BOSTON — The second question in the November ballot asks voters if they support requiring dental insurance plans to spend at least 83% of their premiums received from members on dental care for members and improving health. quality rather than the administrative costs of running the business.
The proposal is sponsored by the Dental Insurance Quality Committee. The main opposition to the proposal is led by the Committee of the same name to protect public access to quality dental care.
“Dental insurance pays patients too little, so families, seniors and individual patients with insurance struggle to cover their dental costs,” said campaign spokesperson Chris Keohane. “Yes on 2”, at Beacon Hill Roll Call. “Requiring insurance companies to invest more money in actual patient care will mean a better deal for patients. Similar to medical insurance laws, this law would require dental insurance companies to allocate at least 83% of premiums paid to patient care or refund premiums to patients to meet this standard. Simply put, a “yes” vote is a guarantee of value for voters. »
Keohane said Delta Dental funded about 90% of the “No” side of Question 2 and spent several hundred thousand dollars in legal fees trying to silence voters who signed up for it to be on the ballot. of voting.
“The facts are simple. Delta Dental doesn’t want the people of Massachusetts to know that they only spent $177 million on actual patient care in the same year they ‘offered’ $291 million to their parent company,” it said. -he declares. “These are verifiable facts on their own IRS 990 tax form. Now they’re spending millions confusing voters with blatant lies and that’s shameful.
The “No to 2” campaign did not respond to repeated requests from the Beacon Hill Roll Call to answer questions about its campaign. The following information comes from the campaign website.
“Question 2 will increase dental costs for Massachusetts families and employers – by 38%, according to an independent study by Milliman Research,” says the “No on 2” campaign. “A recent survey of consumers and businesses in Massachusetts found that if such increases occurred, more than half of consumers would likely drop their dental insurance and 90% of businesses indicated they would be likely to make changes. to coverage, including reduced employer and employee contributions, employee benefits, or the complete removal of dental coverage for employees.
Opponents say a question on the ballot is no place to decide such a complicated issue that will force consumers to pay more for the same level of care while only benefiting providers. “Question 2 is an endgame around the experts and the legislature,” he says.
Keohane told Beacon Hill Roll Call that he takes issue with Milliman Research’s characterization of the study as “independent.”
“The ‘no’ camp peddled this study as ‘independent’, but the insurance industry funded it, provided the necessary data, and its publicity highlights a specific part of the ‘study’ which, according to authors themselves, is not possible. Their lies are a slap in the face for all voters,” he said.
“We are extremely optimistic that ‘Oui sur 2’ will win in November,” Keohane continued. “With more than 700 endorsers from patients, dentists, elected officials and organizations, we have brought together a grassroots movement that is fed up with insurance executives who receive exorbitant salaries and exorbitant waste from companies that their own forms taxes prove.”
Here are the official arguments of supporters and opponents as they appear in the Redbook – the book, distributed by the statewide Secretary of Households, which provides information to voters on voting matters.
Written by Dr. Patricia Brown, Committee on Quality Dental Insurance (www.fairdentalinsurance.org)
“A ‘Yes’ vote ensures better coverage and better value for patients, instead of unreasonable waste for companies. For example, according to its own 2019 Form 990, Delta Dental (in Massachusetts alone) paid $382 million in bonuses, commissions, and affiliate payments, while only paying $177 million for patient care. patients.
A “Yes” vote would eliminate this inequity. Similar to medical insurance, this law would require dental insurance companies to allocate at least 83% of premiums paid to patient care or refund premiums to patients to meet this standard. Insurance companies will try to confuse voters by saying dental insurance premiums will go up. This is false, as Section 2(d) of the Act specifically prohibits increases above the Consumer Price Index without state approval.
Stop corporate waste. Vote “Yes” for fair dental insurance. »
Written by Louis Rizoli, Committee to Protect Public Access to Quality Dental Care (www.Protectmydentalcare.com)
“This issue will increase costs for Massachusetts families and employers – a 38% increase in premiums in a recent independent study – and could lead to the loss of access to dental care for thousands of people. With consumer prices soaring, we don’t need new regulations that will increase costs and reduce choice.
“There is no law like this voting issue anywhere in the country. The Massachusetts legislature actually repealed a similar law in 2011 because it was found to be too burdensome and provided no real benefit to consumers. Federal lawmakers barred it from Obamacare, and a special Massachusetts commission reviewed and rejected a similar provision. In addition, the state already requires reports from dental plans.
