents same-sex couples from being married in Massachusetts if their home states bar it. California, which legalized gay marriage by court ruling in May, does not have a residency requirement; Massachusetts should be at least as welcoming. The law is a remnant of an uglier time, when interracial marriage was banned in much of the country. Legislators should be proud to put their names to its repeal.
