[47] in UA Exec
Re: Task Force Report: Medical copay
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Hawkinson)
Sat Sep 19 17:20:46 2009
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 17:20:26 -0400
From: John Hawkinson <jhawk@MIT.EDU>
To: Liz Denys <lizdenys@MIT.EDU>
Cc: Daniel Hawkins <hwkns@MIT.EDU>, UA Executive Board <ua-exec@MIT.EDU>,
CSL <ua-csl@MIT.EDU>, medlinks-discuss@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <4AB5453D.1010603@mit.edu>
Liz Denys <lizdenys@MIT.EDU> wrote on Sat, 19 Sep 2009
at 16:55:25 -0400 in <4AB5453D.1010603@mit.edu>:
> This will certainly affect students. For instance, if a student
> needs to see a dermatologist, they previously could at Medical for
> free. Now there will be a copay.
That is not how I interpret Dr. Kettyle.
He said, "It is unclear now this will play out. We're really forced to
do this by Mental Health Parity Laws, but we've tailored it to meet
our needs: (1) [it will] not apply to students (2) [it is] only for
specialty care, not primary care."
If taken at face value, I believe the claim is that dermatology services
for students will not require a co-pay, but dermatology services for
employees would.
I'd urge you to check with him on this detail, but I think he was
pretty clear.
> Whether this makes it an issue, on the other hand, if it is
> explicitly not something Medical can decide, is unclear. Maybe,
> awareness of how such decision will be made is a CSL issue?
It seems clear, at least if you support my interpretation of his
remarks, that MIT has substantial flexibility to adjust things
within the bounds of the law.
--jhawk@mit.edu News Editor
John Hawkinson The Tech +1 617 797 0250
http://tech.mit.edu
