T1B

The leader of the state Senate is going to unusual lengths to block a bipartisan bill to help cancer patients afford life-saving treatments as his brother lobbies on behalf of insurers to kill the
proposal.

The proposal would require health plans to provide the same coverage for chemotherapy drugs taken as pills as they do for chemotherapy administered through IVs.

Audrey Van Dyke, whose 17-year-old son Alexander was diagnosed with cancer in 2010, has never understood why his chemotherapy was covered when he was in a hospital or clinic but cost additional money when taken as a pill at home.

"It doesn't make sense," Van Dyke said. "The drugs would have been covered if we lived across the border."

Twenty-nine states - including neighboring Iowa, Illinois and Minnesota - have passed laws requiring insurance companies to treat oral chemotherapy drugs the same as they do other chemotherapy,with little or no effect on premium costs. A bill to do that in Wisconsin has more than 50 co-sponsors, including many top Republicans: Assembly Majority Leader Pat Strachota, Sen. Alberta Darling, co-chair of the powerful budget committee, and Senate President Mike Ellis.

But Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) used a phantom committee meeting Wednesday to keep colleagues from voting on the bill, which he acknowledges will pass if it reaches the Senate floor. He said Thursday that he won't allow the bill to come forward in the Senate on Tuesday, leaving only an outside chance for the proposal to become law.

As Fitzgerald tries to block or rewrite the proposal, his brother, Jeff Fitzgerald, a lobbyist and former legislative leader himself, is working for the insurance companies that oppose the bill.

"Knowing Scott the way I do, I highly doubt that comes into play," said Democratic Sen. Jon Erpenbach of Middleton, the most outspoken critic of Fitzgerald's actions. "But I do clearly understand what the perception is going to be to everybody else in the state and the perception is not going to be good."

Health plans typically cover oral chemotherapy drugs under prescription drug plans that can have high co-pays, and for some health plans, those co-pays could run into tens of thousands of dollars a year. In contrast, when chemotherapy is administered at a hospital or clinic, it is covered as part of a health plan's standard medical coverage with no additional cost once the deductible is reached.

For his part, Scott Fitzgerald said GOP senators would discuss the bill next week and that he hoped "we can arrive at a version of the bill that our members can agree on."

But he also said the Senate won't take up the bill on Tuesday, which likely kills it. The Assembly's last planned session is Thursday, so the bill is effectively dead if it doesn't pass that house by then.

In the Assembly, the chemotherapy bill hasn't even passed out of the health committee and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) is signaling that he opposes it.

"In the past, I have not voted for any mandates," he said.

Strachota, who is not running for re-election, has a high position in the Assembly and passion for the bill, which is the last major proposal that she could push through before retiring. But she made clear that the bill was unlikely to pass in her house first, if it passes there at all.

"There's always hope," she said. "I know that there's still talk in the Senate."

Cancer survivor Jim Logan of Glendale can't believe the bill isn't passing.

"Whether it's IV or a pill, it's chemotherapy," he said. "There shouldn't even be a question about it."

Logan, who was diagnosed with chronic myelogenous leukemia in 1999, has taken a series of oral chemotherapy drugs since his diagnosis.

"I don't understand how the people in the Legislature can look at this bill and say it is not good," said Logan, a Republican and small business owner. "It is simply common sense. It's something that shouldn't even have been subject to debate."

Logan's last health plan had a cap of $10,000 a year in out-of-pocket expenses for prescription drugs. This was in addition to the out-of-pocket expenses for his medical coverage.

Phil Dougherty, senior executive officer of the Wisconsin Association of Health Plans, said lawmakers also need to look at the needs of other consumers and their employers. The bill sets a "dangerous precedent" for the Legislature to meddle with the design of coverage plans, he said.

"What about other drugs that are very expensive as well?" Dougherty asked.

The association also has stressed that the bill would raise premiums, though Dougherty acknowledged that he doesn't have specific figures on the increase.

Strachota and other supporters of the law note similar bills in other states have had a negligible effect on premiums.They say traditional chemotherapy administered at a clinic or hospital can be as costly as oral chemotherapy drugs.

A review done by the Washington Department of Insurance found an increase of 0.2% as a result of the state's oral chemotherapy law, according to the International Myeloma Foundation. In Indiana, the Department of Insurance found no increase in premiums after it passed similar legislation in 2010.

Insurance industry groups also have said the law is not needed because many health plans cover oral chemo and the Affordable Care Act caps out-of-pocket expenses at $6,350 for an individual this year.

"That significantly changes the picture for people whose out-of-pocket costs are thousands of dollars," Dougherty said.

The Legislature's two most powerful lawmakers, Fitzgerald and Vos, aren't backing the bill.

Scott Fitzgerald said his efforts to hold up the bill are no different from last session, when his brother Jeff was serving as Assembly speaker and the chemotherapy bill also failed to pass.

Jeff Fitzgerald didn't respond to a request for comment. Since April 2013, he has served as a contract lobbyist for the Wisconsin Association of Health Plans, which opposes the bill along with individual insurers and another trade group, the Alliance of Health Insurers.

"This issue has been around a lot longer than Jeff has been working with the health plan groups," Scott Fitzgerald said. "Since 2011, the dynamics in my (Republican) caucus have not changed. Some members support it, and others view it as an expensive mandate."

But Democratic supporters like Erpenbach and Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca (D-Kenosha) note that it has near unanimous backing from Democrats and, more importantly, many of the Legislature's other influential Republicans. Big drug companies and doctors groups support it.

Despite the bill's high-placed supporters, the measure is "not scheduled yet because the insurance companies have a lot of power," Erpenbach said.

Insurers are major donors to Republican lawmakers and have a history of giving to GOP legislators on both sides of the chemotherapy bill issue, such as Fitzgerald and Darling.

The question of how far the government should intervene in the health care market has become one of the most toxic issues in politics. The bitter debate over Obamacare has led lawmakers on both sides to dig deep ideological trenches.

The chemotherapy bill has brought many lawmakers out of those entrenched positions.

For now, the prospects look poor for Audrey Van Dyke and other supporters of the bill.

"It doesn't seem very logical or fair to the residents of Wisconsin," she said.

Papa Willie wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:Those free market, capitalist conservatives.

At least they have a "surplus" just like Cali does now.

Btw - what does all that shit say? I'm not reading all of that.

Papa Willie wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:Those free market, capitalist conservatives.

Btw - what does all that shit say? I'm not reading all of that.

Goober McTuber wrote:

Papa Willie wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:Those free market, capitalist conservatives.

At least they have a "surplus" just like Cali does now.

Btw - what does all that shit say? I'm not reading all of that.

It says that Republicans are in the pocket of big business. Hard to believe that qualifies as news.

Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) used a phantom committee meeting Wednesday to keep colleagues from voting on the bill, which he acknowledges will pass if it reaches the Senate floor

Big drug companies and doctors groups support it.

mvscal wrote:

Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) used a phantom committee meeting Wednesday to keep colleagues from voting on the bill, which he acknowledges will pass if it reaches the Senate floor

.

Good job kicking your own ass.

Big drug companies and doctors groups support it.

Wisconsin state Sen. Dale Schultz, R-Richland Center, will not ride off quietly into the sunset.

In an appearance on the Devil’s Advocate radio show (The Mic/92.1 FM) last week, Schultz told hosts Mike Crute and Dominic Salvia that his party’s support for a series of election law changes was indefensible.

“I am not willing to defend them anymore,” he explained when Salvia asked why Republicans sought to limit the number of voting hours a municipality could offer. “I’m just not and I’m embarrassed by this.”

Since announcing his retirement in the face of a tough primary challenge from conservative state Rep. Howard Marklein, R-Spring Green, the Republican iconoclast has become more strident in criticizing the party in which he has made a political career. Schultz has served as a legislator from southwestern Wisconsin since 1983, including two stints as Senate majority leader in 2003 and 2005.

Last week, Schultz argued that there were no legitimate justifications for some of the election reforms pushed by Republicans.

“It’s all predicated on some belief there is a massive fraud or irregularities, something my colleagues have been hot on the trail for three years and have failed miserably at demonstrating,” he said.

However, the suggestion that his party holds a sincere but misguided belief constituted one of Schultz’s gentler criticisms of the GOP. He hinted that Republicans are trying to gain an electoral advantage by depressing voter turnout.

“It’s just sad when a political party has so lost faith in its ideas that it’s pouring all of its energy into election mechanics,” Schultz said. “We should be pitching as political parties our ideas for improving things in the future rather than mucking around in the mechanics and making it more confrontational at the voting sites and trying to suppress the vote.”

Although Schultz voted for the voter ID bill passed by the Legislature in 2011, now tied up in the courts, he said he now believes that a lack of access to the polls poses a far greater threat to the integrity of state elections than voter fraud.

The course his Republican colleagues are charting, he said, is a depressing departure from the legacy set by those who championed voting rights during Reconstruction and later during the Civil Rights Era.

“In the spirit of the champion of the 1957 Voting Rights Act, I have been trying to send a message that we are not encouraging voting, we are not making voting easier in any way, shape or form with these bills,” he explained. “Back in 1957 with the leadership of Dwight Eisenhower, Republicans were doing that. And that makes me sad, frankly.”

Later, Schultz attacked a bill aimed at helping companies escape asbestos litigation that has been criticized by groups representing veterans, who account for a disproportionate number of those suffering from mesothelioma, a cancer linked to asbestos exposure.

“This bill is certainly a slap in the face at the very least to some of the people who gave some of the most vital years of their life in the service of their country,” he said.

So far Marklein is the only Republican candidate for the 17th Senate seat that Schultz will vacate after this year, although State Senate Democratic Committee executive director Beau Stafford said last week that a moderate candidate, who he declined to name, might challenge Marklein in the primary.

Ernie Wittwer is the only declared Democratic candidate in the race, although Pat Bomhack, a law student who is currently a candidate for the Assembly seat that Marklein is vacating, is rumored to be considering leaving that race to run for Senate instead.

Schultz has only said that he will not back Marklein. Whether or how he gets involved in the race remains unclear.

Goober McTuber wrote:No, actually I'm pointing at one of the most evil motherfuckers to ever pollute Wisconsin politics. In this particular instance there are Republicans who would vote for this bill, but that's an exception to the rule. They talk about jobs, but all of their legislation is aimed at social engineering and increasing control at the state level at the expense of local government control.

Derron wrote:And the Dems and libtards are not aimed at " social engineering " and increasing government control ??

Derron wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:No, actually I'm pointing at one of the most evil motherfuckers to ever pollute Wisconsin politics. In this particular instance there are Republicans who would vote for this bill, but that's an exception to the rule. They talk about jobs, but all of their legislation is aimed at social engineering and increasing control at the state level at the expense of local government control.

And the Dems and libtards are not aimed at " social engineering " and increasing government control ?? That is fucking hysterical..you calling out the Republican conservatives for " social engineering".