Wilson Signs Pregnancy Medical Care Bill

Creating what he hopes will be the centerpiece of his “preventive government” strategy, Gov. Pete Wilson on Friday signed legislation establishing a program to help provide medical care for pregnant women who cannot now obtain it.

The measure, by Assemblyman Phil Isenberg (D-Sacramento), is intended for women who are too poor to afford private insurance but not poor enough to qualify for the state Medi-Cal program.

An estimated 50,000 California women a year fall into that category. The program seeks to cover about 20,000 of them, although some critics contend that far fewer will actually be able to participate.

The program covers prenatal care, delivery costs and birth-related expenses for the mother up to 60 days after delivery. It also will provide medical coverage for the children until they are 2 years old.

Providing such care, Wilson argues, is the best way to prevent premature births, birth defects, and early childhood diseases. By preventing these problems, the program is supposed to lower the costs to taxpayers of caring for sick infants and children born to mothers who do not receive adequate medical care.

Wilson signed the bill after touring a center for premature infants at the UC Davis Medical Center in Sacramento. He said a two-day stay for an infant in that unit is more expensive than the entire cost of prenatal care and delivery for a normal pregnancy.

“There is no question that this is cost-effective,” Wilson said of his program. “It is much more humane.”

The program, known as Access for Infants and Mothers, or AIM, will be a joint public and private venture that will use tobacco tax revenue to subsidize private insurance for pregnant women.

Eligible will be women whose household income falls between 200% and 250% of the federal poverty level. A woman who is married and has no children would be eligible if her income was no more than $21,280. To participate, she would have to pay a premium equal to 2% of her family income, or $425.

Some critics say the size of the premium will keep many women out of the program.

Health Access, a statewide coalition of labor, consumer and religious groups, has said that even a family of two with an income of three times the federal poverty level has no discretionary income to spend on health care.

“This program is better than we have now, but it is still not affordable,” said Maryann O’Sullivan, executive director of Health Access, which advocates universal health care similar to that available in Canada. “You’re asking these families to take money away from rent, food and the basics in order to pay for this health care.”

But Kassy Perry, a spokeswoman for the Health and Welfare Agency, said that most women will not be asked to pay more than $50 per installment for the insurance.