![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |

68°
Cloudy | 7MPH
NEWSROOM * CIRCULATION * ADVERTISING
Thursday
September 2010
2

State Sen. Jim Sullivan represents the 5th Senate District, which includes Wauwatosa, West Allis, West Milwaukee, Elm Grove and parts of Milwaukee and Brookfield. Sen. Sullivan, a licensed attorney who graduated from Marquette University Law School, strives to be an effective, thoughtful, consensus-building representative of his constituents.
Go to Sen. Sullivan's website
The New Year promises major progress when it comes to increasing competition in
Rep. Richards and I introduced the Health Care Transparency Bill (Senate Bill 418/Assembly Bill 614) earlier this month, and it has already had a public hearing before the Assembly Committee on Health and Healthcare Reform. The bill will encourage competition among health care providers by requiring them to provide health care consumers with the financial tools necessary to make informed decisions.
More employers are turning towards high deductible plans in response to skyrocketing premiums. These high deductible plans place more of the financial responsibility on the consumer, but the consumer’s ability to make informed decisions about care has been limited by a severe lack of available information and a complex pricing system. The Health Care Transparency Bill would require health care providers to disclose their prices.
Nowhere else are people asked to purchase a product without knowing ahead of time how much it's going to cost, and it should be the same with health care.
Under the Health Care Transparency Bill, consumers will have the right to receive a good faith estimate for the cost of a procedure, including out-of-pocket costs. In addition, health care providers will be required to make available a price list for their top 25 most frequently performed procedures.
Price disclosure will increase competition in the health care industry. Here’s why: As consumers begin to shop around for the best value, providers will compete on price and quality.
The bottom line is that people deserve to know the cost of their care. Period.
Laws Respond to Citizens’ Needs for New Year
Several of the bills I authored this session in response to your needs have been signed into law. Here’s a quick snapshot:
Drunk Driving Reform: Senate Bill 66 was signed into law on December 22. The law makes a fourth-offense OWI a felony if the driver has a previous OWI-related conviction within the previous five-year period. It also criminalizes a first-offense OWI if a child is in the vehicle and expands statewide the successful Winnebago County Safe Streets Treatment Option Program. Among its other provisions, the new law will require the installation of Ignition Interlock Devices (IID) for all repeat offenders as well as first-time offenders with a BAC of .15 or higher. The new law takes effect on July 1, 2010.
U-Turns: As of January 1, 2010, drivers will be allowed to perform U-turns at controlled intersections unless there is a sign specifically prohibiting it. The new law will also allow vehicles to pass left-turning vehicles by using either the roadway or the paved shoulder.
Indoor Environmental Quality: This law will help give schools a protocol to follow when dealing with indoor environmental quality issues. It requires the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) to convene a task force to develop a model management plan for indoor environmental quality in public and private schools. Using the DPI plan as a model, school districts will be able to adopt a plan that best meets the needs of their community.
An informal survey and records requests from the Wisconsin Department of Commerce and the former Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services identified almost 100 school buildings with concerns about indoor environmental quality. Failure to prevent and respond to indoor air problems promptly can have grave consequences for our teachers and students, including health problems, reduced performance and absenteeism.
We encourage your comments but will strive to remove discussion that contains personal attacks, racial slurs, profanity or other inappropriate material as outlined in our guidelines. We post-moderate comments on most content, but may choose to pre-moderate some comments so please be patient if you don't see yours appear right way. We also ask for your help by reporting comments you think are inappropriate.
|
|||||||||||
25 Comments
RealityCheck - Dec 31, 2009 9:13 AM
Santas Elf - Dec 31, 2009 11:04 AM
StubbornOldMan - Dec 31, 2009 12:02 PM
According to the analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau, "This substitute amendment eliminates the option of ordering the person’s vehicle to be immobilized or seized and sold at auction.".
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB66-SSA2.pdf
Senator, if you're going to tell me that this sanction was rarely used by judges, then I wonder why you're not applying exactly the same logic to abolishing all speed limits? It's reasonable to assume that a cop will rarely pull somebody over for driving 56 mph in a 55 mph zone, right? Using that same presumed logic, then why not eliminate the 55 mph speed limit entirely for the same logical reasons you introduced SA #2? I'm sure there's something I don't understand about your reasons for introducing SA #2. Please educate me and the rest of us dumb voters here on this blog as to the REAL reason why you did what you did with respect to SA #2.
I'm sure Senator Sullivan has a good reason for not answering this simple question (asked 3 times now). Maybe he's thinking that it won't be asked during the campaign. We'll see. There's got to be a reason for his actions on SA #2, but so far, he doesn't appear to want to share his wisdom with the rest of us on this particular issue.
dohnal - Jan 01, 2010 4:32 PM
We are in worse shape than California thanks to the Doyle/Sullvian/Cullen team.
StubbornOldMan - Jan 02, 2010 10:33 PM
If a test/procedure is priced at $2000, everybody knows that this is the 'list price'. The lab/hospital/clinic will typically charge less than that based on the insurance you have. What I would like to see is that the provider provide SPECIFIC patient out-of-pocket cost for a specific procedure/test based on the DISCOUNTED RATE given to a specific health care provider. This type of data is essential when determining Flex Care budgets at the start of each year and obviously when determining where to seek treatment.
I'm not sure if SB418 does this, but it does state that the provider must publish "the average allowable payment from private, third−party payers". The thing that baffles me is that in order to calculate an AVERAGE of anything, then you must have ACTUAL costs from various providers for that thing that your'e calculating the average from. The bill says nothing about providing ACTUAL costs to us, only AVERAGE costs. Why? Beats me. If I take the literal interpretation of this bill offered by the Legislative Review Bureau, then it doesn't really solve any problem that I've had (or perhaps many others have had).
Any comment, Senator Sullivan? Is this a solution to a problem that really exists or not? All it has ever taken for me to determine cash costs is a phone call to the provider.
Tarzan of the Apes - Jan 03, 2010 8:05 PM
Gas pains - Jan 04, 2010 8:53 AM
Believe it or not I actually agree with you. However, what you've conveniently left out is that pre-Doyle the GOP controlled State government for more than a couple of decades and racked-up record deficits that became a permanent fixture in the State budget.
Both parties are to blame for this mess. So get real bucko. Anyone with half a brain isn't going to buy-into your Big Lie anymore.
By the way - where have the ever-vigilant Tosans for Responsible Government been all the while our home-grown conservatives are busily at work growing local government right here in good old Tosa town?
The silence is deafening.
Cronyism is alive and well after-all isn't it?
CarpieD - Jan 04, 2010 3:32 PM
tosaoutsider - Jan 04, 2010 7:20 PM
I've had lots of trouble getting straight answers about the costs of medical services. I've heard the same complaint from others.
StubbornOldMan - Jan 04, 2010 10:04 PM
tosaoutsider - Jan 05, 2010 12:49 AM
Your provider has a fee for his or her services. He/she applies to become part of the provider network for various insurers. In exchange, he or she agrees to accept whatever the insurer is willing to pay. That amount varies from one insurer to another. Providers accept these lower payments in exchange for referrals.
Patients who pay their own way are expected to pay the full fee. They don't get breaks. Some providers have a sliding scale for low income patients. The bill will require providers to tell you what their fees are. For some people, that will be helpful.
StubbornOldMan - Jan 05, 2010 8:02 AM
I think we'll both be ecstatic once Senator Sullivan tells us why HE introduced SA #2 to SB66 that will now, for the very first time, absolutely prevent judges from even thinking about confiscating the vehicles used by repeat drunk drivers. So much for getting tough with drunk drivers, eh?
tosaoutsider - Jan 05, 2010 7:03 PM
StubbornOldMan - Jan 05, 2010 7:41 PM
I'm sure this question will never be asked of Senator Sullivan during the upcoming campaign. But then again...
tosaoutsider - Jan 05, 2010 11:16 PM
StubbornOldMan - Jan 06, 2010 7:18 AM
The point is that Sullivan unilaterally decided this was a good idea NEVER to confiscate vehicles. He's preventing the judges from making that decision in individual cases. That's why I think the confiscation provision in SA#2 is a dumb idea.
Interesting theory.
izzie - Jan 07, 2010 10:42 AM
You keep reminding us how many times you've asked Sullivan about the confiscation provision, but you should know by now that he doesn't address answers to individuals on his blog. I think that's wise. We get into enough debate among ourselves. I'm just happy he has the guts to put something out there on a regular basis.
Tell me, have you ever written him and asked for an explanation without preemtively getting all over him about it? I write all my representatives and get answers from all of them, from Sullivan to Sensenbrenner.
Also, I think a better response to tosaoutsider, who offered a reasonable explanation to your concern, would have been something on the order of "hmmm, interesting thought," rather than your predictable rant on enablers.
TosaTownie - Jan 07, 2010 11:00 AM
He is an empty suit, I certainly will not vote for him.
StubbornOldMan - Jan 07, 2010 12:38 PM
My first paragraph was mere speculation, albeit, semi-sarcastic speculation. My second paragraph is 100% fact and that's the thing that I hope everybody remembers. Senator Sullivan wants all of us to think he's getting tough against drunk drivers as the text of his opening statement on this blog strongly implies. I'm just trying to remind everybody that there is often more to the story than is being reported in the media or published by any particular politician. Be honest, would you have been aware of this quirky confiscation prohibition change if I hadn't brought it to your attention? Well, maybe you would have been, but I doubt 99% of the other constituents would. I'm doing my best to make everybody who reads this blog a little bit smarter.
Here's another thing that tends to water-down SB66. Governor Doyle's budget now allows non-violent felons to be granted early release from prison as a way to save money. So, even if SB66 were to make the 2nd DUI a felony, it's very likely that this convict would be granted very early release. So, the Senator can talk tough about making the 4th DUI a felony under some cases, but Doyle has minimized the sanctions of that felony conviction. It's similar to the way (D) Sullivan says he's for photo-ID, but he knows that he can rely on (D) Doyle to veto any such bill.
I've stated my opinion about his many LEGISLATIVE decisions on these blogs, and at the same time, I've given him EVERY opportunity to present his side. Maybe there's something I don't know and I'm rushing to judgement. I've almost begged him to edumacate me, but he hasn't. I prefer this semi-public venue so that he can't tell me one thing, you another thing, and Joe Blow something else if we all contact him individually. Yes, I HAVE contacted probably the same group of pols that you apparently contact regarding legislative issues. Sullivan's not very prompt (and that's saying it very diplomatically).