Medical Marijuana – The Text of Amd. 20

January 28, 2010

Because you have probably heard quite a bit about medical marijuana both in terms of respecting the will of the voters, prohibiting gaming of the system, but ensuring access to medical marijuana, I have decided to provide the full text of the Colorado constitutional amendment below:

Text of Proposed Constitutional Amendment:
Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado:

AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, AMENDING ARTICLE XVIII, ADDING A NEW SECTION TO READ:

Section 14. Medical use of marijuana for persons suffering from debilitating medical conditions.

(1) As used in this section, these terms are defined as follows.

(a) "Debilitating medical condition" means:

(I) Cancer, glaucoma, positive status for human immunodeficiency virus, or acquired immune deficiency syndrome, or treatment for such conditions;

(II) A chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition, or treatment for such conditions, which produces, for a specific patient, one or more of the following, and for which, in the professional opinion of the patient's physician, such condition or conditions reasonably may be alleviated by the medical use of marijuana: cachexia; severe pain; severe nausea; seizures, including those that are characteristic of epilepsy; or persistent muscle spasms, including those that are characteristic of multiple sclerosis; or

(III) Any other medical condition, or treatment for such condition, approved by the state health agency, pursuant to its rule making authority or its approval of any petition submitted by a patient or physician as provided in this section.

(b) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, production, use, or transportation of marijuana or paraphernalia related to the administration of such marijuana to address the symptoms or effects of a patient's debilitating medical condition, which may be authorized only after a diagnosis of the patient's debilitating medical condition by a physician or physicians, as provided by this section.

(c) "Parent" means a custodial mother or father of a patient under the age of eighteen years, any person having custody of a patient under the age of eighteen years, or any person serving as a legal guardian for a patient under the age of eighteen years.

(d) "Patient" means a person who has a debilitating medical condition.

(e) "Physician" means a doctor of medicine who maintains, in good standing, a license to practice medicine issued by the state of Colorado.

(f) "Primary care-giver" means a person, other than the patient and the patient's physician, who is eighteen years of age or older and has significant responsibility for managing the well-being of a patient who has a debilitating medical condition.

(g) "Registry identification card" means that document, issued by the state health agency, which identifies a patient authorized to engage in the medical use of marijuana and such patient's primary care-giver, if any has been designated.

(h) "State health agency" means that public health related entity of state government designated by the governor to establish and maintain a confidential registry of patients authorized to engage in the medical use of marijuana and enact rules to administer this program.

(i) "Usable form of marijuana" means the seeds, leaves, buds, and flowers of the plant (genus) cannabis, and any mixture or preparation thereof, which are appropriate for medical use as provided in this section, but excludes the plant's stalks, stems, and roots.

(j) "Written documentation" means a statement signed by a patient's physician or copies of the patient's pertinent medical records.

 

(2)

(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (5), (6), and (8) of this section, a patient or primary care-giver charged with a violation of the state's criminal laws related to the patient's medical use of marijuana will be deemed to have established an affirmative defense to such allegation where:

(I) The patient was previously diagnosed by a physician as having a debilitating medical condition;

(II) The patient was advised by his or her physician, in the context of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, that the patient might benefit from the medical use of marijuana in connection with a debilitating medical condition; and

(III) The patient and his or her primary care-giver were collectively in possession of amounts of marijuana only as permitted under this section. This affirmative defense shall not exclude the assertion of any other defense where a patient or primary care-giver is charged with a violation of state law related to the patient's medical use of marijuana.

(b) Effective June 1, 1999, it shall be an exception from the state's criminal laws for any patient or primary care-giver in lawful possession of a registry identification card to engage or assist in the medical use of marijuana, except as otherwise provided in subsections (5) and (8) of this section.

(c) It shall be an exception from the state's criminal laws for any physician to:

(I) Advise a patient whom the physician has diagnosed as having a debilitating medical condition, about the risks and benefits of medical use of marijuana or that he or she might benefit from the medical use of marijuana, provided that such advice is based upon the physician's contemporaneous assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition and a bona fide physician-patient relationship; or

(II) Provide a patient with written documentation, based upon the physician's contemporaneous assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition and a bona fide physician-patient relationship, stating that the patient has a debilitating medical condition and might benefit from the medical use of marijuana. No physician shall be denied any rights or privileges for the acts authorized by this subsection.

(d) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, no person, including a patient or primary care-giver, shall be entitled to the protection of this section for his or her acquisition, possession, manufacture, production, use, sale, distribution, dispensing, or transportation of marijuana for any use other than medical use.

(e) Any property interest that is possessed, owned, or used in connection with the medical use of marijuana or acts incidental to such use, shall not be harmed, neglected, injured, or destroyed while in the possession of state or local law enforcement officials where such property has been seized in connection with the claimed medical use of marijuana. Any such property interest shall not be forfeited under any provision of state law providing for the forfeiture of property other than as a sentence imposed after conviction of a criminal offense or entry of a plea of guilty to such offense. Marijuana and paraphernalia seized by state or local law enforcement officials from a patient or primary care-giver in connection with the claimed medical use of marijuana shall be returned immediately upon the determination of the district attorney or his or her designee that the patient or primary care-giver is entitled to the protection contained in this section as may be evidenced, for example, by a decision not to prosecute, the dismissal of charges, or acquittal.

 

(3) The state health agency shall create and maintain a confidential registry of patients who have applied for and are entitled to receive a registry identification card according to the criteria set forth in this subsection, effective June 1, 1999.

(a) No person shall be permitted to gain access to any information about patients in the state health agency's confidential registry, or any information otherwise maintained by the state health agency about physicians and primary care-givers, except for authorized employees of the state health agency in the course of their official duties and authorized employees of state or local law enforcement agencies which have stopped or arrested a person who claims to be engaged in the medical use of marijuana and in possession of a registry identification card or its functional equivalent, pursuant to paragraph (e) of this subsection (3). Authorized employees of state or local law enforcement agencies shall be granted access to the information contained within the state health agency's confidential registry only for the purpose of verifying that an individual who has presented a registry identification card to a state or local law enforcement official is lawfully in possession of such card.

(b) In order to be placed on the state's confidential registry for the medical use of marijuana, a patient must reside in Colorado and submit the completed application form adopted by the state health agency, including the following information, to the state health agency:

(I) The original or a copy of written documentation stating that the patient has been diagnosed with a debilitating medical condition and the physician's conclusion that the patient might benefit from the medical use of marijuana;

(II) The name, address, date of birth, and social security number of the patient;

(III) The name, address, and telephone number of the patient's physician; and

(IV) The name and address of the patient's primary care-giver, if one is designated at the time of application.

(c) Within thirty days of receiving the information referred to in subparagraphs (3)(b)(I)-(IV), the state health agency shall verify medical information contained in the patient's written documentation. The agency shall notify the applicant that his or her application for a registry identification card has been denied if the agency's review of such documentation discloses that: the information required pursuant to paragraph (3)(b) of this section has not been provided or has been falsified; the documentation fails to state that the patient has a debilitating medical condition specified in this section or by state health agency rule; or the physician does not have a license to practice medicine issued by the state of Colorado. Otherwise, not more than five days after verifying such information, the state health agency shall issue one serially numbered registry identification card to the patient, stating:

(I) The patient's name, address, date of birth, and social security number;

(II) That the patient's name has been certified to the state health agency as a person who has a debilitating medical condition, whereby the patient may address such condition with the medical use of marijuana;

(III) The date of issuance of the registry identification card and the date of expiration of such card, which shall be one year from the date of issuance; and

(IV) The name and address of the patient's primary care-giver, if any is designated at the time of application.

(d) Except for patients applying pursuant to subsection (6) of this section, where the state health agency, within thirty-five days of receipt of an application, fails to issue a registry identification card or fails to issue verbal or written notice of denial of such application, the patient's application for such card will be deemed to have been approved. Receipt shall be deemed to have occurred upon delivery to the state health agency, or deposit in the United States mails. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no application shall be deemed received prior to June 1, 1999. A patient who is questioned by any state or local law enforcement official about his or her medical use of marijuana shall provide a copy of the application submitted to the state health agency, including the written documentation and proof of the date of mailing or other transmission of the written documentation for delivery to the state health agency, which shall be accorded the same legal effect as a registry identification card, until such time as the patient receives notice that the application has been denied.

(e) A patient whose application has been denied by the state health agency may not reapply during the six months following the date of the denial and may not use an application for a registry identification card as provided in paragraph (3)(d) of this section. The denial of a registry identification card shall be considered a final agency action. Only the patient whose application has been denied shall have standing to contest the agency action.

(f) When there has been a change in the name, address, physician, or primary care-giver of patient who has qualified for a registry identification card, that patient must notify the state health agency of any such change within ten days. A patient who has not designated a primary care-giver at the time of application to the state health agency may do so in writing at any time during the effective period of the registry identification card, and the primary care-giver may act in this capacity after such designation. To maintain an effective registry identification card, a patient must annually resubmit, at least thirty days prior to the expiration date stated on the registry identification card, updated written documentation to the state health agency, as well as the name and address of the patient's primary care-giver, if any is designated at such time.

(g) Authorized employees of state or local law enforcement agencies shall immediately notify the state health agency when any person in possession of a registry identification card has been determined by a court of law to have willfully violated the provisions of this section or its implementing legislation, or has pled guilty to such offense.

(h) A patient who no longer has a debilitating medical condition shall return his or her registry identification card to the state health agency within twenty-four hours of receiving such diagnosis by his or her physician.

(i) The state health agency may determine and levy reasonable fees to pay for any direct or indirect administrative costs associated with its role in this program.

 

(4)

(a) A patient may engage in the medical use of marijuana, with no more marijuana than is medically necessary to address a debilitating medical condition. A patient's medical use of marijuana, within the following limits, is lawful:

(I) No more than two ounces of a usable form of marijuana; and

(II) No more than six marijuana plants, with three or fewer being mature, flowering plants that are producing a usable form of marijuana.

(b) For quantities of marijuana in excess of these amounts, a patient or his or her primary care-giver may raise as an affirmative defense to charges of violation of state law that such greater amounts were medically necessary to address the patient's debilitating medical condition.

 

(5)

(a) No patient shall:

(I) Engage in the medical use of marijuana in a way that endangers the health or well-being of any person; or

(II) Engage in the medical use of marijuana in plain view of, or in a place open to, the general public.

(b) In addition to any other penalties provided by law, the state health agency shall revoke for a period of one year the registry identification card of any patient found to have willfully violated the provisions of this section or the implementing legislation adopted by the general assembly.

 

(6) Notwithstanding paragraphs (2)(a) and (3)(d) of this section, no patient under eighteen years of age shall engage in the medical use of marijuana unless:

(a) Two physicians have diagnosed the patient as having a debilitating medical condition;

(b) One of the physicians referred to in paragraph (6)(a) has explained the possible risks and benefits of medical use of marijuana to the patient and each of the patient's parents residing in Colorado;

(c) The physicians referred to in paragraph (6)(b) has provided the patient with the written documentation, specified in subparagraph (3)(b)(I);

(d) Each of the patient's parents residing in Colorado consent in writing to the state health agency to permit the patient to engage in the medical use of marijuana;

(e) A parent residing in Colorado consents in writing to serve as a patient's primary care-giver;

(f) A parent serving as a primary care-giver completes and submits an application for a registry identification card as provided in subparagraph (3)(b) of this section and the written consents referred to in paragraph (6)(d) to the state health agency;

(g) The state health agency approves the patient's application and transmits the patient's registry identification card to the parent designated as a primary care-giver;

(h) The patient and primary care-giver collectively possess amounts of marijuana no greater than those specified in subparagraph (4)(a)(I) and (II); and

(i) The primary care-giver controls the acquisition of such marijuana and the dosage and frequency of its use by

the patient.

 

(7) Not later than March 1, 1999, the governor shall designate, by executive order, the state health agency as defined in paragraph (1)(g) of this section.

(8) Not later than April 30, 1999, the General Assembly shall define such terms and enact such legislation as may be necessary for implementation of this section, as well as determine and enact

(a) Fraudulent representation of a medical condition by a patient to a physician, state health agency, or state or local law enforcement official for the purpose of falsely obtaining a registry identification card or avoiding arrest and prosecution;

(b) Fraudulent use or theft of any person's registry identification card to acquire, possess, produce, use, sell, distribute, or transport marijuana, including but not limited to cards that are required to be returned where patients are no longer diagnosed as having a debilitating medical condition;

(c) Fraudulent production or counterfeiting of, or tampering with, one or more registry identification cards; or

(d) Breach of confidentiality of information provided to or by the state health agency.

 

(9) Not later than June 1, 1999, the state health agency shall develop and make available to residents of Colorado an application form for persons seeking to be listed on the confidential registry of patients. By such date, the state health agency shall also enact rules of administration, including but not limited to rules governing the establishment and confidentiality of the registry, the verification of medical information, the issuance and form of registry identification cards, communications with law enforcement officials about registry identification cards that have been suspended where a patient is no longer diagnosed as having a debilitating medical condition, and the manner in which the agency may consider adding debilitating medical conditions to the list provided in this section. Beginning June 1, 1999, the state health agency shall accept physician or patient initiated petitions to add debilitating medical conditions to the list provided in this section and, after such hearing as the state health agency deems appropriate, shall approve or deny such petitions within one hundred eighty days of submission. The decision to approve or deny a petition shall be considered a final agency action.

(10)

(a) No governmental, private, or any other health insurance provider shall be required to be liable for any claim for reimbursement for the medical use of marijuana.

(b) Nothing in this section shall require any employer to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in any work place.

 

(11) Unless otherwise provided by this section, all provisions of this section shall become effective upon official declaration of the vote hereon by proclamation of the governor, pursuant to article V, section (1)(4), and shall apply to acts or offenses committed on or after that date.

---

Democracy for Sale – Highest Bidder

January 24, 2010

The United States Supreme Court just dealt a horrible blow to clean campaign reforms in its recent decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (US S Ct 2010). Both the federal McCain-Feingold reforms as well as Colorado's popular Amendment 27 placed limits on corporate and union campaign contributions. The net effect of this decision is to allow unlimited corporate and union spending in elections.

Why is that a problem? The prior Supreme Court jurisprudence recognized a need to offset the actual and potential corrupting influence of money on elections. This is a radical departure from settled precedent that has changed:

 

One Person One Vote into One Dollar One Vote

The Supreme Court goes further down the corrupting fiction that corporations have the same rights as human beings and allows elections to be bought outright by those with the most money.

The idea of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people is now a government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations. By elevating corporate wealth to 1st Amendment protections under the fiction of personhood, it has the net result of eclipsing the speech and voting rights of ordinary Americans – of snuffing out the actual 1st Amendment rights contemplated by our founders.

The public is already deeply distrustful of the role of money in elections. This decision shakes whatever remaining confidence can be left and declares democracy is now open to the highest (corporate) bidder.

---

The Role of the Colorado Attorney General

January 19, 2010

Given the need to objectively render legal opinions, uphold the laws of the State of Colorado, defend the state and enforce a host of consumer protections, should the Attorney General position be a partisan or non-partisan one?

On January 19, 2009, the Denver Post's Lynn Bartels reported Attorney General John Suthers talking to a GOP club indicating he would not vote for retention for any of the Colorado Supreme Court Justices who were originally appointed by a Democrat.

The proper measure for retention of a judge is their judicial performance — not political party. The Judicial Performance Commission makes these reports available on non-partisan criteria pertaining the experience of lawyers, parties and public with the Judges.

For the states highest law enforcement officer to call for a partisan purge and partisan stacking of the bench raises serious questions.

We need to protect the importance of this office to ensure that it does not get subverted to a partisan agenda on either side and to ensure adequate protections that campaign contributions to this office don't come from people the office is supposed to watch dog.

---

October 2009 Legislative Newsletter

October 28, 2009

I wanted to give you an update on some policy issues that have a significant impact on our state. You are an important part of the policy conversations we need to have and I want to thank you for taking an active interest in state policy.

 PRISON SPENDING & WAR ON DRUGS

I have added a running "clock" which tracks the total of how much we are spending on the "War on Drugs" on the front page of my website. You can find it at www.senmorgancarroll.com. As of the time of writing this we have spent over $16 Billion federally ($16,555,231,190) and $25 Billion at the state level ($25,412,302,688) on the War on Drugs. I say this because we as a society need to fundamentally decide whether we want a medical model or criminal model for how we approach addiction. I think the answer to this should be informed by the empirical research on what WORKS and what gives taxpayers the best "bang for their buck".

I had the privilege in participating recently in an event in Grand Junction hosted by the Independence Institute, Club 20 and the Pew Foundation. We were joined by DOC Director Ari Zavares, Dept Public Safety Director Pete Weir, DA Pete Hautzinger, Mesa County Sheriff Stan Hilkey, and Community Corrections Board Member Steve Reynolds.

Here's a recap of what we have discussed:

• 1 in 100 people nationally are now behind bars and 1 in 29 people in Colorado are under some form of correctional control.
• Colorado is incarcerating people at a rate higher than national average and the U.S. is incarcerating people at a much higher rate than the rest of the world.
• Colorado arbitrarily doubled prison sentences in 1985 and the growth rate is jeopardizing all other public programs in Colorado.

 

 

• Public Safety is the number #1 priority and our corrections policies and priorities should be based on what works and gets results.
• We are spending significant sums of money in ways that do not increase public safety.
• Colorado has a 50% recidivism rate. By focusing on data-based policies that work, we can reduce recidivism, reduce crimes, reduce future victims and save money.
• The Department of Corrections is the largest mental health care provider in the State of Colorado. 21% of people in CO prison have been diagnosed with a serious mental illness and nearly half of some kind of mental illness.
• 85% of women sent to CO prison last year were convicted of a non-violent offense and the US imprisons 10 times more women that Western European countries combined. 80% of these women have children.
• We appropriated $708 million in state funds to the Department of Corrections last year, making DOC the largest general-fund agency in Colorado.
• DOC appropriations is twice what it costs to fund the entire Judicial Department (an entire branch of government!) and twenty times what it costs to fund the entire Legislative Department (an entire branch of government!)
• DOC has grown from 2% to almost 10% of the state budget and because it has grown faster than the 6% allocation limit it has forced disproportionate cuts in other areas.
• Colorado is a Balanced Budget state so our state constitution requires that we balance our budget every year. As a result every $1 we spend on corrections is a $1 we cannot spend elsewhere.
• It costs $30,386 per inmate per year in operating expenses in DOC and $150,773 per inmate per year on prison construction costs — making the true cost per incarcerated individual $181,159 per inmate per year.
• Cost of 1 Inmate = Health Insurance for 15 Families of 4 for a Year;
• Cost of 1 Inmate = Medicaid Coverage for 40 People for a Year;
• Cost of 1 Inmate = Cost of Educating 23 K-12 Students per Year;
• Cost of 1 Inmate = Tuition for 50 Students in Higher Education;
• Cost of 1 Inmate = Lost Tourism Revenues of $1,086,954 ($1 invested in tourism = $6 dollars return)

As we have sentenced people in record volumes to Colorado prisons we have generated a prison population faster than we can build them (or afford them). Current estimates project the need for building 1 new prison per year to keep pace with the population.

This has increased Colorado reliance on the private prison industry to house our inmates. Prison for profit has driven perverse incentives that have nearly bankrupted the state. CCAs profits doubled between 2003 – 2008. CCA is also being sued in a national class action for not paying wages owed to build their profits.

All said, we could make an enormous dent in solving this problem by:

• restructuring drug sentences
• differentiating between technical v. substanstive probation / parole violations
• restoring discretion to judges in sentencing

and using the savings to invest reducing waitlists and expanded access in:

• juvenile intervention & diversion programs
• substance abuse and addition programs
• anger management programs
• pre-incarceration mental health treatment
• community corrections

HEALTH CARE SURVEY

 Thank you to all of you who have completed my online health care survey. If you haven't completed it and would like to share your input, please visit: http://www.senmorgancarroll.com/healthcaresurvey.

If you would like to see the results of the survey, visit click here.

 PINNACOL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

 The interim committee on the state compensation workers comp carrier of last resort in Colorado has concluded its oversight hearings and made its final recommendations. We have a responsibility for oversight of all governmental and non-governmental entities. The hearings and all efforts for oversight were marked by deep resistance by Pinnacol and even characterized as a "witch hunt". It is highly unusual, to say the least, for a quasi-governmental entity to spend large sums of money on PR and lobbying to oppose oversight.

Pinnacol Assurance was keeping 1,224% of Risk Based Capital which is both higher than other state comp funds ($555 Million, 929%) and higher than other workers compensation carriers in the state ($402 Million, 673%) and posting aggressive and record surplus growth, despite dividends issued.

Colorado's non-profit state compensation insurance fund (Pinnacol) has amassed over $2 billion in assets, $1.2 billion in reserves, $773 million in surpluses and the surplus is growing at a rate of about $100 million per year. Our state workers compensation fund, Pinnacol, insures 57% of the market, 55,000 businesses and covers 1.5 million employees in the State of Colorado.

 

 

The extraordinary level of surpluses have raised questions about whether policyholders are being overcharged or whether injured workers are receiving the benefits they should.

The State of Colorado has oversight responsibility for all government and quasi-governmental entities in Colorado. Pinnacol is no different.

The committee heard testimony about several things that Pinnacol does well. Their employees generally find it a good place to work, their safety and injury prevention programs have earned the accolades of many, and their volunteer and foundation programs have left many grateful recipients. Likewise their "association marketing fees" and dividends are well-liked by those who receive the funds.

The input from injured workers, their advocates, from employers and from Pinnacol was not to privatize nor to return to a full state agency but to leave Pinnacol in its current structure as a quasi-governmental agency. Many employers were satisfied with having this public option for workers' comp insurance. The committee listened and will not seek to change the structure of Pinnacol.

There are problems, however, that came to our attention, which would be irresponsible to ignore.

*Extravagent and Wasteful Spending, Perks, Junkets. (hundreds of thousands of dollars in Pinnacol expenses on golf outings, retreats at luxury hotels, trips and lavish meals that included a $2,500 dinner with $144- per-plate lobster and $115 bottles of wine, paying for CEO's wife for retreats where CEO wasn't present for business). (See Receipts).

*Executive compensation packages that are far in excess of those typical for state compensation insurance funds (2002 avg = $268,000, Pinnacol = $419,000), far exceeding the state's usual pay scale and not in compliance with the 2003 audit. . The current CEO pay at Pinnacol is at $448,812.64. (See Pinnacol Annual Financial Statement and 2003 Audit Report).

*Inflated Premiums by NCCI: The rating entity by the insurance industry NCCI is regularly setting rates higher than those recommended by independent actuaries (by about 10%!). (2006 NCCI +5.9%, Independent Actuary -5.9%, (2007 No changes), 2008 NCCI – 0.6%, Independent Actuary -16%, 2009 NCCI – 9.7%, Independent Actuary -19.8%. (See Rate Chart).

*Medical providers reported difficulty in getting treatment approved, bills paid, and getting access to all of the necessary documentation to review claim. Providers are now reporting difficulty in getting approvals or payment even for care within the medical treatment guidelines (See Physician Testimony).

*Injured workers had difficulty with denied claims, denied medical treatment and prompt payment of reasonable and necessary medical care. Some workers testified that Pinnacol's non-payment led to foreclosures, bankruptcy. We also heard evidence that Pinnacol's non-payment led to cost-shifting (to private health insurance, Medicaid or in emergency room visits). We heard from workers who had been crush victims, amputees, fire victims some blinded or in wheel chairs who reporting having to fight Pinnacol at every step of the way. (See Worker Testimony, Letters)

*Pinnacol has a gainsharing and bonus structure that creates financial incentives to deny of claims and medical treatment. Some of the problematic bonus structures include basing bonuses or gainsharing on "net income" – total minus claims paid, the number of days prior to medical discharge (MMI), time for claim closure. These financial incentives exist for everyone but most problematically claims managers, nurse case managers and even the Medical Director. This is a direct financial conflict of interest with the statutory purpose of Pinnacol and workers compensation. (See Pinnacol MBOs, Gainsharing Reports)

*Injured workers also reported frequent harassment with spying and surveillance and while Pinnacol spent $4.7 million in surveillance on thousands of workers, only 10 workers (out of 50,000+ claims) were actually convicted of fraud (0.02%). The present system has virtually no checks-and-balances, approval process or limit. The current system doesn't even require that a carrier have a reasonable basis to suspect fraud or any kind of material mis-statement at all. (See Witness Testimony, Pinnacol Document on Surveillance).

These issues are real and compelling and can be addressed with some simple, common sense solutions. Most of the proposals coming forward focus on a few common sense themes designed to help the current system work better:

• increased transparency & accountability
• improving enforcement of existing law
• giving workers plain language notice of their rights under current law
• removing conflicts of interest in the system

The committee is not looking to:

• sell or transfer any of Pinnacol's current assets
• change the legal structure of Pinnacol or its function as carrier of last resort
• make any sweeping changes to Colorado workers comp laws

For copies of all materials provided to date you can visit:

http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?c=Page&cid=1242822336368&pagename=CGA-LegislativeCouncil%2FCLCLayout

PINNACOL PROPOSALS

Rate Reduction Act (Ryden – Tochtrop):

• Lower Premiums: Lower Rate of NCCI or Independent Actuary Unless Good Cause
• Transparent Rate Filing: – Open to Public for Review
• Increases Dividends: Dividend Trigger 800% RBC well above solvency requirements or other CO carriers.

Workers Bill of Rights (Miklosi – M. Carroll):

• Notice to Injured Workers Upon filing of Claim of their Rights Under WC

Pinnacol's Board Transparency Act (Miklosi – Hodge):

• Balance the Board: Add injured worker, 2/3 employees non-management, Dir. DOL
• Public Notice, Publicly Posted, Opportunity for Public Comment
• Board Compensation X$ Amount –$250 per diem.

Injured Worker Privacy Act (Pace – M. Carroll):

• Requires reasonable basis to suspect fraud prior to triggering surveillance
• Gives injured worker right to expedited hearing to challenge
• Gives injured worker right to receive all materials

Transparency Act (Hodge – Ryden):

• Restore Annual Oversight Report
• Put Division of WC Complaint Process Online
• Survey Feedback from Injured Workers: Results Posted Publicly

Reduce Conflicts of Interest (M. Carroll – Miklosi):

• No Financial Incentives or Bonuses to Delay / Deny Claims / Medical Treatment
• Disclosure of Financial Interests in Division IME Panel:
• No Reversionary Interests to Self (Pinnacol / Carrier) upon death of injured worker
• No ex parte 3^rd Party communications with physicians unless in writing or in presence of patient

Penalties (Tochtrop – Pace):

• Increases Penalties (unchanged in decades) to Better Enforce Current Law
• Changes Willfully to Knowingly regarding penalty for unpaid bills

It has been interesting, to say the least, to see a quasi-governmental entity resist and vilify its own oversight and to see entities that receive 6 figure checks from Pinnacol rally to their "defense" even at the expense of some of the rational interests of their own members (i.e. lower premiums, higher dividends, proper care for their workers).

These bills will be considered by the Legislative Council Committee on November 10, 2009. Bills passed from there will be considered as part of the regular 2010 Legislative Session.

There is no doubt that there are some things that Pinnacol does well (and even better than its predecessor CCIA), but the committee did find some troubling problems that we could not ignore.

LOCAL ELECTIONS

 Please remember to vote and encourage everyone you know to vote in your local elections. The decisions made at the local level can be some of the most important ones to our daily lives and neighborhoods. Aurora is having an all-mail ballot. Please return your ballots ASAP and verify you have adequate postage.

 NEXT TOWNHALL MEETINGS

Meetings with Su and Morgan
Thursday November 19, 2009
7:00 – 8:30 PM
Community College of Aurora
16000 E. Centretech Pkwy, Aurora

*IMPORTANT NOTICE: There will be no December evening townhall on the usual 3rd Thursday due to holidays.

Coffee with Carroll and Ryden
Monday December 7, 2009
7:00 – 8:30 AM
E. Steamers Coffee
360 S. Chambers Rd, Aurora

 Hope you're well!

---

Prison Spending - Colorado Corrections

October 23, 2009

Yesterday I had the privilege in participating in an event in Grand Junction hosted by the Independence Institute, Club 20 and the Pew Foundation. We were joined by DOC Director Ari Zavares, Dept Public Safety Director Pete Weir, DA Pete Hautzinger, Mesa County Sheriff Stan Hilkey, and Community Corrections Board Member Steve Reynolds.

Here's a recap of what we have discussed:

• 1 in 100 people nationally are now behind bars and 1 in 28 people in Colorado are under some form of correctional control.
• Colorado is incarcerating people at a rate higher than national average and the U.S. is incarcerating people at a much higher rate than the rest of the world.
• Colorado arbitrarily doubled prison sentences in 1985 and the growth rate is jeopardizing all other public programs in Colorado.

 

 

• Public Safety is the number #1 priority and our corrections policies and priorities should be based on what works and gets results.
• We are spending significant sums of money in ways that do not increase public safety.
• Colorado has a 50% recidivism rate. By focusing on data-based policies that work, we can reduce recidivism, reduce crimes, reduce future victims and save money.
• The Department of Corrections is the largest mental health care provider in the State of Colorado. 21% of people in CO prison have been diagnosed with a serious mental illness and nearly half of some kind of mental illness.
• 85% of women sent to CO prison last year were convicted of a non-violent offense and the US imprisons 10 times more women that Western European countries combined. 80% of these women have children.
• We appropriated $708 million in state funds to the Department of Corrections last year, making DOC the largest general-fund agency in Colorado.
• DOC appropriations is twice what it costs to fund the entire Judicial Department (an entire branch of government!) and twenty times what it costs to fund the entire Legislative Department (an entire branch of government!)
• DOC has grown from 2% to almost 10% of the state budget and because it has grown faster than the 6% allocation limit it has forced disproportionate cuts in other areas.
• Colorado is a Balanced Budget state so our state constitution requires that we balance our budget every year. As a result every $1 we spend on corrections is a $1 we cannot spend elsewhere.
• It costs $30,386 per inmate per year in operating expenses in DOC and $150,773 per inmate per year on prison construction costs — making the true cost per incarcerated individual $181,159 per inmate per year.
• Cost of 1 Inmate = Health Insurance for 15 Families of 4 for a Year;
• Cost of 1 Inmate = Medicaid Coverage for 40 People for a Year;
• Cost of 1 Inmate = Cost of Educating 23 K-12 Students per Year;
• Cost of 1 Inmate = Tuition for 50 Students in Higher Education;
• Cost of 1 Inmate = Lost Tourism Revenues of $1,086,954 ($1 invested in tourism = $6 dollars return)

As we have sentenced people in record volumes to Colorado prisons we have generated a prison population faster than we can build them (or afford them). Current estimates project the need for building 1 new prison per year to keep pace with the population.

This has increased Colorado reliance on the private prison industry to house our inmates. Prison for profit has driven perverse incentives that have nearly bankrupted the state. CCAs profits doubled between 2003 – 2008. CCA is also being sued in a national class action for not paying wages owed to build their profits.

All said, we could make an enormous dent in solving this problem by:

• restructuring drug sentences
• differentiating between technical v. substanstive probation / parole violations
• restoring discretion to judges in sentencing

and using the savings to invest reducing waitlists and expanded access in:

• juvenile intervention & diversion programs
• substance abuse and addition programs
• anger management programs
• pre-incarceration mental health treatment
• community corrections

---

| Older Posts >>