States Face Health Care and Higher Education Questions on Upcoming Ballots
Election Day is around the corner, and on Nov. 8, voters
in a handful of states will have the opportunity to decide state policy on several
questions that will impact both health care and higher education.
In Massachusetts, Question 2 asks voters if dental insurers should
be required to implement a medical loss ratio. If passed, dental insurers would
be required to spend at least 83% of revenue on patient care instead
of administrative expenses. If insurers do not meet the medical loss ratio, they
would be required to refund the excess premium to covered individuals and groups.
The proposal would also direct the Massachusetts Division of Insurance Commissioner
to approve or disapprove the rates of dental benefit plans. While the Affordable
Care Act implemented medical loss ratios for health insurers, this would be the
first law in the country to implement a medical loss ratio for dental insurers.
California voters will have the opportunity to decide if the
state should uphold a ban on the sale of flavored tobacco products. In 2020, Gov.
Gavin Newsom (D) signed SB 793, which banned the sale of flavored tobacco products. The
law has yet to go into effect, however, and tobacco manufacturers have successfully gathered enough signatures
to place a referendum of the law on the ballot. A “yes” vote would uphold
the law, while a “no” vote would repeal the legislation.
In Arizona, voters will decide if graduates of Arizona high schools
will be granted in-state tuition and financial aid, regardless of immigration
status. If passed, the ballot initiative would overturn parts of a 2006 referendum
that currently prohibits students who are undocumented from receiving in-state
tuition and financial aid. There are potentially tens of thousands of students who could benefit from the policy change.
Oregon voters will decide if the state should add a right to
health care to the state’s constitution. If passed, the state would be required
to provide residents with “access to cost-effective, clinically appropriate
and affordable health care.” If passed, it’s unclear exactly what this first-of-its-kind amendment would mean
to the state. Supporters have stated that the amendment would result
in little change to the state’s current health care system as the state would
be able to make changes to the existing health care system to meet the goal. Opponents
have argued that the amendment could have unintended consequences as the vagueness
of the amendment text requirements of the state.
Finally, the electorate in South Dakota will decide if the state should expand Medicaid
to include adults who earn up to 138% of the federal poverty level. Similar initiatives
have passed in six other states, and if passed by South Dakota, nearly 45,000
residents of the state could become eligible for coverage.
