The Healthy Howard program will start offering health care to the newly unemployed, dropping a previous requirement that people who lost their jobs had to wait at least six months before applying.
Dr. Peter Beilenson, the county health officer, announced the change today and said the office will be contacting people previously turned away because they did not meet the six month requirement.
The change was made, he said, because of massive layoffs across the country — including higher numbers of jobless people in Howard County.
“We thought it was important at this time that we change our rules and be flexible,” he said.
The Healthy Howard Access Plan, run through a non-profit organization, was launched Oct. 1. While not insurance, it does offer health care and regular sessions with a health coach to people who are uninsured, in exchange for a monthly fee.
The target salary range is roughly $35,000 to $63,600 for a family of four, although those figures are doubled if the person is self-employed.
While many laid-off employees are eligible to continue receiving health coverage through COBRA, the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, they have to pay all of the costs of coverage, Beilenson said. Picking up the amount previously paid by an employer is often too hard on a person’s finances, he said.
About 207 people have enrolled or are in the process of being enrolled in Healthy Howard, and Beilenson said he hopes to have 2,000 by the end of the year. People who are unemployed and without insurance can see if they qualify for the program by visiting www.healthyhowardplan.org.
user comments (1)
user patdornan says...
It seems as though Healthy Howard is really struggling to enroll people. Could it be that it is another unnecessary government program? Could it be that Howard County really had no idea how many people would be eligible to enroll, so they guessed, and guessed wrong? The county had no idea how many would be eligible for the senior property tax cut, guessed it would be many more than it was, and tried to kill the program before it even got started. This is a similiar situation, and is costing more than it is worth. Could it be that the taxpayers would be better served by attempts to eliminate government's intrusion into our personal well-being?
Posted 3:56 PM, 02.06.09