For immediate releaseI-155EDITOR’S NOTE

: These stories are produced by University of Montana journalism students under the supervision of Professor Dennis Swibold.They may be used without charge, provided editors retain the students’ bylines. Please contact Professor Swibold (dennis.swibold@umontana.edu)with any questions. You can also find this story and others on the upcomingelection atwww.montanaschoice2008.blogspot.com.

Initiative Would Expand Child Health Care CoverageBy ELIZABETH HARRISONCommunity News ServiceUM School of Journalism

This morning, more than 30,000 Montana children woke up withouthealth insurance. If ballot Initiative 155 is passed on Nov. 4, that number could disappear.The measure, also known as the Healthy Montana Kids Plan, would raisethe income threshold for families seeking coverage under the state’sChildren’s Health Insurance Program.It’s been a long time coming, said State Auditor John Morrison, one of I-155’s chief supporters. According to a report by Families USA, Montanacounted 37,000 uninsured children in the 2007 Census.

“We exclude more kids in our health programs than any other state inAmerica,” Morrison said.I-155 would expand eligibility for CHIP to include children living infamilies with a combined income of not more than 250 percent of the federal poverty level—about $50,000 per year for a family of four. Currenteligibility requires families not to exceed 175 percent of the poverty level,cutting a family of four off at $37,000.But the initiative is about more than changing income guidelines,Morrison said.“It puts a new storefront in all of it—no more CHIP or Medicaid, just theHealthy Montana Kids Plan,” he said. “It takes away stigma and makes the program simpler.”The plan would enable hospitals, schools, YMCAs, Head Start programsand private agencies to help Montanans enroll in the program, Morrisonsaid.

Supporters argue that without consistent access to health care, childrenare susceptible to health problems that may follow them all of their lives.“The preventative part is so important,” said Denise Novak, who liveswith her husband, Dick, and her 10-year-old quadruplets on an acre of landin Rock Creek. The Novaks’ four children started on CHIP in 2005, but werecut off in June when Denise took a job so the family could buy a house.The extra income put them just above the eligibility requirement and presented her with a quandary.“When I went to work, it was a choice: Do I go to work so we can have ahome? Or do I not go to work so we can continue on CHIP?” Denise said.The Novaks’ income now totals about $64,000, which includes Dick’sself-employment salary and Social Security, Denise’s retirement plan, and$3,900 allocated to each child under Dick’s Social Security benefits. Themaximum CHIP allowance for a family of six is $49,700.“Having the quads spiraled us down,” Denise said.The Novaks had to sell their home in Potomac when they found out theywere having quadruplets. After being slapped with a $1.5 million hospital bill for the births, the family moved from rental to rental for nine years before finding their Rock Creek home with a good school nearby.“It’s going to be very difficult because this is going to be the first timewe have not been covered to go to the dentist,” Denise said.Her family’s experience with CHIP was unlike any other insurance program because it “paid everything,” including routine well-checks anddental cleanings every six months, she said. The children have fewer cavitiesand good health, which helps them do well in school and see a bright future.“They’ve got goals,” said Dick, “and I think it’s because they’re feelingso good.”But there is a cost for all of this, and the ballot issue’s critics sayuninsured children of middle-income families shouldn’t be Montana’s top priority.“There are a lot better ways to spend the money than to insure kidswhose families ought to pay for it themselves,” said Sen. John Esp, R-BigTimber. Esp, who co-wrote the opposition argument in the state voters guide,suggested the Novaks shop for a cheaper policy.“I think it’s important to take care of kids and plan for a catastrophicillness, but by and large, most families making $60,000 a year can afford to pay for routine care,” he said.With their manicured lawn, spacious house, a trampoline and four kids’ bikes lined up in a row in the garage, the Novaks don’t appear to bestruggling.

But with grocery bills topping $1,000 per month, the family is far fromfinancially stable.“I mean it looks good around here and everything,” Dick said. “Butwe’re just coasting.”With monthly insurance premiums running at $400 to $500 per child, the Novaks said they simply can’t afford the coverage.But Esp argued that if anyone needs help with health care costs it is older adults battling chronic diseases and mental illnesses.“That’s what’s driving health care costs,” he said.Morrison agreed that aging adults need help too, but he doesn’t think itshould come at the expense of children.“We need to do more, but there are lots of challenges in the health carearea,” he said. “But covering kids is the big no-brainer of all, because thereare so many reasons to do it.”Children’s coverage costs half of what adults pay, say supporters whoadd that I-155 would bring in federal matching dollars too. They estimateexpanded coverage would cost the state an additional $22 million, but itwould bring in about $75 million in federal money as well.That money also would generate new state tax receipts, offsetting thestate’s program cost. The state’s contribution would come from a tax oninsurance premiums collected in Montana. A third of those dollars would be put into a special account to be used to cover the Healthy Montana KidsPlan.“There’s no other deal like that in health care coverage,” Morrison said.Doug Mitchell, I-155’s campaign coordinator, agreed that sick adultsneed help but said that isn’t a reason to ignore children.“(The plan) is something we can do right now that makes an immediateimpact,” he said.Opponents are also critical of federal contributions to the program,arguing that it contributes to the national debt. Some critics also believeDemocrats are pushing for the initiative to pave the way for socializedmedicine—an argument Mitchell didn’t deny.“This is a positive step in making sure more Montanans, starting withkids, have health care services, he said. “And it does so in a way thatrecognizes the private market.”Esp remains unconvinced.“The big problem is with these sick adults, not healthy kids,” Esp said.“Healthy, middle class, fairly well-to-do-kids – that’s not our problem.”-30-