[41] in UA Exec
Re: Task Force Report: Medical copay
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Hawkins)
Sat Sep 19 04:30:44 2009
Reply-To: hwkns@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <20090919082047.GZ16009@multics.mit.edu>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 04:30:27 -0400
From: Daniel Hawkins <hwkns@MIT.EDU>
To: John Hawkinson <jhawk@mit.edu>
Cc: UA Executive Board <ua-exec@mit.edu>, CSL <ua-csl@mit.edu>
--00151747beea8f7c050473ea0f03
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Yes. Thanks for filling in with better details, jhawk. The questions still
stand, of course... Anyone?
-hwkns
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 4:20 AM, John Hawkinson <jhawk@mit.edu> wrote:
> Daniel Hawkins <hwkns@MIT.EDU> wrote on Sat, 19 Sep 2009
> at 04:12:12 -0400 in <
> 9d4f87ed0909190112k9682c64k37ec970b07f1735b@mail.gmail.com>:
>
> > So I went to the first open forum about the Institute Wide Planning
> > Task Force report, and this issue (which has been loosely assigned
> > to CSL) was brought up. Liz, please correct me if I'm wrong (I
> > didn't take notes), but I believe there was a doctor there from MIT
> > Medical who spoke on the issue,
>
> That was Dr. Bill Kettyle, the Head of MIT Medical.
>
> > and he basically said:
> >
> > * The copay changes will not affect students
>
> Except for medication, [which is not a change].
>
> > * The copay changes are for specialty care only, not primary care
>
> And he want on to note that "primary care, writ large, includes
> internal medicine, pediatics, [ob/gyn]." And that "Many of the other
> -ologies" would have a copay effective January 1, 2010,
> including "neurology, gastrointerology," etc.
>
> > * The copay changes are mandated by new laws, so they are not
> > negotiable and are already being implemented
>
> More precisely, they are mandated by Massachusetts "mental health
> parity laws," which he said were not new, but are newly going to
> be affecting MIT, and that though we are forced to do this,
> "we have tailored it to meet our needs" (by the above). There appears
> therefore to be some flexibility on how the implementation works.
>
> --jhawk@mit.edu News Editor
> John Hawkinson The Tech +1 617 797 0250
> http://tech.mit.edu
>
>
> > My questions are:
> >
> > * Are these things true? If so, why was this "idea" even in the
> report?
> > * Is this issue essentially dead? What can we do about it, and do we
> even
> > care?
> >
> > Discuss.
> >
> > -hwkns
>
--00151747beea8f7c050473ea0f03
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yes.=A0 Thanks for filling in with better details, jhawk.=A0 The questions =
still stand, of course...=A0 Anyone?<br><br>-hwkns<br><br><div class=3D"gma=
il_quote">On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 4:20 AM, John Hawkinson <span dir=3D"ltr"=
><<a href=3D"mailto:jhawk@mit.edu">jhawk@mit.edu</a>></span> wrote:<b=
r>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, =
204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Daniel Hawkins &l=
t;<a href=3D"mailto:hwkns@MIT.EDU">hwkns@MIT.EDU</a>> wrote on Sat, 19 S=
ep 2009<br>
at 04:12:12 -0400 in <<a href=3D"mailto:9d4f87ed0909190112k9682c64k37ec9=
70b07f1735b@mail.gmail.com">9d4f87ed0909190112k9682c64k37ec970b07f1735b@mai=
l.gmail.com</a>>:<br>
<div class=3D"im"><br>
> So I went to the first open forum about the Institute Wide Planning<br=
>
> Task Force report, and this issue (which has been loosely assigned<br>
> to CSL) was brought up. =A0Liz, please correct me if I'm wrong (I<=
br>
> didn't take notes), but I believe there was a doctor there from MI=
T<br>
> Medical who spoke on the issue,<br>
<br>
</div>That was Dr. Bill Kettyle, the Head of MIT Medical.<br>
<div class=3D"im"><br>
> and he basically said:<br>
><br>
> =A0 * The copay changes will not affect students<br>
<br>
</div>Except for medication, [which is not a change].<br>
<br>
> =A0 * The copay changes are for specialty care only, not primary care<=
br>
<br>
And he want on to note that "primary care, writ large, includes<br>
internal medicine, pediatics, [ob/gyn]." And that "Many of the ot=
her<br>
-ologies" would have a copay effective January 1, 2010,<br>
including "neurology, gastrointerology," etc.<br>
<br>
> =A0 * The copay changes are mandated by new laws, so they are not<br>
<div class=3D"im">> =A0 negotiable and are already being implemented<br>
<br>
</div>More precisely, they are mandated by Massachusetts "mental healt=
h<br>
parity laws," which he said were not new, but are newly going to<br>
be affecting MIT, and that though we are forced to do this,<br>
"we have tailored it to meet our needs" (by the above). There app=
ears<br>
therefore to be some flexibility on how the implementation works.<br>
<br>
--<a href=3D"mailto:jhawk@mit.edu">jhawk@mit.edu</a> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 =A0 News Editor<br>
<font color=3D"#888888"> =A0John Hawkinson =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0T=
he Tech =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0+1 617 797 0250<br>
=A0<a href=3D"http://tech.mit.edu" target=3D"_blank">http://tech.mit.edu</=
a><br>
</font><div><div></div><div class=3D"h5"><br>
<br>
> My questions are:<br>
><br>
> =A0 * Are these things true? =A0If so, why was this "idea" e=
ven in the report?<br>
> =A0 * Is this issue essentially dead? =A0What can we do about it, and =
do we even<br>
> =A0 =A0 care?<br>
><br>
> Discuss.<br>
><br>
> -hwkns<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>
--00151747beea8f7c050473ea0f03--
