Today nearly 175,000 kids in Colorado lack health insurance coverage. The overwhelming majority lack coverage because their families can’t afford it. Colorado has the fastest growing rate of child poverty in the nation. Amendment 63 – a threatening measure facing voters on this November’s ballot-would maintain the status quo, leaving one of every five Colorado children uninsured.
The danger of Amendment 63 is more than symbolic: if passed, it will have real impact here in Colorado, chiseling costly and dangerous health care policy language into the Colorado Constitution.
In Pueblo today, more than 25,000 people, or 1 in six, do not enjoy the peace of mind that comes with having health insurance. More than 3,000 children in Pueblo County are uninsured, according to the Census Bureau and the Colorado State Demographer’s Office.
Yet Amendment 63 aims to reduce the number of people covered by health insurance. If this happens, vulnerable populations such as elderly and low-income Coloradans will have fewer options. Kids with pre-existing conditions will be unable to access affordable coverage. As a result, Amendment 63 means more uninsured children.
The interests behind Amendment 63 say they want to protect the citizen’s “right” to “pay cash for care.” Last year a Harvard Medical School study concluded that medical bills caused or contributed to 62 percent of bankruptcies. Of the 2,300 people surveyed, the average medically bankrupt family had paid $17,943 in out-of-pocket costs. Those without insurance had paid an average of $26,971. For most of us, paying out-of-pocket for chemotherapy, a life-saving emergency room visit, or the birth of a premature baby is simply out of the question. So why on earth would we want to force more people to “pay cash for care”?
This costly amendment would also increase prices for those who already have insurance. When we cut the number of people covered by health insurance and decrease access to money-saving preventative care, we should expect an increase in expensive emergency room visits. That will leave the insured population to foot the bill, because when fewer people have health care coverage, everyone else pays more for uncompensated care.
The language of A63, like the South Platte River, is both broad and muddy. It’s possible that 63 could impede Medicaid and Child Health Plan Plus enrollment, according to a study by the Colorado Center on Law and Policy. It could also limit the state’s ability to ensure that medical practitioners behave in a safe and ethical manner. Its scope is so wide that it might even threaten the existence of student health clinics on college campuses.
No one knows all of the negative impacts Amendment 63’s vague language could have on health care in Colorado. What we do know is that Amendment 63’s sweeping terms will have real consequences. It will leave hundreds of thousands of Coloradans uninsured. It will hurt the quest to ensure that sick kids have reliable coverage and affordable care. It will drive up health care costs at a time when Colorado can least afford it. And it doesn’t deserve a place in our state’s Constitution.
Dr. Jim Shmerling is president and CEO of The Children’s Hospital. EDITOR’S NOTE: This is an online-only column and has not been edited.
