Oregon Health Care

As I was wrapping up my workday, I got a message from my friendly state representative about a forum coming up (which I can't attend, they don't make concessions for us working stiffs) in Salem regarding some bills designed to help folks with health care costs.
Now, my representative is a Democrat, so I read his note with that in mind.

He lists off a number of bills running before the Senate and House, so lets go through each of them.
(Note: at this point, I'm working on his descriptions of the bills. If there are any nuances or details that he left out, or that one could get by reading the actual bills, I don't have time to go there today).

Senate Bill 329, which would expand a popular state program that provides discounts on prescription drugs for low-income and uninsured Oregonians. The bill opens up the Oregon Prescription Drug Program to enrollees in health benefits plans, to people of any age with gross incomes up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level, and to businesses and organizations that provide health insurance to their employees. The bill would enable more Oregonians to take advantage of state buying power to obtain better prices for prescription drugs. It sets a maximum enrollment in the program of 250,000 individuals. The Senate approved the bill last month, but it has failed to advance out of committee in the House.

OK, at first it sounds a lot like Bush's prescription drug plan. Which I opposed. I did notice that the general gist is that all people covered by the bill will get to purchase drugs through the state program, using the states buying power. I'm not sure what that means in reality. If it means that enrollees buy drugs at the same rate as the state, that sounds OK. But if it means that the state is increasing funding for drugs for the less advantaged, then I'm not OK.

Senate Bill 501, which requires health insurers to report certain information to the state in a format that allows policy makers and the public to compare insurers more easily. The information includes the number of members, trends in premiums, administrative costs, net income, and surpluses and reserves. The Senate passed the bill in May, but the House has taken no final action.

Senate Bill 1040, which would require hospitals to report specific costs to the state, allowing comparisons of costs at different hospitals. Among its goals is making hospital costs more understandable to consumers and insurance companies. The Senate passed the bill in May, but the House Budget Committee has not acted on it.

I lumped these two together for a reason. So what you are telling me is we need a law in order for health companies and hospitals to report certain information to the state because lawmakers don't understand how things in the health care industry work? Why do policy makers need to compare insurers more easily? It seems to me that insurance companies would be working in their best interests anyway by making that information easier to understand so that average consumers could make those comparisons.
I understand that legislators would like to help out the average joe understand why costs are so high, but passing laws and spending tax peoples money spending time doing something that private consumer organizations should be doing is not something I want to see passing the House.

House Bill 2817, which would require drug makers to disclose the nature, value and purposes of the gifts they give to physicians, hospitals and other health professionals. With healthcare costs skyrocketing, patients need this kind of information in order to be wise consumers, the billÂ’s supporters say. The House Health and Human Services Committee heard strong testimony in support of the bill, but the Committee closed down before it could act on it.

I'm actually less hostile toward this one. My mother, who has worked in the nursing industry for 30 years, has given me the impression that this is still a big problem, and one reason why doctors still prescribe more expensive medication than they need to.

House Bill 3496, which would require full funding of the state program to reduce tobacco use. The $7 million that the Budget Committees are proposing to allocate for the program is 53 percent less than the voters mandated.

This sounds like capital politics. I'm not going to comment on it.
Anyway. Curious to see if any of these are going to make it through this year. Stay tuned.