AcademyHealth Stateside - July 2005  (Plain Text Version)

Return to Graphical Version

In this issue:
 “Moving Beyond Planning” – SCI’s Summer Workshop for State Officials
 New Study Examines the Effects of Potential Federal Coverage Strategies
 Massachusetts Governor Proposes Major Health Care Reform
 Vermont Governor Vetoes Health Care Bill
 GAO Releases Report on Medicaid Financing Practices
 Medicaid Advisory Commission Members Named
 State Health Research and Policy Interest Group Meeting
 State Challenges Highlighted at AcademyHealth’s Annual Research Meeting
 HCFO Program Releases New Brief on Health Savings Accounts
 Reports of Interest


Vermont Governor Vetoes Health Care Bill

At the end of the 2005 legislative session, the Vermont Legislature passed H. 524. Called Green Mountain Health, the bill would have provided primary and preventive services to the uninsured.

Beginning with the 2007 tax year, the bill imposed an employer “health effort” tax. The tax was equal to 1 percent of the employer’s total qualified wages up to $50,000 plus 3 percent of the employer’s total qualified wages in excess of $50,000 and may be reduced by the employer’s health insurance costs. In addition, all Vermonters would need to present proof of coverage for 274 days during the taxable year or face an additional 1 percent income tax.

Governor Jim Douglas (R) vetoed the bill on June 25. The Governor expressed his wish that any new package include policies that reduce costs for the currently insured, are comprehensive and patient-centered, increase choices, encourage a significant degree of personal responsibility, and are financially sustainable. In his veto message, the Governor mentioned sections of the bill that reflected his priorities but argued that the Legislature did not take sufficient steps to control costs and promote personal responsibility.

The Governor and Legislature disagreed on a number of significant issues. Most important, the Governor objected to the financing mechanism: a payroll tax increase. He called the income tax penalty regressive and insufficient to meet future program needs. In addition, he thought the bill would impose a significant burden on Vermont small businesses.

The full veto message is available at http://www.vermont-archives.org/governance/Vetoes/2005DouglasH524.html.