New Law Will Help Pay for Artificial Limbs

New law will help pay for artificial limbs

By Ana Rivas
Salem News

BOSTON – When Juliet Bryce lost her leg in a car accident in Salem in 2001, she discovered that the amount her insurance company would pay wouldn’t cover the cost of the artificial leg that she needed.

Last year, when she had her prosthesis fixed after she lost weight from her first pregnancy, she made the same upsetting finding.

“You never fully understand the details of a policy until you have to go and make a claim,” Bryce says. “Then you discover you really didn’t have any coverage.”

But now a new law requires all health plans to provide coverage for prosthetic limbs, without annual spending limits, and it’s making a difference in the lives of real people.

“Now everyone is covered evenly,” Bryce says.

The so-called “prosthetic parity law” will ensure that Massachusetts residents who are paying for health insurance will receive the same prosthetic care provided under federal Medicare laws, said Steven Sosnoff, manager of Hanger Prosthetics & Orthotics in Worcester.

Rep. Joyce Spiliotis, D-Peabody, introduced the bill, backed by Rep. Barbara L’Italien, D-Andover, and Sen. Bruce Tarr, R-Gloucester.

When Gov. Mitt Romney signed the bill on Sept. 7, Massachusetts became the fifth state to enact such legislation. The new law will take effect in January.

“The emotional impact of losing a limb can be devastating,” Sosnoff said. But “most people do not learn of the devastating financial impact until they are in the midst of dealing with limb loss.”

Some insurance plans limited coverage to $750 or $1,500 per year, while a prosthetic limb can cost between $10,000 and $40,000, he said. And amputees need a new limb every three to four years on average, he explained.

Keith Cornell, a Salem prosthetist, was one of those who worked with the Mass. Society of Orthotists and Prosthetists to push for legislation to compel health insurance providers to cover the costs.

The need for such help is rare, he pointed out. “Approximately.0.000496 percent of the general population will yearly require new or replacement prosthesis,” Cornell said – meaning the new law will benefit just around 14 people every year.

Why is this law so important if it benefits so few? Because to those few, he said, it can be all that matters.

“We’re not talking about a car or vacation, but a very necessary part of existing normally,” said Theresa Arnold of Gloucester, who uses a prosthetic leg.

“What this bill passing means for me personally is not having to dish out $30,000 or $40,000 for my next limb, but a reasonable percentage instead.”

Arnold pays more than $1,000 a month for health insurance, but she found out it was terrible in terms of “durable medical equipment” or prosthetics.

“If people are equipped with adequate prosthetics,” Arnold said, “then they can live normal, healthy and productive lives.”

Legislature OKs Sex Offender Statute Extension; Governor Mulls Approval

By Edward Mason
Staff writer for Eagle Tribune

BOSTON – Childhood sex abuse victims will have nearly double the length of time to report they’ve been attacked under a bill House and Senate lawmakers approved yesterday.

The bill, which goes to the governor for his signature, extends from 15 years to 27 years the statute of limitations for reporting to authorities sex crimes against children. The bill also extends the time limit indefinitely for victims who can provide evidence of a crime to prosecutors.

It also would toughen requirements for releasing sex offenders from prison, such as requiring their level of dangerousness to be established before they are allowed out.

A spokesman for Gov. Mitt Romney said the governor agrees with the bill in principal but is reviewing it.

“The governor supported lifting the statute of limitations entirely but believes this bill is a step in the right direction,” said spokesman Felix Browne. “And we’ve long advocated for the registration of sex offenders prior to their release, which is another feature of this bill.”

Sen. Steven Baddour, D-Methuen, said the bill would make it easier to prosecute abusers. Victims don’t come forward on average until they are in their mid-40s, and now they have more time to report crimes.

“We’ve finally given prosecutors the tools to go after sexual predators,” Baddour said. “This will finally allow victims who’ve been afraid to bring these accusations forward to do so. This is a victims’ rights bill.”

The bill was the subject of fierce debate between the Senate, which favored eliminating the statute of limitations, and the House, which preferred a short extension.

Rep. Barbara L’Italien, an Andover Democrat who favored eliminating the statute of limitations, said the compromise bill was overdue.

“I’m glad the House and Senate were able to come to understanding,” L’Italien said. “Government needs to be about protecting the best interests of innocent victims.”

Victims’ rights advocates had pushed to eliminate the statute of limitations on sex abuse altogether.

Debbie Savoia, a North Andover mother and victims’ rights advocate, launched a public campaign to pressure lawmakers to act on the bill, which was left unfinished at the end of the Legislature’s formal session July 31.

She said the bill represents a good start that lawmakers can build on in the future.

“It is definitely progress,” Savoia said. “You can always work off of this.”

Rep. Barry Finegold, D-Andover, said the bill is better than current law but hopes this is a step toward lifting reporting limits in the future.

“We shouldn’t be giving any added protection to people who hurt children,” Finegold said.

The legislation, while having its roots in the clergy sex abuse scandal, was controversial.

Critics of eliminating the statute of limitations contended it would make it nearly impossible for people accused of being abusers to defend themselves. Supporters said victims often don’t confront their assailants until decades have passed.

The bill also requires sex offenders to register with the state 10 days before they are released from prison. It requires lifetime community parole supervision for Level 2 and Level 3 sex offenders who don’t register.

Level 3 offenders, the most dangerous, also are barred from living in nursing homes, and Level 2 offenders would have to wear Global Positioning System devices while on probation or parole.

Sen. Bruce Tarr, R-Gloucester, said the measure allows the state to better account for the convicted offenders when they’re released.

“It makes sense not to take a chance on the loss of accountability between release and (a sex offender’s) entrance into the community,” Tarr said.

Lawmakers Should Make Prosecution of Child Abusers a Priority

Lawmakers should make prosecution of child abusers a priority

Salem News

The damage to children who are abused does not end when the abuse ends. It can, and does, last a lifetime. Those who commit such abuse should not be allowed to escape any consequences of their actions, just because it happened more than 15 years earlier.

So it is unfortunate, to say the least, that most members of the Legislature apparently can’t be bothered to vote on a bill that would extend the allowable time to report such crimes.

Fifteen years is the maximum amount of time allowed under the statute of limitations for reporting child abuse. And while there is a bill before the Legislature that would increase it by 12 years, it did not come to a vote by the end of the regular session July 31.

Children’s advocate Debbie Savoia of North Andover, vice president of the Chelmsford-based Community Voices, has been trying to get pledges from legislators for two things: To support the bill and to pressure House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, D-Boston, to bring it to a vote when the Legislature reconvenes for a one-day session sometime this month.

The bill brings the right balance to a painful, contentious issue. There should be a statute of limitations – victims have a responsibility to bring a complaint within a reasonable time – and the proposed 27 years does that, especially when the clock doesn’t start until a person turns 16 years old.

But few legislators have agreed to support the bill which was co-sponsored by state Rep. Anthony Verga, D-Gloucester. At the end of last week, only 10 had signed on to it.

Rep. Barbara L’Italien, D-Andover, whose district includes the town of Boxford, is in favor of quick action. “I think it’s important we aggressively protect the rights of young victims,” she told Statehouse reporter Ed Mason recently.

And state Sen. Bruce Tarr, R-Gloucester, has joined several colleagues in sending a letter to Senate President Robert Travaglini asking that the matter be taken up at the special session.

Rep. William Lantigua, D-Lawrence, says he won’t make the pledge because he doesn’t like its “tone.” That is, at best, a juvenile objection.

A more substantive objection comes from Rep. Harriett Stanley, D-West Newbury. She says she supports the legislation’s intent – in fact, she says she might support eliminating the statute of limitations altogether – but believes pledges hamstring legislators by failing to allow for changing circumstances or new information.

That may be true. But it is also true that the Legislature generally finds the time to do what its members, particularly its leaders, think is important.

This is important. It is more than feel-good legislation. It is a bill that should have passed during the regular session. The membership ought to send that message to DiMasi. And he ought to make time this month for a vote on a bill that, while it will surely not eliminate child abuse, offers the chance of keeping more of those who commit such heinous crimes away from their next victims.