Healthcare is a Human Right - Maryland
While the established media keeps trying to spread disinformation, Marylanders know from first hand experience that we have an unjust healthcare system. Here's a sample of the survey findings we will be highlighting at our report launch next Wednesday, Dec 10th, 4 pm, at Charm City Clinic.
I shared in my last blog that these 'caps' on spending that were placed on Medicare a few decades ago are what we hear called 'the Medicare Fix' as each year Congress sees that doctors cannot perform for the costs allowed in the cap and simply end up covering the difference not paid by the cap. What else has happened since this Medicare cap was installed? Medicare fraud soared and is now at $200 billion and much more. The same has happened in Maryland as Maryland has a high level of health industry fraud. So this proposal simply seeks to defund public Medicare to such a point as having no one wanting to participate. What Maryland does instead is saturate the media airwaves with advertisements for PRIVATIZED MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PLANS WHICH MAGICALLY COVER ALL THE THINGS FEDERAL MEDICARE LOST THROUGH FUNDING CUTS. This is very, very, very, very bad policy driven only to maximize corporate profits and end health care access for 70-80% of citizens in Maryland.
Below you see why Maryland citizens cannot get real information -------everything is phrased as being the best model for the country and it is the most autocratic, regressive, corporate greed driven policies. It's good to see this article is by Kaiser Permanente Health -----which has partnered with Johns Hopkins as its health system team. Kaiser Permanente from California has been attributed to making health care cost soar.
I was taken to my local Baltimore hospital after a fall broke my leg and did not have my health card with me or a friend to bring it so I was treated as though I had no insurance when I did. This MedStar hospital set my leg without taking an X-ray, gave me a followup phone number that told me the next appointment available was months away keeping me from going to that hospital and/or doctor's practice. When I returned with my insurance card I was told I needed surgery to install a plate to support a fracture that when I demanded to see the Xray taken before the surgery showed no sign of a fracture. They loaded me with too much anethesia----it took 3 days for the anethesia to wear off-----but the hospital discharged me just hours after surgery telling me I had to hire a home health care person to help me.
IT IS INSANE AND THIS HAPPENS THROUGHOUT MARYLAND'S HEALTH SYSTEM.
You need to believe the organization taking the poll showing only 18% of Marylanders feeling they have access to health care.
Maryland’s Tough New Hospital Spending Proposal Seen As ‘Nationally Significant’
By Jay Hancock March 31, 2013
This KHN story was produced in collaboration with
Maryland officials have proposed what analysts call the most ambitious initiative in the country to control soaring medical spending, a plan that would bring relief to employers and consumers footing the bill while bluntly challenging the state’s powerful hospital industry.
The blueprint, which needs the Obama administration’s approval, would use Maryland’s unique rate-setting system to keep hospital spending from growing no faster than the overall economy — roughly half its recent rate of increase.
While some see Massachusetts as pushing boundaries by trying to establish health-spending ceilings, “Maryland has set hospital prices for more than 30 years” for insurance companies and Medicare alike, state health secretary Joshua Sharfstein said in an interview. “There are tools to accomplish this in Maryland that do not exist in other states.”
The plan also discusses sweeping measures to coordinate treatment and reward caregivers for efficiency instead of doing procedures.
“This is a really exciting proposal,” said John McDonough, a Harvard University professor and former state legislator who helped design Massachusetts’ health-care overhaul. “It’s nationally significant.”
The earliest the measure could take effect is January, but it is far from being adopted as written. Hospitals reacted coolly and state legislators complained about how it was developed.
The proposal is a “tectonic change” and “the single most important event that’s affected Maryland hospitals in the last 40 years,” Maryland Hospital Association CEO Carmela Coyle said at a General Assembly hearing last week. “The only thing that’s certain at this point in the application is the [spending] cap. We don’t know about the mechanisms that will actually get us there.”
Even the CEO of Maryland’s biggest private health insurer, who has reason to welcome measures to restrain hospital spending, said the plan is short on details and long on risks for hospitals.
“It would be wonderful if they [costs] could be slowed down,” said Chet Burrell, CEO of CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield. “But then you have to turn to another question. And that is, what is the method by which they would decrease? How do you turn the system on a dime? That’s where our concerns with the proposal are greatest.”
The plan leaves many of these details to Maryland’s rate-setting Health Services Cost Review Commission. Two of the commission’s seven members are hospital executives, including chairman John Colmers, a top vice president at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore.
As a counterforce to industry skeptics, the proposal may have the backing of Obama administration officials who see Maryland’s tradition of rate control as a promising model, said Joseph Antos, a health economist at the American Enterprise Institute who sat on the commission for several years.
“People who favor rate-setting only have Maryland as the example,” Antos said. “The Obama administration believes that [such an approach] is an important strategy. I think this is the way they would want states to go in the future.”
The Department of Health and Human Services, which must sign off on the part of the plan that affects Medicare, declined to make officials available for interviews.
“We’ve received the proposal from Maryland and we look forward to reviewing it and working with the state,” said HHS spokesman Alper Ozinal.
While much of the blueprint focuses on hospital spending, it leaves the door open for a second phase after four years in which “our focus will broaden to all costs” in health care, according to the application, submitted to HHS on Tuesday.
For doctors and others outside the hospital systems, the second phase would create cost-control incentives such as shared savings among providers rather than direct rate-setting, Sharfstein said.
Maryland has set hospital rates since the 1970s, keeping spending per admission below national trends.
The rate commission’s “all payer” approach fixes hospital prices for everybody — commercial insurers, government programs and people paying cash — avoiding the cost-shifting from one payer to another that occurs elsewhere. The system also builds expenses for indigent care into statewide rates, ensuring that hospitals with high levels of uncompensated treatment stay in business.
Hospital costs have risen in recent years, however, threatening to break an HHS agreement that waives normal practice and allows Maryland to set Medicare prices. Maryland hospitals do especially poorly in the category of expensive readmissions of recently discharged patients.
The proposal submitted last week is part of Maryland’s attempt to renegotiate the waiver and create savings for Medicare.
Despite their reservations, hospitals have a potent incentive to maintain the waiver and approve some kind of new cost-control system. Although the state has kept growth in Medicare spending on hospital admissions below the national rate, what Medicare pays per Maryland case is still far higher than what it spends in other states.
Losing the waiver would mean foregoing roughly $1 billion in annual hospital revenue. But approving the new plan — cutting hospital cost growth to less than that of the long-term expansion of the state economy — would also shock a system accustomed to adding jobs, buildings and revenue for years, supporting Maryland’s economy as other industries declined.
“When you all of the sudden jam on the brake and say you’re only growing at state GDP, it’s like a two-by-four in the face of the health system,” said Uwe Reinhardt, a health economist at Princeton University. “And it causes a lot of stress.”
Over the past decade, Maryland hospitals have added jobs at nearly five times the rate of the state as whole, according to Labor Department statistics. Hospital revenue per Maryland resident — the proposed new benchmark in the state’s HHS proposal — has grown nearly twice as fast as the economy over the same period, according to the cost commission.
A spokeswoman for the University of Maryland Medical System, one of the state’s health care heavyweights, declined to comment. Johns Hopkins Medicine, which also would be hurt by stricter spending limits, said it was still evaluating the proposal.
The existing waiver caps the growth in Maryland hospital costs per inpatient case. The new test would track spending growth for both inpatient and outpatient care — but per Maryland resident rather than per case.
At the same time, the proposal would decrease incentives for hospitals to perform more procedures and direct the cost commission to adjust rates according to the state’s economic growth.
The proposal would also expand Maryland initiatives to reduce hospital readmissions, coordinate care among providers and share the proceeds of cost savings with caregivers.
Maryland Senate Minority Leader E.J. Pipkin, a Republican and frequent critic of the administration of Gov. Martin O’Malley, a Democrat, complained that the proposal should have been drafted with more outside advice.
Sharfstein and other state officials seem to “regard themselves as the sole possessors of the requisite knowledge to decree what changes must occur to hospital reimbursement in order to keep Maryland’s … waiver,” he said in a prepared statement. “I hope they do — because they are imposing the most significant change in four decades on Maryland’s $15 billion health care industry and largest [private] employer.”
Reinhardt, who has written favorably of Maryland’s rate-setting board, suggested that Sharfstein may indeed have something that looks like the answer.
“Intellectually, the Maryland health care leaders are way ahead of the health care leaders in the rest of the country,” he said. “It’s probably the most ambitious such thing I’ve seen.”
This article was produced by Kaiser Health News with support from The SCAN Foundation
WHAT?????? The insurer who teams with Johns Hopkins Hospital system sees record profits as health reform sends most Americans to Medicaid-level coverage and seeks to privatize Medicare with private Medicare Advantage! WHO WOULD HAVE GUESSED. Know where all of the medical news stories in Maryland media comes? MOSTLY FROM KAISER.
This article says Kaiser's profits are soaring because they have become more efficient-----not deterring access or quality ----and yet, just 18% of Marylanders think this is true. I know the same exists in California.
Kaiser's corporate non-profit provides data that says it is becoming more efficient without hurting quality-----that sounds like the banking industry self-policing agency saying there is no problems with fraud and corruption in the banking system.
Kathy Lancaster, the Oakland-based nonprofit system's CFO and executive vice president, said the Q1 results show that Kaiser is becoming more efficient without hurting quality.
Kaiser Permanente's Q1 profits soar 44 percent, to $1.1 billion
May 9, 2014, 1:04pm PDT Updated: May 9, 2014, 3:43pm PDT JOHN HO Chris RauberReporter- San Francisco Business Times
Kaiser Permanente is sitting on a pile of first-quarter profits, up nearly 44 percent from a year ago at $1.1 billion.
Its Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc. and subsidiaries reported big positives on all fronts May 9 for the year's first quarter, ending March 31.
Like other big health care systems locally and nationally, Kaiser is chanting the mantra of affordability and cost-reduction, as it moves to take advantage of and adjust to the opportunities and demands of health reform under President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act.
Other major data points announced by Kaiser Friday:
- Operating revenue climbed 6 percent, from a restated $13.1 billion last year to $13.9 billion in 2014's first quarter. (Last spring, Kaiser said it posted $13.3 billion in operating revenue in 2013's first quarter.)
- Operating profits soared 49 percent, to $822 million from $551 million in 2013.
- Non-operating income jumped 44 percent, to $324 million from $219 million.
- Enrollment jumped 243,000 to 9.3 million systemwide, with three-quarters of those new enrollees coming through Covered California and other Obamacare exchanges.
"Reducing our cost trends allows us to be more affordable to our members (enrollees) and customers (employers)," Lancaster noted.
Kaiser spent $827 million on capital projects in the quarter, compared to $779 million a year ago, as it nears completion on three huge Northern California hospital construction projects, in Oakland, Redwood City and San Leandro, and another new hospital in Harbor City down south.
So, Kaiser's plan to lower costs and keep quality looks to include national expansion and capturing of the market with consolidation and monopoly-----HMMMMM....
I shout out for Expanded and Improved Medicare for All to replace this Maryland private and profit-driven model-----you see why my campaign for Governor was illegally censured -----
Let's look at Vermont----they are doing a public health system. First, I want to say as I criticize some of what this public system looks like that no matter the criticism----it is easy to fix this public model while impossible to fix the Maryland model that dismantles Medicare. Remember, I have shown that a public health system can be as bad as private if it allows the same level of fraud and corruption and offers no oversight and accountability. Below you see Vermont has made installing a very high payroll tax as its first step which makes my radar go red. So, a payroll tax and an income tax is the first thing they announce for funding this public plan. They are looking for Exemptions from Medicaid requirements while Maryland went with Medicare exemptions----which does show the move towards Medicare for All while Maryland went with Medicaid for All.
Some may say ------payroll taxes are shared with businesses so all the expense is not going to the workers-----but, look at the government watchdog research that says that corporations haven't paid into payroll taxes for a few decades.....since Reagan/Clinton.
'The state’s gross payroll amount only includes employers that are federally required to report their payroll, explained Sara Teachout of the Legislature’s Joint Fiscal Office'.
'They did not provide details of how the income sensitive fee or “public premium” would be structured'.
That is never a good sign. Below you see Vermont's plan is Medicare for All and not Expanded and Improved Medicare. Medicare since the 2008 collapse has seen a trillion dollars cut from spending and no longer looks like original Medicare so that is why a public system needs to go with Expanded and Improved Medicare for All.
'An 80 percent actuarial value is the lowest actuarial value state law permits for Green Mountain Care and it advises the board to consider an 87 percent actuarial value'.
The biggest red flag is that no mention of recovering the frauds of last decade are ever made-----Medicare Trust was sucked dry with fraud that needs to come back----and I do not see much in the way of rebuilding oversight and accountability. They make a vague reference to this----but no structural plan.
Estimates of Savings
The Hsiao report identifies and creates estimates for four major sources of savings. These are:
Reduction of utilization as a result of changes in the organization of care
Reduction of utilization as a result of improved identification of fraud and abuse
Reduction of utilization as a result of medical malpractice reform
The big red flag here is the ending of medical malpractice. This is a Republican policy that ends a patient's ability to seek damages with the idea that doing so increases health costs. The problem with malpractice insurance rates being high is that the American Medical Association does not hold bad doctors accountable and remove them from practice. So bad doctors are simply moved around the country to do the same harm. WE DO NOT WANT AN ENDING OF MALPRACTICE CLAIMS. So, we like the move to a public structure but it looks like much of what that will be open to public abuse. Here we see Vermont finding savings from a reduction of utilization----in Maryland that policy has 80% of the citizens unable to access what has been ordinary care and this may be true with this Vermont plan. Vermont is know superstar as regards fraud prevention----corporate fraud and government corruption is reported in this state as others. So, Vermont citizens need to hold these pols accountable to building A REAL MEDICARE FOR ALL system.
CAN YOU IMAGINE WHAT HEALTH CARE WOULD LOOK LIKE IF CITIZENS HAD NO WAY TO SUE FOR MALPRACTICE?
Exclusive: Single payer financing likely to start with 8 percent payroll tax
Morgan True Dec. 4 2014, 6:38 pm
Gov. Peter Shumlin intends to propose a combination of an employer payroll tax and an income-based contribution to finance single payer health care, according to sources with knowledge of the plan.
In the latest version of the proposal presented Nov. 19 to the governor and members of his Business Advisory Council on Health Care, the employer-funded payroll tax was pegged at 8 percent, according to multiple sources who asked to remain anonymous because council members had mutually agreed to keep their deliberations under wraps.
The Shumlin administration declined to comment for this report.
Gov. Peter Shumlin. Photo by Hilary Niles/VTDigger
Shumlin’s 21-member business advisory council includes business leaders who own or work for large and small companies across the state. It was created in April 2013 to offer the governor guidance on health care reform. Previous iterations of the plan presented to the council pegged the employer payroll tax at levels ranging from 6 percent to 9 percent. The income sensitive health care fee would be capped at the higher end of the income spectrum, the sources said.
They did not provide details of how the income sensitive fee or “public premium” would be structured.
Shumlin and other members of the administration have said the single payer proposal to be released on Dec. 29 or Dec. 30 will give lawmakers a range of options. It’s likely those options will involve a higher or lower payroll tax with a corresponding fee or premium.
It’s also likely that the fee will be reduced for people over 65 who are Medicare eligible and will only use Green Mountain Care, as the publicly funded program is known, for secondary coverage.
An 8 percent payroll tax would generate roughly $936 million, based on a calculation using a Department of Labor figure for gross payroll of $11.7 billion from calendar year 2012.
The state’s gross payroll amount only includes employers that are federally required to report their payroll, explained Sara Teachout of the Legislature’s Joint Fiscal Office.
It does not include employees of religious institutions, farms, medical residents and other categories exempted from reporting, which would increase the amount raised.
Teachout called the figure “a good starting point,” but she said the administration is likely to have adjusted it to account for groups not included in the DOL figure and to project the gross employer payroll in 2017, the earliest Vermont can implement the new program.
Estimates for the cost of single payer in its first year are at least $2 billion. If the payroll tax were to raise about half that amount, the income-based health care fee would need to generate about $1 billion as well.
The outline sketched by sources does not differ greatly from what outgoing Sen. Peter Galbraith, D-Windham, laid out last spring, in what he called the administration’s “notional financing plan.” He attributed that plan to sources within the administration.
At the time, Galbraith said Green Mountain Care would be financed through a premium graduated according to income, which would hit a ceiling of 9 percent for people with incomes of $50,000 or more.
The premium would generate about $1 billion, according a calculation by Galbraith. Combined with an 8 percent payroll tax, that would create revenue streams of close to $2 billion.
At the time, Galbraith said that in addition to a payroll tax, the administration was also considering a tax on gross receipts. Sources with knowledge of the business advisory council meeting did not mention a gross receipts tax in interviews with VTDigger.
The income sensitivity worked into the plan via the health care fee fits with Shumlin’s stated intention of equitable public financing, or people paying according to their ability.
The Benefits The health benefit for Green Mountain Care is likely to be modeled after the gold plan offered through Vermont Health Connect, according to one of the sources.
There are three components of the benefit the administration has said it will present to the Green Mountain Care Board in the next two weeks. Those are the covered services and the level of cost-sharing — the percentage of medical costs people pay themselves.
All plans sold in the U.S. must provide 10 essential health benefits, and a waiver from the Affordable Care Act won’t exempt Vermont from that basic coverage requirement.
State law requires the Green Mountain Care Board to consider adding adult vision, dental, hearing and long-term care services and supports, but no additional federal funds would be available to cover those services.
Advocacy groups are likely to push for inclusion of those services and possibly others, such as homeopathic medicine or chiropractic care.
The state must also provide coverage that is at least as affordable as what’s offered by the ACA. The affordability of a health plan is determined by the level of cost sharing.
Green Mountain Care will include some amount of cost sharing at all levels, and that will take the form of co-pays, coinsurance or deductibles. That mix is still unknown.
People who are income eligible to pay at lower sharing levels on the Vermont Health Connect exchange will pay at no more than those levels under Green Mountain Care. The same is true for Medicaid beneficiaries who cannot pay more than they do now or receive less coverage under Green Mountain Care.
A gold plan has an actuarial value of 80 percent, meaning people with that plan pay for 20 percent of the costs associated with its covered services.
An 80 percent actuarial value is the lowest actuarial value state law permits for Green Mountain Care and it advises the board to consider an 87 percent actuarial value.
People on Medicaid will continue to pay for their coverage at a 99 percent actuarial value, meaning they are responsible for 1 percent of the cost. The income threshold for Medicaid this year under the ACA is $16,104 for an individual or $27,310 for a family of three.
Labor unions, including the Vermont State Employees Association, have said the benefit for Green Mountain Care should bring all Vermonters to their level of coverage.
The average actuarial value for state employee plans is 95 percent, according to a recent Pew study, and teachers and school staff have health plans with 94 percent actuarial value.
Those are considered high-value health plans and many will be subject to a 40 percent excise tax as part of the ACA, starting in 2018. The rest will be subject to the tax by 2023.
It’s unlikely Vermont’s ACA waiver would allow it to offer a high value health plan through Green Mountain Care without paying the tax.
That’s because one reason the tax was included in the ACA was to discourage such plans, which arguably insulate people from the cost of care and encourage overuse of health services.
The Process The Green Mountain Care Board is responsible for approving the benefit package the administration will present them in mid-December. That’s a process that will take “months, not weeks,” board chair Al Gobeille said Thursday.
Lawmakers will weigh in on the benefit package when they are asked to make an appropriation to fund it. They could also pass laws mandating coverage of certain services or place thresholds on cost sharing.
The Legislature must also approve the financing structure for Green Mountain Care, a process that will begin when lawmakers see the governor’s proposal.
The Green Mountain Care Board is also responsible for determining whether the program will meet a set of triggers requiring that residents have coverage that pays at least 80 percent of medical costs; that the program does not have an negative aggregate impact on the economy; that its financing is sustainable; that it will reduce administrative costs; that cost-containment efforts will reduce the rate of growth in health care spending; and that health care providers are reimbursed at levels that allow the state to recruit and retain a high-quality health care workforce.
Finally, the state will need to renew its federal Medicaid waiver in 2017 to ensure that federal money can continue to be used flexibly. Vermont will also need a waiver to the ACA, which can’t be approved until 2017.
Neither Shumlin nor Democratic leaders in the Legislature have said what portion of the steps necessary to implement Green Mountain Care will be undertaken in the upcoming legislative session.
The Affordable Care Act takes the power of decision-making in treatment away from a doctor and places it into a 'evidence-based' treatment plan so doctors will no longer be responsible for medical treatment that causes harm and death----THEY ARE JUST DOING WHAT THIS PROTOCOL REQUIRES. So, who gets sued when a protocol treatment causes harm? NO ONE.
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS MAKING THESE TREATMENT PROTOCOLS WRITTEN BY CORPORATIONS PART OF FEDERAL REGULATION.
This is why Vermont is ending medical malpractice and below you see what New York is installing-----more corporate arbitration where citizens are set into a supposed neutral committee that then decides if and how much damage was done-----
THERE GOES YET ANOTHER PATH FOR JUSTICE IN THE US COURT SYSTEM. WE DON'T NEED PUBLIC JUSTICE-----WE HAVE CORPORATE ARBITRATORS THAT DECIDE IN FAVOR OF PROTECTING CORPORATE PROFITS.
'Costs surrounding medical malpractice litigation are a small fraction of overall healthcare spending in the United States'.
'Research] indicates that rising malpractice premiums are not tied to an influx of medical malpractice filings'
Below is a good look at why these Obama health reforms that target medical malpractice for cuts reductions are just smoke and mirrors.....they are ending them because ACA takes away doctor responsibility and we wouldn't want a global health system held responsible for harming and killing patients. This article is too long to post but it is worth a glance to understand the topic.
Medical Malpractice Tort Reform - Health Law ...www.thehealthlawpartners.com/files/rm332_p30-36_features.pdfMedical Malpractice
Tort Reform radiology ManageMent March/april 201133 defensive medicine, were estimated to be $55.6 billion, or 2.4% of the total health-
This is huge folks-----the HIPPOCRATIC OATH has been around since civilization started and now Clinton global corporate neo-liberals and Bush global corporate neo-cons say-----YOU WILL BE LUCKY TO GET WHAT YOU GET!
What this New York Federally funded project will do is set up the same kinds of arbitration committees that labor now has to report to rather than go to court to settle violations of labor laws. YET ANOTHER PUBLIC JUSTICE ACCESS TAKEN FROM COURT TO COMMITTEE. Research shows that arbitration is not neutral ------these committess overwhelmingly decide in favor of the corporation and will of course with this medical malpractice procedure. Maryland has reduced wrongful death to $200,000 for example and as this lawyer states----people do not know the long-term costs. Now, trial lawyers are no saints so I do not mourn for loss revenue for these lawyers who take much of these settlements-----but we are losing any ability to hold power accountable each time we go to privatizing our legal rights.
THIS IS WHY I AM CONCERNED BY VERMONT'S SEEKING TO SAVE MONEY BY ENDING MALPRACTICE----BUT THEN AGAIN------THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT BASICALLY REQUIRES IT.
Is this the end of medical malpractice lawsuits in New York?
by Gerry Oginski firstname.lastname@example.org
NY Medical Malpractice & Personal Injury Trial Lawyer
Blog Category: 10/1/2010
Today, Renal and Urology News reported that five hospitals in New York city would be participating in a $3 million dollar, federally funded program to reduce medical malpractice errors. That's a good start. Here are some of the details.
Beth Israel Medical Center, Mount Sinai Medical Center, Maimonides Medical Center, and Montefiore Medical Center will focus their efforts on reducing errors in obstetrics. The fifth hospital, New York Presbyterian Hospital, will focus on the prevention of surgical errors.
Why are these hospitals focusing on just one area each? Shouldn't all hospital be focusing on all departments to reduce careless mistakes? The report did not explain what the money would be used for except to say that judicial mediators would be involved to help families and injured victims recover early, timely compensation. The also mentioned the program would reveal medical errors early, offer settlements quickly, and use judges to help negotiate settlements rather than have cases go to full blown jury trials.
Here's what I can't tell from this news report:
Who will determine what is appropriate compensation for the injured victim? The hospital? Clearly, they have an interest to save as much money as possible. Are attorneys permitted to represent injured victims in this program?
You know, years ago, insurance companies representing drivers involved in accidents would quickly get on the phone with an injured car accident victim and tell them they can get cold hard cash now. If they get a lawyer, they'd be giving up 1/3 of any settlement and have to wait years for any money. It was a hard-sell, high pressure tactic to get uninformed and unknowing victims to settle quickly.
The problem was that those victims learned too late that the compensation they quickly agreed to was totally insufficient to cover their medical expenses, their permanent pain and suffering, their future lost earnings, benefits that they would have been entitled to had they not been injured and many more elements of compensation. They simply didn't know any better. The insurance companies took every advantage of the unsuspecting victims by befriending them with promises of immediate cash money now.
Will this federally funded program turn out to the be the same? Only time will tell. It would be nice if we had more details about this program.