AgdaPkt 2003-09-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

_ - AA MORE NEWS CLIPS ON NATIVE AMERICAN "SACRED SITES" BILL News organizations continue to weigh in on the many concerns posed by SB 18 (Burton), which would establish a powerful new regulatory agency to protect Native American sacred s fes. The League is strongly opposed to the measw e, Ls are more than 50 other organizations. For more information on the bill, please visit the League's webste at www.cacities.o or call League Legislative Representative Dan Carrigg at 916.658.8222, email: dcarigg @cacites.org. MEDICAL from page 1 .............. Below are clips of some editorials and articles that appeared over the past week. The Torrance Daily Breeze, 9/01/03, Rethink Sacred Sites Bill. "While the sacred places of American Indians should be protected, the imperious method chosen by lawmakers and the haste with which this new bureaucracy is being formed would scare Californians — if they knew about it. By rushing the sacred sites bill through in the last days of the legislative session, lawmakers are severely restricting public debate on the measure." Los Angeles Daily News, 8/31/03, Sites Unseen — Money -Hungry Davis Warms Up to Another Bad Bill He Once Vetoed. "In his desper- ate drive to shore up special - interest support and get their money, Davis has gone through political contor- tions, reversing previously held positions and cutting deals wherever he can." Wall Street Journal, 8129103, Davis's Support of Bill May Signal Indians' Clout. "Last September, California Gov. Gray Davis vetoed a bill designed to give American Indians broad rights to protect tribal sacred sites across the state. But as a campaign to recall him gathered momentum earlier this summer, Mr Davis switched sides and is now the main sponsor of a new version of the bill." San Jose Mercury News and Monterey County Herald, 914103, Indian Bill Stirs Debate. A proposed state law that would give Indians unprec- edented power to halt developments near sacred tribal land and impose criminal penalties on anyone who publicly discussed those sites has builders, local government officials and others howling... the Califor- nia First Amendment Coalition called the bill 'the most wide - ranging incursion into settled law protecting open government, open court proceedings and free speech that CFAC has encountered in a single piece of legislation.' (The San Jose Mercury News is a member of the coalition.)" Cities should ask their risk managers and city attorneys to review the amended version of SB 494 and immediately contact their Assembly Members and Senators to vote NO on the bill. Background: Under existing law and practice many health insurers have contracts with health providers that pay a reduced rate from what health providers bill as their "reasonable or full retail" rate. The provider is then precluded from balance billing the beneficiary for any difference between the contract price and full retail price. As proposed to be amended, SB 494 would expand the potential recovery beyond the cost of the medical care provided to include their "reasonable or full retail" rate, which could include speculative costs as well. This could create a windfall to the health care provider by allowing them to collect more from a responsible third party's insurance company than their health care contract provides for. It could encourage hospitals to inflate their "reasonable or full retail" rate in order to recover even higher costs. Adding insult to injury, the bill would provide a rebutable presumption that the amount of the "reasonable and necessary" charges submitted by the health care provider is correct. This rebutable presumption could certainly be abused and could lead to even higher insurance and litigation costs to local governments. If enacted, SB 494 will lead to higher insurance premiums due to the inflated settlement costs created by this measure. In addition this bill will encourage hospitals to alter their pricing in a way that hurts private payers. The results will negatively impact city budgets for insurance, whether the city is self - insured or purchases private insurance. The bill is currently on the Assembly Floor; it likely will be heard in the Assembly Judiciary Committee. For the latest information, check the League's website at www.cacities.or or contact League Legislative Representative Yvonne Hunter, 916.658.8242, email huntervrd cacitiPs.org PAGE 4 /PRIORITY FOCUS Visit the League's Official Web Site-- www.cacities.org