DiMasi vows prompt health plan vote
Business leaders ask caution on measure
House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi vowed yesterday to push forward with today's scheduled debate on the House's far-reaching healthcare plan, even as business leaders stepped up their efforts to delay a vote.
In a letter circulated on Beacon Hill late yesterday, 21 business leaders urged DiMasi and his colleagues to slow down to avoid ''errors, omissions, and unnecessary confusion."
The letter warns that a proposed payroll tax on employers in the health bill ''could not come at a worse time for the Commonwealth."
''Job recovery has been slow, at best; consumer confidence numbers have been sluggish, and our state remains an expensive one in which to do business, with high healthcare, wage, and unemployment insurance costs," the letter states. ''Passage of this tax will stifle job creation and cause the cost of living in this state to skyrocket."
DiMasi and top lawmakers spent most of yesterday scrambling to revise his health plan after they realized that the proposed payroll tax would unintentionally hit businesses that already provide health insurance to their employees. In an interview last night, DiMasi did not disclose how he would fix that problem, but said he would bring a revised version of his health bill to a vote promptly.
''Everybody understands these issues; everybody has been briefed on these issues," DiMasi said in an interview. ''The employer contribution is what they're objecting to, and that's probably the reason why they want to make sure it doesn't go forward. Just because they don't agree with it doesn't mean it shouldn't go forward."
Referring to the business leaders' letter, he added: ''I can't understand as I read this letter why these associations would want to protect these companies that are not doing the right thing, because we all pay for it."
DiMasi wants the House to vote on the measure by the end of this week, and he has pledged to put a bill on Governor Mitt Romney's desk by Nov. 16.
He says his plan, which he unveiled Monday, would cover 95 percent of the state's roughly 500,000 uninsured residents within three years.
DiMasi and other legislators have cited the potential loss of $585 million in federal money if Massachusetts does not enact a plan to cover the uninsured. Under the terms of the Medicaid waiver tied to that money, the Bay State does not have to have a plan until July 1, 2006.
But last month federal officials sent a letter to the state warning that they might stop sending as much as $385 million if the Legislature does not approve healthcare legislation by early next year.
DiMasi's plan would levy a 5 percent payroll tax on companies with 11 to 100 employees and a 7 percent tax on businesses with 100 or more workers. Companies with 10 or fewer workers would be exempt. DiMasi estimates that the new levy would raise about $650 million to expand coverage, and he touts it as a powerful incentive for employers to cover their workers.
Currently, businesses that offer health coverage to their workers pay extra money, either through a surcharge built into their premiums or in a payment made directly to the state, to help cover the cost of care for the state's uninsured. Employers that don't provide insurance don't have to contribute.
To create an incentive for employers to offer coverage, the House plan would allow them to deduct their healthcare costs from the new payroll levy.
DiMasi initially contended that because healthcare costs for the average firm are between 12 percent and 15 percent of payroll and the new levy is either 5 percent or 7 percent, employers that offer coverage now would end up paying less under his plan or would not have to make any payment at all.
DiMasi acknowledged Tuesday, however, that certain firms with highly paid employees or many part-time workers might be exposed to the tax, even though they cover some or all of their workers.
Despite DiMasi's assurances to fix that situation, the misstep has given additional ammunition to business groups that are opposed to any kind of levy on employers.
''Everyone wants to solve the problem," said Jon B. Hurst, president of the Retailers Association of Massachusetts, who signed the letter sent to lawmakers. ''Certainly the employer community is right there -- the employer community is paying the bill of having the highest healthcare costs in the country. But let's not make a mistake that will endanger local employers."
The letter, sent to House lawmakers, was signed by the heads of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce and several other chambers, the Massachusetts Business Roundtable, the Massachusetts High Technology Council, and other groups.
But John McDonough of Health Care for All, one of the leaders of a broad coalition of advocacy groups and religious groups pushing to a put a healthcare plan on the November 2006 ballot, said the business leaders' ''call to slow down is an attempt to derail reform that is not to their liking."
The coalition's proposal includes a similar mandate on employers.
McDonough said the idea of levying some sort of assessment on employers that don't provide coverage has been circulating on Beacon Hill for almost a year. He pointed out that senators introduced a bill with an assessment on employers last November and that the coalition's ballot initiative was unveiled in August. He said the only part of the DiMasi plan that is relatively new is a requirement that individuals buy coverage if they can afford it, though Romney floated that idea in June.
''The Health Care Financing Committee has been working diligently on this issue since last May and meeting repeatedly with every interested group," he said.
Representative Peter J. Koutoujian, the Waltham Democrat who cochairs the Joint Committee on Public Health, echoed McDonough's assertions.
Koutoujian said he believes that most of his colleagues are ''ready, willing, and able" to debate the measure today. ''I've gotten a very positive sense on people's comfort level for tomorrow," he said. ''Just because of the general activity on this issue and the public debate, the membership is much better educated about healthcare and employers and individuals and revenue issues than at any other time in the history of the Legislature." 