By Elisabeth Arenelas, Colorado Center on Law and Policy

Thanks to Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper for his veto of a bill (Senate Bill 11-213) that would have required monthly premiums for certain children participating in Child Health Plan Plus (CHP+), Colorado’s version of the Child Health Insurance Plan.  Coverage to this particular group was expanded after the Affordable Care Act and is therefore not protected by the “stability provisions” of the Affordable Care Act.

The veto came after a contentious legislative process, where the discussion was mostly about how much “skin in the game” should be required from those participating in public health insurance programs.  Hickenlooper said in his veto message that while he was open to requiring CHP+ families to pay more, he was unwilling to adopt a monthly premium structure of between $20 and $50 a month that was projected to result in 20 percent of children in this category, or 2,400 kids, losing coverage when they are unable to keep up with premium payments.

Many people think of families in the income group targeted by the bill as moderate income; they make between $45,818 and $55,875 a year for a family of four (205 percent to 250 percent of the Federal Poverty Level).  The Colorado Legislature got stuck on the idea that “they make more than we do,” rather than the data that shows families in this income group are barely at economic self-sufficiency. Those families struggle to make ends meet and, in any given month, about 25 percent of them have negative balances after paying necessary expenses and meeting other financial responsibilities. (See Cost of Care: Can Coloradans Afford Health Care).  Twenty-three percent of Coloradans in this income group were uninsured in 2009. (2010 Current Population Survey).

Colorado advocates are relieved that Governor Hickenlooper prioritized kids’ access to health insurance.  But we are troubled by the larger debate over “skin in the game,” which takes us down the hard road traveled during welfare reform — challenging what working people are doing with their money and asking whether they deserve assistance. We hope the question the next time this comes up is why not give the next generation a healthy start by giving working families that last bit of help they need to insure their children.  And we hope policy makers realize these families have skin in the game: their kids’ lives.

The issue will come up again and again, particularly in strained budget environments where legislators looking for sources of revenue are raising questions about the function and purpose of our public programs. The defeat of this measure to impose monthly premiums on CHP+ recipients in Colorado was a victory for working families, but more battles are on the horizon.