Alcohol Screening

Wed Aug 23 20:53:47 BST 2006

Connie,

Connie,

Good to have you out there.  

It's noteworthy that both Pataki and Schwarzenegger vetoed their states'
repeal attempts, no doubt on the advice of insurance lobbyists.  The
industry's concerns have been echoed by conservatives at every level.
Surprise, surprise.  Take a lesson in November, everyone.

One wonders if, in spite of repeals or amendments of the UPPL federally,
the insurance industry will leverage the McCarren-Ferguson Act to
perpetuate alcohol exclusion provisions at the state level.  It'd be
ironic, but immensely clever.

Unlike Dr. Gross, I have my doubts whether "throwing this issue at the
public" will yield much.  The electorate is pretty shallow and
self-centered when it comes to funding medical care for drunks via
higher insurance premiums.  Not a lot of big picture voters left
anymore.  Ultimately I think you'll have to put the right leaders in
elected office...

Best of luck, and keep us posted.

Pret

-----Original Message-----
From: trauma-list-bounces at trauma.org
[mailto:trauma-list-bounces at trauma.org] On Behalf Of Connie Potter
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 10:08 AM
To: Trauma &amp; Critical Care mailing list
Subject: RE: Alcohol Screening

Dear Trauma Friends:
Ron is absolutely correct - however did I state that this is a national
issue - being fought state by state is burdensome and difficult
considering the strength of the insurance lobby.  We wish to work, with
Dr. Gentillelo's advice, through our Board and our professional
organization liaisons (ACS COT, AAST, EAST, AMA, AHA, UHC, NAPH, ATS,
CATC, STN, etc) as a cohesive group to change this federally.  We are
currently working with our lobbyist to affect the Hospital
(Bio)Terrorism Program so that it covers all hazards and provides
adequate funding for trauma.  National efforts require an ongoing
financial commitment - and trauma organizations have had difficulty
working together effectively on many national issues, leaving trauma
centers and caregivers to carry the fiscal consequences.  That is the
hold up.
Connie

Connie Potter, Executive Director
National Foundation for Trauma Care
(505) 525-9511

CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT:  This electronic communication and any
attachments from the National Foundation for Trauma Care are
confidential, privileged and intended only for the use of the recipient
named above.  Review, dissemination, or copying of this communication by
anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited.  If you
have received this message in error, notify the sender immediately.
Delete and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ronald Gross [mailto:Rgross at harthosp.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 6:25 AM
To: Trauma &amp; Critical Care mailing list
Subject: RE: Alcohol Screening

Connie,
While you are right in stating that the denial ability has had a
chilling effect on testing/screening, there is no excuse for NOT working
at a state and national level on this, for we must remember that, "In
2001 the NAIC (National Association of Insurance Commissioners)
unanimously voted to reverse its position and oppose its former policy
of denying payment to trauma centers for services provided to
intoxicated trauma victims, and now supports repeal of this law by state
legislatures."  
All this will take is a concerted effort by all of us, and our
representatives in our State legislatures and in the Congress.  
What is the hold up?
Ron
>>> "Connie Potter" <Connie at traumafoundation.org> 8/21/2006 1:08 PM
>>>
Re:  Law being repealed in last session in CT, this is not the case
except in 14 states.  Each state has its own statutes as to whether a
payor can deny payment to physicians and hospitals based on the
patient's toxicology or evidence that they are under the influence of
a
substance.  This has had a chilling effect on the willingness to
screen
for ETOH, etc. The national association that determines the UPPL's
(read
Larry Gentelillo, MD, FACS excellent article in the JOT re this issue)
has written a template for states to follow but this is not uniformly
followed.  What was once a "Bible Belt" type of issue has become
increasingly common means for payors to escape their obligations and
pass the bill on to other's insured and the taxpayers.  We support an
organized approach to making this type of denial illegal and will be
working to make that happen.  

Connie Potter, Executive Director
National Foundation for Trauma Care
(505) 525-9511

-----Original Message-----
From: Ronald Gross [mailto:Rgross at harthosp.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 9:20 AM
To: trauma-list at trauma.org 
Subject: Re: Alcohol Screening

I am happy to say that, at least in CT, that law was indeed repealed
in
the last legislative session!

>>> "William Bromberg" <brombwi1 at memorialhealth.com> 8/16/2006 9:54 AM
>>>
What are we to do with the insurance policies that deny payment for
alcohol-related MVCs? These laws need to changed.

Bill B

William J. Bromberg
Savannah Surgical Group
912 350-7412

--
trauma-list : TRAUMA.ORG
To change your settings or unsubscribe visit:
http://www.trauma.org/traumalist.html 

--
trauma-list : TRAUMA.ORG
To change your settings or unsubscribe visit:
http://www.trauma.org/traumalist.html

--
trauma-list : TRAUMA.ORG
To change your settings or unsubscribe visit:
http://www.trauma.org/traumalist.html