The Wonk Room

Will Kent Conrad Be The Champion Of Health Care Reform?

conradbudget.jpgBudget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND), who has recently questioned the wisdom of investing more money into the health care system, is now warning the administration that he may confine the budget resolution to five years instead of ten:

“I’m expecting significant change. It is going to require adjustments,” Conrad said after seeing some of the preliminary numbers. “I think all of us have a very good sense that they will be more adverse.” Unlike Obama, who presented a 10-year spending plan, the chairman said he will confine his resolution to just five. Conrad said he made this decision because of the uncertainty of long-range forecasts, but the end result of narrowing the window is significant in itself.

Narrowing the budget window will be unhelpful towards enacting for health care reform. The administration has consistently argued that bending the curve on unsustainable health care spending requires an upfront investment in prevention, health information technology, comparative effectiveness research, and expanding access to the uninsured. Confining the budget resolution to just five years wouldn’t capture the long-term return on the investment and could jeopardize the effort.

During recent Congressional testimony, OMB director Peter Orszag estimated that “health care reform should be deficit neutral even over the medium term [5 to 10 years]” and predicted that “savings will build over time.” Indeed, according to a Commonwealth Fund analysis, an integrated approach to health care reform “could slow the growth in national health spending by a cumulative $3 trillion through 2020, compared with current projections.” The three trillion accrues from incremental savings each year. By 2020, the percent of GDP spent on health care would lower to 18.4 percent from the projected 20.8 percent.

The Blue Dogs have endorsed Obama’s 10-year health allocation, while PhRMA, SEIU, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, AARP, Aetna, AFL-CIO, and AHIP have all signed-on to a letter urging Congress to suspend pay-go rules when considering health care reform:

While the cost savings from improving the efficiency and quality of health care will be significant, many of the anticipated savings will be realized in the long term, and may thus not be evident in a ten year budget window…Requiring spending or revenue offsets for the entire cost of health reform within a ten year budget window, as required under a traditional pay-as-you-go rule, will significantly reduce the likelihood of enacting legislation to achieve essential reforms for long-term savings.

As Conrad himself has argued, “if we as a society fail to control health care costs, there will be a detrimental effect on our nation’s economy and standard of living.” Obama has allocated $634 billion to begin the process of reforming the system, but comprehensive reform could require as much as $1.5 trillion, a drop in the bucket compared to the projected costs of health care (estimated to reach $5.2 trillion by 2020).






3 Responses to “Will Kent Conrad Be The Champion Of Health Care Reform?”

  1. jps Says:

    A senator wants to avoid talking about retiring baby boomers’ impact on health care? Could that be because he thinks C-SPAN II viewers dig that kind of crud? Is the population of North Dakota particularly young?


  2. stateofthedivision Says:

    Kent Conrad wants to reform health care to benefit the private sector, a key source of his political funding.

    With Kent Conrad and Max Baucus driving reform, expect deform. Also, expect any health insurance benefit to shift from employer sponsored to employee paid.

    That might be the five year divide, Conrad refers to.


  3. Svejk Says:

    Legislators are tying themselves in knots to save the for-profit insurance companies. Health care is a secondary consideration for all these folks.

    If they were serious they would:

    1) recognize that there is nothing to “reform”. U.S. health care is in such a mess, starting from the ground up would be the first consideration;

    2) the for-profit insurance industry is the main cause of the problem, so including them would simply continue the problem of skyrocketing costs for less and less actual coverage;

    3) employer-provided health care is detrimental to the economy, the employer and the employee. It is also a thing of the past as employers struggle to survive and employees get laid off;

    4) the for-profit insurance companies are equal in popularity to Wall Street investment banks;

    5) health insurance does not assure access to health care;

    6) there is a perfectly fine proposal for a health care system written up and ready to go – John Conyers’ H.R. 676;
    it would also pay for itself, provide universal health care equally and fairly, be uncomplicated, efficient, allow
    patients to choose their own care-givers, and prevent profit-focused insurance companies from meddling in health care decisions.

    It’s sad that the single- payer option is blacked out of the press and its supporters frozen out of meetings. It would benefit the public if they at least had the correct information about this system.



Jump to Top

About Wonk Room | Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy (off-site) | RSS | Donate
© 2005-2008 Center for American Progress Action Fund
image Register imageimageRSSimageimage imageimage
image
Latest Posts

Advertisement

Issues

Alerts

image
Sign up for Wonk Room Alerts



image
Visit Our Affiliated Sites

image image
imageTopic Cloud


imageArchives


imageBlog Roll


imageAbout Wonk RoomimageimageContact UsimageimageDonateimage