(Download the study here)

This study looks beyond the regulations to highlight the practical impact PL90 is having for end users, the businesses and consumers who purchase private health insurance in Maine.  This is a measure all too often dismissed by critics yet perhaps the only measure that truly matters.  The following case studies illustrate the effects of specific provisions of PL90.  Names have been altered for confidentiality purposes, but the profiles are of real companies and individuals. All material details presented in the case studies are accurately portrayed.

PL90 is demonstrating who truly benefits when we free our markets to respond to consumer needs, the many individuals and small businesses in Maine who rely on private health insurance—a 56 year old woman with a newly transplanted heart able to afford her anti-rejection medications, a small business lowering their cost rather than accepting a 23 percent rate increase, and another small business able to continue providing health insurance to its employees without having to ask them for a premium contribution.

Case Study 1: Improved Individual Market

Background:

PL90 contained numerous provisions aimed at improving Maine’s individual and small group health insurance markets.  The Maine Guarantee Access Reinsurance Association (MGARA) was created to subsidize high cost claimants in the individual health insurance market.[2]  MGARA assesses $4 per month from policyholders across all insurance markets in Maine raising approximately $25 million.  This fund is supplemented with premiums paid by insurers who have high cost individuals in the reinsurance pool.

Once an individual is designated to the reinsurance pool, MGARA reimburses the insurer after the first $7,500 of claims paid, 90 percent of the next $25,000 of claims paid, and 100 percent of claims paid in excess of $32,500.

MGARA is transparent to policyholders who are unaffected by the program in terms of their coverage and premium cost.  In most cases, policyholders are likely unaware that they are in the reinsurance pool.  Their plan choices are the same as any other policyholder and their premiums are the same as a healthy individual of the same age and gender.

Profile:

Jane Doe, a 56 year old single woman, worked for a small Maine employer who offered a group health insurance plan covering Jane and four additional employees.  In the fall of 2011, Jane suffered a massive heart attack.  The attack resulted in significant irreparable tissue damage and left Jane in and out of consciousness for months in an intensive care unit first in Maine and then a hospital in Boston.

She was eventually released after months of hospitalization with a pump surgically implanted in her chest that circulated her blood while she waited on the heart transplant list.  Jane overcame many odds simply by surviving, but she would not be returning to work.

During this timeframe Jane applied for and was approved for social security disability.   She must now wait two years before she can apply for Medicare.  Her employer generously maintained her group insurance coverage for the maximum timeframe allowed under the group insurer’s eligibility rules.  Because this is a small employer ineligible under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA), Jane found herself needing to seek coverage in the individual insurance market.

Effect of PL90:

Jane’s biggest challenge in affording individual health insurance was out-of-pocket costs.  She had sufficient savings to cover her monthly premium cost but worried about the plans additional out-of-pocket expenses.  Many plans have deductibles and out of pocket limits in the thousands and occasionally in excess of $10,000 annually.

Jane was able, however, to purchase a new individual product offered by Anthem, compatible with a Health Savings Account (HSA), that limited her annual out-of-pocket exposure to $2,600.[3]  It has been years since Anthem, Maine’s largest individual major medical insurance provider, has introduced new products.  The individual market has been steadily deteriorating, raising alarms the market could collapse entirely.  The Maine Bureau of Insurance issued a white paper detailing this problem in 2000 which was updated in 2001.[4]

MGARA has breathed new life into the individual health insurance market.  A viable market attracts investment as has been demonstrated by Anthem who introduced this new HSA product in addition to a portfolio of new products Anthem refers to as “HealthChoice Plus”[5] with premiums as much as 72% lower than products previously available.[6]  Since MGARA became operational in July of 2012, Anthem saw new products sales increase approximately 60 percent over the same timeframe in 2011.[7]

PL90 created a more stable individual health insurance market.  The result was new investment by a Maine insurer that provided invaluable coverage for an individual in need.

Case Study 2: Substitution Effect

Background:

The small group health insurance market in Maine includes several insurers who compete for market share.  Because of this, it is typical for small companies to shop their insurance coverage each year to make sure they are getting the best price.  As an insurance broker, I can tell you that small companies change insurers and products frequently, sometimes literally on an annual basis.

PL90 not only instituted MGARA and changes to insurance rating rules, it also removed barriers to new products and investment.  One provision lifted a somewhat obscure Maine law that prohibited individual Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) deductibles in excess of $1,000.  As a result, multiple insurers offered new small group HMO products including Maine’s non-profit health insurer, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care.[8]

Profile:

ABC Architecture is a small firm in southern Maine with a dozen employees.  They offer health insurance to their staff of which ten participate.  Their plan renews each year on January 1^st.  This year they faced a 23 percent rate increase from their insurer which translated to a premium increase of over $8,300.

Effect of PL90:

As shown in Table 1, instead of a 23 percent rate increase, ABC Architecture experienced an 11 percent rate decrease saving the company over $4,000 over 2012, and over $12,000 compared to their premium cost had they renewed with their existing health insurance plan. ABC Architecture shopped as they do each year and changed to one of Harvard Pilgrim’s new HMO products.  The coverage was almost identical with only a $50 increase in their employee’s annual out-of-pocket exposure.  This was a Health Savings Account (HSA) compatible plan like their previous plan, but it included an enhanced prescription benefit.

The chart below, prepared by the Maine Bureau of Insurance, shows a growing trend of health insurance rate decreases rising from less than 3 percent before PL90 to 9.4 percent in 2011 and 17.5 percent in 2012.[9]  The percentage of small businesses experiencing increases dropped in every category and the substitution effect tells us that many more companies changed products or insurers to further mitigate costs.The substitution effect of companies changing insurance plans is an important aspect of the small group health insurance market.  It demonstrates that many companies change plans and insurers to avoid or mitigate rate increases.  Given that fact, when you see data regarding rate decreases, the numbers are invariably understated.

Case Study 3: Innovation

Background:

One PL90 provision enabled the formation of a health insurance captive which allows companies to band together to manage their health insurance expenses.  One group in Maine, the Maine Wellness Association, took advantage of this provision and formed a health insurance captive called MaineSense.[10]

MaineSense provides a new option for Maine companies with a number of unique features such as employer ownership in the program.

Profile:

XYZ Builders is a commercial building contractor in central Maine.  The company has provided health insurance to its 20 employees for many years.  They still pay 100 percent of the employee premium though rate increases are threatening their ability to continue doing so.

Effect of PL90:

Concerned about historical health insurance rate increases and interested in the opportunity to participate in what they viewed as an innovative new program, XYZ Builders joined MaineSense in January of 2012.  Doing so the company held their cost level with 2012 while improving their coverage.

PL90 created the opportunity for the Maine Wellness Association to launch a new program.  That new program translated to a choice for XYZ Builders that did not otherwise exist.  Not only did XYZ Builders enjoy participation in an innovative program of which they are now a part owner, they have experienced two years of equal or lower health insurance costs, an uncommon experience for a Maine small business.The employee single plan out-of-pocket limit fell from $3,500 excluding prescription out of pocket costs to $2,550 including prescription out of pocket costs.  January first of 2013, XYZ Builders renewed their plan unchanged with MaineSense at a 1% premium decrease.

Conclusion:

Creating viable, competitive health insurance markets should not be viewed as a “gift to insurance companies,” but instead should be recognized for what they truly are—a gift to the consumers who purchase through those markets.

When we focus on policies that stabilize our insurance markets, we see rates begin to stabilize, investment in new products, heightened competition, and innovative market entrants.  We also see a 56 year old woman with a newly transplanted heart able to afford her anti-rejection medications.  We see a small business lowering their cost rather than accepting a 23 percent rate increase.  We see another small business able to continue providing health insurance to its employees without having to ask them for a premium contribution.

PL90 is demonstrating who truly benefits when we free our markets to respond to consumer needs, the many individuals and small businesses in Maine who rely on private health insurance.

Notes and Sources

(Download the case study here.)

Depending on how many employees become eligible for Obamacare, the company would be compelled to spend either 54% or 134% of its profit margin to pay for health insurance. In the first scenario, spending more than half of the company’s profit margin on Obamacare would result in layoffs and other drastic cost-cutting measures.

In the second scenario, if the company had to spend 34% over and above its entire profit to fund Obamacare, it simply could not stay in business.

In the third scenario, the company could drop health insurance all together and pay the Obamacare penalties. But that would still cost the company 90% of its profit margin.

The Maine company analyzed for this case study is a retail business with 78 locations in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont. The company employs an average of 800 employees, including 650 full-time employees who are eligible for the company’s health insurance plan. Presently, 160 of full-time staffers now participate in the health insurance plan, costing about $800,000 annually.

The case study analyzes the effect of an additional 368 employees joining the plan under Obamacare. In the first scenario, health insurance costs would increase $1.85 million annually. In the second scenario, costs would increase $744,000 each year. By dropping health insurance coverage, the company would have to pay annual Obamacare penalties of $1.24 million.

“Regardless of the intentions of Obamacare, the end result is that these higher health insurance costs amount to a ‘success tax’ on the company,” said Joel Allumbaugh, author of the case study and director of the Center for Health Reform Initiatives at The Maine Heritage Policy Center. “Naturally, this company is in business today because it has successfully met the needs of the marketplace and has justifiably earned a small profit as a reward for taking a risk.”

But the best-case scenario would cut this company’s profit margin in half. “Without cost reductions, such as lay-offs, the company would eventually be forced into bankruptcy,” Allumbaugh said. “In the worst-case scenario, the company’s health insurance cost would consume all of its profit margin, and the company would have to borrow money just to stay afloat. Not only would the employees not have health insurance, but they wouldn’t have a job, either.”

For more information about this case study or Obamacare, contact Joel Allumbaugh at jallumbaugh@mainepolicy.org.

A case study from a blueberry farming operation in Maine shows that providing health insurance benefits under Obamacare would result in a staggering annual increase of more than $184,000. (Download PDF of full case study here.)

Due to the crushing mandates of Obamacare, this farm would face a whopping 203% increase of in the cost of providing health insurance benefits.

The blueberry farm now pays $90,540 a year to provide health insurance for its full-time employees. Under Obamacare, the farm could pay as much as $274,762 to cover both full-time and seasonal part-time employees—an annual increase of $184,222.

However, if the blueberry farm chose to drop health coverage all together, Obamacare would impose a penalty of $76,250 on the business. That’s a 16 percent drop in what the blueberry farm now pays for health insurance.

Since the penalty would be significantly lower than the cost of providing health insurance under Obamacare, the blueberry farm would most likely choose not to offer health insurance at all.

Also, this case study does not account for the administrative costs the farm would incur to manage Obamacare’s eligibility rules, which in the case of seasonal workers would be significant.

“This case study of a real business in Maine demonstrates how Obamacare will force higher health insurance costs on employers, which will result in fewer jobs for Maine people,” said Joel Allumbaugh, author of the case study and director of the Center for Health Reform Initiatives at The Maine Heritage Policy Center. “It is shameful that politicians in Washington, D.C. did not investigate the devastating effects Obamacare would have on businesses before enacting it.”

This is the second of MHPC’s case studies on the negative effects Obamacare will have on real businesses in Maine. (See the first case study here.)

For more information about this case study or Obamacare, contact Joel Allumbaugh at jallumbaugh@mainepolicy.org.

Obamacare is, first and foremost, an affront to liberty-loving Americans who cherish their Constitutional right to determine their own healthcare.[i]  Obamacare puts liberty on the back burner in pursuit of a one-size-fits-all healthcare system to lower healthcare costs and, in the end, to boost job-creation.  However, as this first of three case studies will show, Obamacare will actually increase costs on employers which, in the long run, will mean fewer jobs.  As such, Obamacare’s much-touted health and economic benefits are simply not worth crushing American liberties and should be repealed.

Download full case study here (PDF)

Company Profile

The Maine company utilized for this illustration is a concrete company largely serving commercial construction contracts.  The company employs approximately 60 full-time year-round employees consisting of 10 employees working in the office or company headquarters and 50 working on job sites.

In the summer during the construction season, the company adds on average another 25 field positions, which increases the workforce on job sites to 75.  However, given the transient nature of the construction workforce, the company may actually hire up to 50 people in the summer—adding another 25 employees for the summer construction season.  Approximately half of the employees hired for the summer will leave the company within 30 to 90 days (25 employees), while the remainder will stay on for six to eight months (25 employees).

Pre-Obamacare Eligibility:  New employees become eligible for the company health insurance plan if they work, on average, at least 40 hours per week and have satisfied a six-month waiting period.

Total Eligible for Health Plan Pre-Obamacare: 

• There are 60 full-time year-round employees, but 25 of them waive the employer health insurance because they have coverage elsewhere or simply choose not to participate.
• There are 10 seasonal employees who work long enough to satisfy the six-month waiting period and qualify for health insurance coverage for an average of one month.

Table 2 translates the number of employees enrolled in health insurance into the total number of months they are enrolled during the year, based on the numbers outlined above.  Therefore, 35 employees enrolled for the entire year represents 420 (35 times 12) coverage months, while 10 employees enrolled for an average of one month of the year equals 10 (10 times 1) coverage months—for a total of 430 months.  This 430 months of health insurance coverage will be used to analyze the cost impact for the employer when the waiting period for health benefits is reduced to comply with Obamacare.

Post-Obamacare Eligibility:  New employees are considered eligible for the company health insurance plan if they work, on average, at least 30 hours per week and have satisfied a two-month waiting period.  Obamacare also redefines a full-time employee as working, on average, 30 hours per week.  Waiting periods cannot exceed 90 days from the hire date under Obamacare; therefore, the company waiting period must change to the first of the month following 60 days from the hire date—significantly reducing the waiting period in the real world.

The Obamacare employer mandate applies to all companies with 50 or more full-time employees, which qualifies this employer for all 12 months of the year.

Total Eligible for Health Plan Post-Obamacare:

• There are 60 full-time year-round employees, but 25 waive the employer health plan because they have health insurance coverage elsewhere or simply choose not to participate.
• There are 30 seasonal employees who work long enough to satisfy the 90-day waiting period and qualify for health insurance coverage for an average of four months.

Table 3 shows 35 employees enrolled for the entire year represents 420 (35 times 12) coverage months, but now includes 30 employees enrolled for an average of four months of the year equals 120 (30 times 4) coverage months—for a much higher total of 540 months versus  pre-Obamacare.

Health Plan Annual Cost

This employer offers a Health Savings Account (HSA) compatible health plan.  The employer contributes to the cost of the health plan premium.  In addition, the employer deposits money into individual Health Savings Accounts on behalf of employees and funds a portion of the plan out-of-pocket costs via a Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA).

To analyze the cost impact of Obamacare, the percentage participation in each coverage level was calculated, as was the employer monthly cost for the health plan, HSA and HRA.  An HRA is a promise by the employer to pay a portion of health care out-of-pocket costs.  Since expenses incurred will differ among employees year to year, the HRA represents a variable cost.  Therefore, the analysis utilizes the industry average HRA utilization of 30% and a monthly administrative cost of $5 per employee per month.

The annual HRA benefit equals $1,500 for employees covered as singles on the health plan and $3,000 for employees covering dependents on the health plan.

Table 4 below shows the four health plan coverage levels followed by the percentage of employees enrolled in each coverage level.  The third column shows the total monthly cost of the health insurance plan; and the fourth column illustrates the employer monthly contribution toward the health plan premium.  The next two columns show the employer monthly contribution to employee Health Savings Accounts and the monthly cost of the HRA.  The employee monthly total column is the sum of the employer premium contribution, HSA contribution and HRA expense.  This represents the total monthly cost per employee.

Table 2 above identifies a total of 430 coverage months.  This is multiplied by the percent of employees enrolled at each coverage level to arrive at the number of employee coverage months in the second to last column.  The final column illustrates the annual employer cost for each level of coverage and totals the employer annual cost below.  (Example: 283.8 employee only coverage months times $204 monthly employer cost = $57,753)

Higher Employer Costs from Obamacare

This case study primarily analyzes the impact of the Obamacare provision that requires employers to offer coverage to new employees no later than 90 days from the hire date.  This provision has a particularly acute impact on companies that currently impose a longer waiting period, which is common in the construction industry where employee turnover is high.

In the case of this particular company, based on the assumption that the health care plan benefits and cost remain constant, the annual cost increase because of Obamacare is almost $30,000.  This represents a 27% increase in the cost of providing health insurance benefits. It is interesting to note that if this employer chose to drop health coverage all together, the tax would fall somewhere between $60,000 and $110,000, which is significantly lower than their post-Obamacare health insurance cost of $137,932. By this accounting, some employers would find themselves faced with the need to drop health insurance altogether to keep from facing higher costs.

This analysis also does not account for the administrative costs associated with managing Obamacare eligibility rules, which in this case would be quite significant.

Conclusion

It is unfortunate that America’s policymakers did not thoroughly vet Obamacare before enacting it to verify that its grandiose economic claims of lower health insurance costs and increased jobs were based in reality.  Instead, Americans are now saddled with Obamacare and its unintended consequences. This case study of a real company finds that Obamacare will actually mean higher health insurance costs to employers and, in the long run, fewer jobs.  Liberty-loving Americans who value control of their own healthcare must demand that policymakers repeal Obamacare as soon as possible.

Methodology

This study makes a number of conservative assumptions:

First, the analysis assumes that the current health plan will meet minimum essential benefit and actuarial value standards as established by Obamacare and that employer contributions are adequate to meet minimum contribution requirements.  If either of these assumptions is false, the cost of the health plan could increase prior to considering the cost impact of covering a larger percentage of the workforce.

Second, the analysis also does not account for the fact that some of the employees currently eligible for, but who waive coverage, may join the company health plan to avoid penalties associated with the individual mandate, further adding to the employers cost.

Finally, the analysis also assumes that the employer in this case is not using the safe harbor provisions for calculating variable hour employees, which could potentially delay eligibility for their seasonal workforce.

Download full case study here (PDF)

A case study from a real business in Maine, a commercial concrete business serving the construction industry, shows that providing health insurance benefits under Obamacare would result in an annual increase of almost $30,000.

Download full case study here (PDF)

Due to the requirements mandated by Obamacare, this small business would face a 27% increase in the cost of providing health insurance benefits. The business now pays a total of $109,022 a year to provide health insurance for its employees.

Under Obamacare, the business would pay $137,932—an annual increase of $28,910.

However, if this company chose to drop health coverage all together, the penalty that Obamacare would impose on the company would total between $60,000 and $110,000. Since that amount could be significantly lower than the cost of providing health insurance under Obamacare, the company may choose not to offer health insurance at all.

Furthermore, the case study does not account for the administrative costs the business would incur to manage Obamacare’s eligibility rules, which in this case would be quite significant.

It is unfortunate that America’s policymakers did not thoroughly vet Obamacare before enacting it to verify that its grandiose economic claims of lower health insurance costs and increased jobs were based in reality, said Joel Allumbaugh, author of the case study and director of the Center for Health Reform Initiatives at The Maine Heritage Policy Center.

Instead, Americans are now saddled with Obamacare and its unintended consequences, he said. This case study of a real company finds that Obamacare will actually mean higher health insurance costs to employers and, in the long run, fewer jobs. Liberty-loving Americans who value control of their own healthcare must demand that policymakers repeal Obamacare as soon as possible.

For more information about this case study or Obamacare, contact Joel Allumbaugh at jallumbaugh@mainepolicy.org.

Bangor

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

26 Front Street

Luncheon  12:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

“ObamaCare and So-Called Preventative Activities: How the Federal Government is Required to Waste $2 Billion in Taxpayer Dollars Each Year“

For more information, please contact Amanda Clark

by phone at 207-321-2550 or by e-mail at aclark@mainepolicy.org

Download full report (PDF)

The current Medicaid program was designed to cover medical services for particular categories of vulnerable individuals such as pregnant women, children, needy families, the blind, and the disabled.  Obamacare transforms Medicaid to meet the healthcare needs of the entire nonelderly population with income below 133% of the federal poverty level.[2] (See table 1)

Medicaid is a joint federal and State funded program.  The courts have previously ruled that the federal government can condition the funds provided to the States for Medicaid regarding how those funds can be utilized.  However, the Supreme Court found that the Medicaid expansion under Obamacare violated the Constitution by threatening States with the loss of their existing Medicaid funding if they decline to comply with the expansion.  In short, new federal funds for Medicaid can be conditioned on the states expanding eligibility as directed under the ACA, but existing Medicaid funding cannot be pulled should states choose not to comply with the expansion.[3]

Maine now faces a critical choice regarding whether or not to expand Medicaid under Obamacare.

Medicaid is already the single largest line item in most state budgets, representing 23.6 percent of total state spending in fiscal 2011.[4] In Maine, Medicaid or MaineCare represents 17% percent of total general fund spending, which translates to $483,312,486 in 2011 alone[5].  This excludes administrative costs including over $14 million for salary and benefits for MaineCare personnel.  Maine has already recognized the challenge of maintaining our current Medicaid program.

In 2006 the state was sued by a number of Maine Hospitals for its failure to pay for services rendered to MaineCare recipients dating back to 2003.  Even with the debt reduced by $250 million in 2011 from the LePage budget and corresponding federal matching funds, the debt was still near $400 million in January of this year.

Obamacare offers federal funding to cover the Medicaid expansion at 100% for 2014 with gradual decrease in federal funding to 90% by 2020.  Proponents argue that this “free” money is justification for expansion, but there are other considerations that should give us pause.

First and foremost, federal money is never free.  The government must first take by way of taxes and fees before it can give anything.  We are fooling ourselves by pretending that federal money is anything other than our own money.  The federal government absorbing the lion share of the cost of expanding Medicaid does not absolve us from the expense but rather obligates us as taxpaying citizens.

We should also be cautious in accepting the government’s word that federal funding will not drop below 90% for this expansion. Federal spending and mounting deficits are putting enormous pressure on our lawmakers to reduce future spending. Future congresses cannot be bound by today’s promises, nor should we dismiss the idea that today’s leaders will change the terms of the expansion. Even President Obama’s fiscal 2013 budget proposal recommends saving nearly $18 billion over 10 years by pushing more Medicaid costs to states.[6]

Also, federal funding is only for eligibility expansion, not administrative costs. With another Medicaid expansion, Maine would bear the cost of administering a projected 37,000 new enrollees, most of which will translate to new permanent fixed administrative expenses.

Medicaid enrollment has been increasing even prior to the ACA.  Nationally Medicaid enrollment increased 5.1 percent during fiscal 2011 and 3.3 percent in fiscal 2012, and is projected to increase by 3.6 percent in fiscal 2013.[7] Persistent growth in total spending is primarily the result of increased enrollment due to a lackluster economy and increased per capita costs for health care. Both of these root problems are likely to persist.

Increased Medicaid enrollment increases private insurance rates due to cost shifting. It is well documented that Medicaid and Medicare, the two largest governments subsidized insurance programs, under-pay providers for the services they deliver. Medicaid is estimated to reimburse hospitals at a rate of approximately 70 cents for every dollar spent to deliver care. Providers make up for this loss by overcharging private insurers.

If Medicaid enrollment was a direct transfer of the uninsured, you could argue that 70 cents is an improvement over the charity care often delivered to uninsured patients who do not pay their bills, but the facts don’t support this argument. Maine’s own experiment with Medicaid expansion has resulted in little to no reduction in our uninsured rates while private insurance enrollment has decreased (See chart 1 on next page).  When we expand Medicaid, many people who would otherwise purchase private insurance drop coverage for the free, taxpayer-funded coverage offered under Medicaid.[8]

We should also not lose sight of how governments control cost in health care.  The spring 2012 Fiscal Survey of States, a report prepared by the National Governors Association, outlines the Medicaid cost containment measures proposed by Governors for fiscal 2013 budgets.  25 states proposed freezing or reducing provider rates.[9] We have to ask ourselves what incentives this creates for doctors or those who may be considering entering the medical profession and ultimately how this could affect quality of health care in general.

 Chart source[10]

Conclusion

As we look to the long-term future of health care in Maine we must also consider the incentives we are creating for future generations. Medicaid began as a program for particular categories of vulnerable individuals, and now it is being used to assist all citizens, including the able-bodied, below an arbitrary income level.  As a young person entering the workforce, earning $14,856 means free health care.[11]  Increase those earnings by just one dollar, to $14,857, and that same young person not only loses the free coverage, but it becomes an obligation to purchase coverage or else face a penalty.

The culture of dependency created by our current Medicaid system is straining the very fabric of our nation and our state. Our decisions today will impact the future for our children, not only in regards to financial obligations, but also in regards to the culture that will shape their generation.

Sources:

Auburn

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

“ObamaCare: Maine’s Stake In The Fight”

Mr. Joel Allumbaugh

Director, Center for Health Reform Initiatives

The Maine Heritage Policy Center

MHPC Member: $20 per person, inclusive of tax and gratuity.  Non-Member: $25

For additional information, please contact Amanda Clark by e-mail

at aclark@mainepolicy.org or by phone at 207-321-2550.

Portland

Thursday, May 24, 2012

“ObamaCare: Maine’s Stake In The Fight”

Mr. Joel Allumbaugh

Director of the Center for Health Reform Initiatives

The Maine Heritage Policy Center

MHPC Member: $17 per person, inclusive of tax and gratuity.  Non-Member: $22

For additional information, please contact Amanda Clark by e-mail

at aclark@mainepolicy.org or by phone at 207-321-2550.

The Maine Heritage Policy Center

invites you to attend a

Reception and Briefing

Maine on the Front Lines
in the Fight Against ObamaCare

with

Mr. Michael Cannon

Director of Health Policy Studies, CATO Institute

Cumberland Club

116 High Street, Portland

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.

Tickets $30 and include hors d’oeuvres

Please join us for a cocktail reception and briefing with national expert Michael Cannon to hear the latest update on the most important health policy issue facing Maine … ObamaCare.  This law is already increasing the cost of health insurance and will cause greater premium increases in the years to come.  Michael Cannon will discuss how Maine is working to halt the implementation of the Affordable Care Act and will provide you with an opportunity to hear the latest from Washington, D.C., as well as share your views and concerns.

Space is limited.  Please respond to Amanda Clark at aclark@mainepolicy.org or
by calling 207-321-2550.