Judiciary committee hears about gangs, including vets
Faithful members of the Vietnam Veterans Motorcycle Club may be a little surprised to find themselves on a list of “security threat groups” offered by the Department of Corrections to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday.
Whether the aging vets at the local watering hole constitute a gang comes down to a definition from the Department of Justice.
According to information offered to the Senate Judiciary Committee, a gang designation is appropriate for a group three or more people with a common identifying sign, symbol or name who individually or collectively engage in criminal activity which creates an atmosphere of fear and intimidation.
Sen. Alice Nitka wasn’t so sure that the retirees of the motorcycle club in Windsor are a menace to society.
Why shouldn’t the club be lumped in with the home-grown Chittenden County White Boys or “Anybody Can Get It” (commonly-known as ACG-137 according to the department), or maybe even the Bloods and the Crips?
If all it takes for a “gang” to make the list is for a few members of a group to commit a crime, Sen. Jeanette White asked, will the Boys and Girls Club be next?
Vermont Medical Society to Green Mountain Care Board: Not so fast
The authority for the Green Mountain Care Board to create emergency rules has the Vermont Medical Society asking them to slow down.
A provision in House Bill 559 allows the board to fast-track rules regarding insurance rate review and hospital budget review.
“In general, the medical society opposes emergency rules,” said Paul Harrington, executive Vice President of the Vermont Medical Society. “However, I think the administration has tried to address some of those concerns by allowing for additional comment and review.”
Harrington said the group is stinging from an experience in December, when the Department of Vermont Health Access proposed reducing Medicaid reimbursements for radiologists with a 10-day notice period during the holidays.
Georgia Maheras, executive director of the Green Mountain Care Board, said the emergency rule authority is necessary to allow the board to get rules in place and work with hospitals to set up a structure for their budgets. Assuming H.559 passes in the spring, under traditional rulemaking, it could take until the end of the year before a rule emerged.
“The intent is not to shorten or limit public input but really provide guidance for the interim period,” Maheras said.
The usual notice and comment process for regulations would be 30 days, Maheras said, and the proposed bill limits that to 10 days. It could be as short as five days, but the board was not comfortable with that, Maheras said. She said the board will also go through the traditional rulemaking process simultaneously.
Fix in midwifery bill could ensure coverage
Negotiations with insurance companies, lawmakers and midwives have led to what could be an agreement ensuring coverage for home births.
A law passed last year requires private insurance companies to cover home births, but some families were finding midwife services were not covered based in large part on the fact that many midwives do not carry malpractice insurance.
Proposed language by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont would prohibit an insurance company from requiring that a midwife meet the insurance plan’s network requirements, including malpractice insurance. It does attach other strings, however, like cost-sharing and benefit plan limitations.
“We’re working towards a compromise that honors the intent of the law and works with Blue Cross Blue Shield’s standards and policies, which is the best solution for Vermont families,” said Cassandra Gekas, a lobbyist for the Vermont Public Interest Research Group.
Leigh Tofferi, director of government relations for Blue Cross Blue Shield, said the next step is to figure out how the Legislature wants to proceed and notify others who have a stake in the matter and were not part of the discussion.
Rep. Chris Pearson, P-Burlington, who presented the bill to the Senate after it passed the House last year, said he is still skeptical.
The piece of the original legislation that caused the original problem, Pearson said, was included at the request of the insurance companies.
“They’ve really broken trust with spirit of what we’re trying to do, and they were a collaborative part of that,” Pearson said. “We have no choice but to be really skeptical and really dig in to make sure they follow the law and follow the intent of law.”
