*

[mischievium]

*

[EdnaMarie]

Just got a letter from my midwife today. This is unbelievable, or rather, believable in a horrible conspiracy-theorist way. Writing my letters...

[DIVADLX]

Called as soon as I got the e-mail... will be taking more action as soon as I hear back from a poli-sci professor who might help me read the bill.

Have you looked at it? Its like its written in code. And there are a LOT of really valuable programs they want to cut - like the task force protecting exploited children.

[pertuset]

What is JUA?

Hi,

I'm preparing to call my senator. (Note: This is a senate bill, and to my knowledge does not yet have a house corollary, so prioritizing contacting your senator over your representatives will be the most effective at this point.)

Before I call my senator, I'd like more information. What is the JUA -- what do the letters stand for? [edited to add: OOOPS! Somehow I'd overlooked the part of the original post that said it's the Joint Underwriting Association.] What part of the bill references the JUA? I've looked at it, and it references sections of the RCW, but does not mention "JUA" [or "Joint Underwriting Association"] by name, so I'd like to find out what RCW section is relevant to the JUA.

I've called the Northwest Women's Law Center to ask what action they're taking, and they weren't aware of this aspect of the bill, and will now look into it. I'll let you know what I hear back.

Thanks,
Jenni

[pertuset]

more info

I've discovered the relevant section of the senate bill:

NEW SECTION. Sec. 65. A new section is added to chapter 48.87 RCW
30 to read as follows:
31 The following acts or parts of acts are each temporarily suspended
32 until July 1, 2011: RCW 48.87.040 (midwives and birthing centers).

And my representative's office says Ross Hunter is working on a house corollary. Here's his number: 360.786.7936.

[judyasapunk]

Hello! I've been spreading the word about this, but just got a question that I'm not sure how to answer. I was hoping maybe someone could help me out, I know nothing about insurance! TIA!!

"Hi Laura--

I'm curious to know if Washington has some sort of insurance law that only allows providers with malpractice insurance to be reimbursed by private insurance. Federal Medicaid regulations don't require it, and my understanding from our legal counsel, Susan Jenkins, is that means that states can't require malpractice as a condition of Medicaid reimbursement either.

I agree that you should most definitely fight this move, and having affordable malpractice insurance available is always better than having none. But I'm just wondering if there's something unique to WA insurance laws/regs that requires it for reimbursement, since that's not the case in any other states.

FL is the only other state where LMs have access to malpractice insurance, and they have no trouble getting reimbursed in any of them (even in the states where DEMs can't become licensed, though licensure always increases reimbursement rates and levels).

Good luck there, and please keep us posted!
Katie Prown
Campaign Manager
The Big Push for Midwives 2009"

[EdnaMarie]

though licensure always increases reimbursement rates and levels

The problem is they do have to have insurance for private reimbursement. I can't get Medicaid. I pay for private insurance. Why should I have to pay out of pocket more for a midwife that is costing them less, just because she cannot pay for malpractice insurance? Doctors can get malpractice insurance and the state board that supports that isn't being suspended, is it?

[judyasapunk]

This was just posted where I first heard about SB 5588 and it’s impact on midwifery:

"THANK YOU to everyone who wrote/called and passed it on. This just in from the Seattle ICAN list:

I just received a phone call from my Senator's office regarding this State Bill - let's see if I can recall accurately the good news in my fevered/flu state:

Due to the response from all of us, an amendment to the bill has been proposed to exclude the JUA from the proposed cuts. The deadline for hearing the bill is March 12th; if they hear the bill, then the amendment will be proposed on the floor at that same time. She stated that due to our overwhelming push, and the fact that we brought this to their attention, the amendment is good to pass, that the JUA will be removed from the bill and remain in force. She further stated that if the bill is not heard on the Senate floor by March 12th, then the bill dies there.

Please forward this good news to the the other list-serves you are on and pat yourselves on the back for taking action.

We CAN and DO make a difference!

Way to go!!"

[passionflowers]

Senate Bill 5588 / Thanks for your support, but no more calls are needed

From the Midwives' Association of WA State

Thank you to everyone who contacted their legislators in the past two days to urge them to remove the Joint Underwriting Association (JUA) from SSB 5588. This cost-cutting bill would have suspended the JUA, a vital entity that provides the only liability insurance available in Washington State for licensed midwives and birth centers. Because the JUA does not actually use any state resources, members of the Senate Rules Committee have agreed to remove the JUA from the bill.

This is a huge relief. Had we lost the JUA, licensed midwives and birth centers would have immediately gone out of business because insurance reimbursement is tied to our liability coverage. MAWS lobbyist, Amber Ulvenes, has been working non-stop, behind the scenes, in conjunction with representatives from the Office of the Insurance Commissioner, to avert this disaster. And your support has been critical as well.

But our work is not yet done. We are still hoping to cap the midwifery licensing fee during this legislative session with a budget proviso-if we are successful in this endeavor, the midwifery licensing fee will remain at $450/year; otherwise, our fee will skyrocket to $2,000 in July 2009.

MAWS is in the process of compiling important data from DSHS that will enable us to make an even stronger case for the cost-benefits of licensed midwifery care than the DOH study made last year. That study estimated that licensed midwives save the state $473,000 biennially in cost-offsets to Medicaid-however, the study only considered the lower c-section rate of licensed midwives. It did not factor into the equation all the hospital facility fees and the costly medical procedures (epidurals, electronic fetal monitoring, inductions, episiotomies, etc.) that are avoided when women give birth at home or in free-standing birth centers. We believe the savings conferred by licensed midwives is actually in the millions annually. We anticipate being able to use this revised data to convince legislators that it makes good economic sense to keep the profession of licensed midwifery alive and well.

Since we have a limited amount of political capital to expend and since the JUA issue seems to be resolving, we ask you to PLEASE REFRAIN FROM CONTACTING YOUR LEGISLATORS AND CHECK BACK ON THE MAWS WEB SITE IN 1-2 DAYS.

WE WILL PUT OUT AN ACTION ALERT AS SOON AS WE HAVE THIS UPDATED INFORMATION AND ASK YOU TO CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATORS AGAIN TO URGE THEM TO SUPPORT THE BUDGET PROVISO TO CAP THE MIDWIFERY LICENSING FEE AT $450/YEAR.

THANK YOU AGAIN FOR ALL YOUR WONDERFUL ENERGY AND HELP!

[mischievium]

*