If my experience of Massachusetts' implementation of its landmark health insurance law is any indication of what's going on in general, God help us all.  I've just received a letter rejecting my re-enrollment on a technicality.  I can, of course, apply for a "fair hearing", which MassHealth will schedule at their convenience and which will be held at a place and time of their choosing which they will notify me of in their own good time.  The result, no doubt, being loss of a full day's wages, increased expenses — travel and otherwise — and general unpleasantness for me.

Before Masshealth got involved, I was receiving encouraging missives at regular intervals from the Boston Medical Center HealthNet Plan, which I was enrolled in last year through the Connector.  I say encouraging, but there are signs of stress there, too.  Although my premiums (for which I continue to receive bills, despite being denied eligibility) have not increased, my copays have doubled. 

What all this tells me is that the Massachusetts' Office of Health and Human Services is under increased pressure to reject as many enrollees and re-enrollees as they can find spurious technicalities for, since the sad fact is that the number of people who need subsidized health insurance is higher, as is the cost of providing it, than anyone was willing to face up to when the legislation was being hurried through.

Unfortunately, despite being summarily rejected I am still very much eligible for Commonwealth Care.  So why do I no longer have it?  Here's roughly how it went down: 

I sent in my re-enrollment thingy by the deadline, along with a copy of my most recent tax return, as instructed.  (The instructions were to "Please send us one of the following: two recent consecutive pay stubs; your most recent 1040; or any earnings statement from your employer.")

After several weeks I received a rather cheeky letter saying "The verification we received is not acceptable proof.  It appears that you are an employee of X*.  As such, we need copies of two recent paystubs in order to verify your current income."

"It appears?"  "As such?"  Say it with that Revere accent.  Sounds pretty official.  But, excuse me.  How does it appear that I am an employee of X, and as such, why is my 1040 all the sudden "not acceptable proof"?  Was Lydia having a bad hair day?  Did she spill her coffee on her US Magazine in her cubicle while painting her press-on nails?  I mean, did I not follow the very letter of the law here?  And, another thing: at the time I submitted my application for re-enrollment I had not worked for X for half a year, bizznatch. 

Well, you can't really argue with a flippant form letter, can you?  I sent a reply with a letter of separation from my old employer dated August, and my W-2s.  It appears you were wrong, fecktards.  As such, could you suck my doodle?

They loved it, of course.  It gave them the chance to send me another letter (two, actually) denying me again (and again)! 

It's a hassle.  But the worst that can happen is I will be uninsured and assessed a penalty at tax time.  The penalty in 2007 was a measly $219/year, which, frankly, is worth paying to avoid dealing with the clowns at MassHealth in Revere (I can only imagine the drab cubicles, stained carpets, antiquated computers, and the sad, angry race of cube-dwellers paying for their sins in this bureaucratic hell).  In 2008 the penalties have increased as well.  For me, it would come out to $420.

Still a bargain, in a way, when you think about it. 
___________________________________________
*Most of you will figure this out, but to those of you who might be confused: my former employer, whom I choose not to identify here, out of embarrassment for myself, was not called "X".  Nor did the letter from MassHealth have an "X" where it reads "X" above.  In place of the "X" was the name of the company I used to work for.