What Does Specter’s Switch Mean For Health Care Reform?
What Does Specter’s Switch Mean For Health Care Reform?
When it comes to health care reform, Sen. Arlen Specter may be one of the few (former) Republicans open to negotiation. A co-sponsor of the Wyden-Bennett health bill, Specter has been a strong proponent of reforming the health care system. He supports allowing the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to negotiate Medicare’s prescription drug prices, drug importation and SCHIP expansion.
Specter demanded that the stimulus bill include an additional $10.4 billion for the National Institutes of Health, and has recently proposed establishing a new agency to “award grants to help develop new treatments through biotechnology.”
So what does all of this mean for health care reform and the recent debate over reconciliation? Democrats now have 60 votes (assuming that Al Franken is seated) to pass health care reform and some pundits may argue that reconciliation is no longer necessary. But this view overestimates the unity of the Democratic party. Blue-dog moderates like Sens. Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Ben Nelson (D-NE) are unlikely to support the price tag of comprehensive health care reform ($1.3 trillion over 10 years) or legislation that undermines the monopoly of private insurers. For this reason, reconciliation forces Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats to compromise with the liberal majority, not the other way around.
5 Responses to “What Does Specter’s Switch Mean For Health Care Reform?”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
Funny, I did a similar post about the same time:
Specter of Blue Dog Corporacrats
With the conversion of Senator Arlen Specter and the installation of Al Franken, Democrats will have a veto proof margin in both houses of Congress….
Health care reform is the next big fight. What will Blue Corporacrats do? Senators Max Baucus (D-MT) and Kent Conrad (D-ND) will look after their for-profit healthcare sponsors. Indiana Senator Evan Bayh’s household income comes from health insurance and biotech companies….
White House Health Czar Nancy-Ann DeParle spent eight years considering ways to profit from health care companies…
Watch for Corporacrats pushing health care deform.
http://stateofthedivision.blogspot.com/2009/04/specter-of-blue-dog-corporacrats.html
April 28th, 2009 at 5:39 pmDid you read the Wyden-Bennett bill? It’s states contracting with private insurers for individual coverage.
April 28th, 2009 at 5:56 pmBesides making hospitals turn in uncovered people to the HHA or HAPI, the plan does the following:
Terminates federal health benefits coverage, including coverage provided under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).
Democrats are going to screw this up royally. Between an over reliance on individual plans which keeps insurance company franchises intact, stressed providers will take in the shorts. How many of those near retirement age primary care doctors will call it quits? How many nonprofit community hospitals will close or sell out?
The Wyden-Bennett bill is a bloody joke for anyone expecting real reform.
April 28th, 2009 at 6:04 pmThis section of the Wyden-Bennett bill is patently laughable.
SEC. 801. COST-CONTAINMENT RESULTS OF THE HEALTHY AMERICANS ACT.
Congress finds that the Healthy Americans Act will result in the following:
(1) Private insurance companies will be forced to hold down costs and will slow the rate of growth because they are required to offer standardized Healthy American Private Insurance plans. (Private insurance administrative costs 12-16% vs. 5-6% for Medicare)
(2) Administrative savings will be derived from reducing employers’ and insurers’ administrative costs relating to health care. (vs.a public plan option? Hardly!)
(3) Private insurance companies will implement uniform billing and common claims forms. (There is already uniform billing)
(4) Congress will reclaim Medicare and Medicaid disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments because previously uninsured persons will go to providers on an outpatient basis instead of an emergency department. (This is a possible penalty on already stressed nonprofit community and governmental hospitals. It depends on how quickly the uninsureds report to the HHA or HAPI per instruction from the hospital)
(5) State and local governments will save money on programs they operated for the uninsured before enactment of this Act. (What about transition planning? Medicare Part D was to save state Medicaid plans lots of money, but it left 6 million dual eligibles hanging. Many had 5-6 prescriptions)
(6) The Federal Government will save money on Federal tax subsidies that reward inefficient care and are regressive. (What federal tax susidies? The tax free status of employer sponsored health insurance? The nonprofit community hospital designation? What inefficient, regressive tax subsidies will disappear?)
(7) The Federal Government and the private sector will save money if the Food and Drug Administration determines whether products provide new value. (I assume this is about medical devices and not pharmaceuticals)
(8) Reducing medical errors will save the government and the private sector money. (Hospitals are also the private sector. This says nothing of how medical errors will be reduced.)
(9) Requiring hospitals to send large bills to patients for their review will reduce errors in medical billing and force major providers to be more cost conscious. (This is patently laughable. Patients already feel disempowered while receiving care. The hospital billing system arose over forty years to meet government and insurance company requirements. There is little to understand for a patient with a large bill.)
(10) Requiring insurers to reimburse for quality and cost effective services will hold down private sector costs. (Now those billing systems that arose over four decades will turned into a quality/cost effective system. This looks like a front for pay for performance.)
(11) Reduction of Medicare’s restriction on bargaining power for prescription drugs will reduce costs for sole source drugs and other medications.
(12) Establishment of electronic medical records by insurers will create savings. (What model predicted this?)
(13) Publication of cost and quality data will enable people to look up by zip code affordable high-quality providers. (Maybe for some people, assuming the data is not garbage in-garbage out. Health illiteracy is a huge problem for providers. Supply and demand may in primary care may mean people struggle to hold onto their family doctor.)
The Wyden-Bennett Bill has me very concerned about what deform is coming.
April 28th, 2009 at 6:27 pmThe Wyden-Bennett plan requires the uninsured to buy health insurance or be fined. The penalty is:
(C) AMOUNT OF PENALTY-
(i) IN GENERAL- The amount determined under this subparagraph for an individual is an amount equal to the sum of–
(I) the number of uncovered months multiplied by the weighted average of the monthly premium for HAPI plans of the same class of coverage as the individual’s in the applicable coverage area (determined without regard to any subsidy under section 121); and
(II) 15 percent of the amount determined under subclause (I).
(ii) UNCOVERED MONTH DEFINED- For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘uncovered month’ means, with respect to an individual, any month beginning on or after the applicable date (as defined in subparagraph (E)) unless the individual can demonstrate that the individual–
(I) was covered under a HAPI plan or a health plan offered through a program described in paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) for any portion of such month; or
(II) was described in paragraph (1)(B) of such section for any portion of such month.
A month shall not be treated as an uncovered month if the individual has already paid a late enrollment penalty under this subsection for such month or if the individual was incarcerated for the entire month.
(D) PAYMENT- Payment of any late enrollment penalty by an individual under this subsection shall be made to the HHA of the individual’s State of residence under procedures established by the State.
This is a tracking nightmare. Europeans have to be laughing their arses off.
April 28th, 2009 at 6:46 pm