The Wonk Room

The Republican Leadership Health Plan: For The Healthy, While They’re Healthy

Boehner singsThe Republican leadership in the House has sent a health care bill to the Congressional Budget Office and the early details don’t look good:

- Insurers could circumvent state-based consumer protections by selling policies across state lines

- Health care costs could be reduced by less than 1/2 of one percentage point through malpractice reform

- Businesses with younger and healthy employees could band together and join association health care plans, while firms with older workforces wouldn’t have access to affordable coverage

- Individuals with chronic illnesses or pre-existing conditions could join very expensive and inefficient high risk pools

The Republican plan doesn’t “end insurance industry practices that discriminate against high-risk individuals or provide tax credits to help the uninsured purchase coverage.” It is designed for the healthy while they’re healthy.

Rather than driving down costs by expanding access, Republicans are hoping to expand access by driving down costs. “Our substitute aims at driving down costs,” House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) told reporters Monday. “If you drive down costs, you can expand access.” But press reports suggest that this proposal doesn’t include any of the things we know can reduce costs over time — creating incentives for better coordination of care (accountable care organizations, medical homes, reducing unnecessary readmissions, etc), investments in prevention and comparative effectiveness research, other system modernizations.

The Republican legislation even undermines the existing consensus surrounding cost control. In May, a group of doctors, hospitals, drug makers and insurance companies came together to present President Obama with a letter promising to reduce the growth rate in annual health spending by 1.5 percentage points a year over the next 10 years — lowering spending overall health care spending by $2 trillion (this represents a 20 percent reduction in projected growth) — in the context of comprehensive health care reform. The hospitals promised to contribute “some $155 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings over the 10 years” if more patients enter the hospital system as a result of health care reform. The insurance industry has said they would adopt cost containment strategies and accept anyone who applies for coverage if everyone entered the risk people. But the Republican plan doesn’t invest in comprehensive reform that opens up the system to more people and begins to control skyrocketing health care costs. It only marginally lowers the costs of insurance for the healthy — while they’re healthy:

- Allowing insurers to sell policies across state lines: Allowing insurers to sell policies across state lines would allow companies to avoid state consumer-protection laws and solvency requirements. Insurance companies “would have little incentive to continue doing business” under certain state rules which “require that companies issue coverage to all new customers and not set higher rates for people who are already sick.” Companies will charter in states with scarce regulations, and will no longer have to provide mental health parity, cancer screenings, or abide by regulations that “limit the rates that can be charged to higher-cost consumers and that limit who can be excluded for a health plan.

- Giving states incentives to establish high-risk insurance pools: Nationwide, high-risk pools cover fewer than 200,000 people. Often, enrollees face high premiums and are denied benefits for treatments related to their preexisting conditions— the very thing the plan will help. Because these pools will be full of only sick people, covering all high-risk Americans through these pools is likely to be prohibitively expensive. According to the Tax Policy Center, using high-risk pools “to prevent large losses in insurance coverage among the sick and needy could …[cost] on the order of $1 trillion over ten years given projected health care pay-costs.”

- Allowing businesses to band together and purchase coverage: In theory, Association Health Plans (AHP) are intended to implement a laudable goal: allow small employers to pool their risk nationally so they can get the same economies of scale and negotiating power as large employers. But in reality, Association health care arrangements would allow businesses with healthier employees to pool risk, while excluding firms with sicker employees.

- Lowering health care costs with malpractice reform: While medical malpractice reform is an important issue, malpractice costs represent only 0.46 percent of total health care expenditures. Republicans attempt to group the larger problem of practicing too much defensive medicine with liability reform, but as Kate Steadman explains, “the research that has been conducted indicates, for the most part, that defensive medicine has little effect overall and that states with tort reform only have slightly lower rates of spending than those without.” For instance, after Texas passed its landmark tort reform legislation in September 2003, the state continued to grapple with the highest uninsured rate in the nation. As the Houston Chronicle points out, “malpractice issues are a small scab on Texas’ ailing health care system. The cancer is the number of uninsured. Increasing the number of doctors and specialties only does so much good when many Texans can’t afford to make an appointment.”






4 Responses to “The Republican Leadership Health Plan: For The Healthy, While They’re Healthy”

  1. majii Says:

    My main concern during the entire hcr debate has been with the failure of the media to inform the American people about what is really at stake if a good hcr bill is signed into law. You don’t get this type of comparison/contrast of the republican and democratic bills/ideas from the MSM, and it is my opinion that this has been a major contributor to the confusion many have where hcr is concerned, and the main reason I depend on this website for unbiased, clear information on what is being offered. Thanks.


  2. LL Says:

    This just confirms what many (but not enough) people already knew: The the democratic (shift costs onto the uninsured) and republican (don’t get sick) plans are crap. One would think that we would have at least one political party that actually cared about the health of all of the people instead of the portfolios of sickness speculators. Sadly, both political parties are corrupt.

    Quit Playing Politics
    Medicare 4 *ALL*!


  3. LL Says:

    This just confirms what many (but not enough) people already knew: The the democratic (shift costs onto the uninsured) and republican (don’t get sick) plans are crap. One would think that we would have at least one political party that actually cared about the health of all of the people instead of the portfolios of sickness speculators. Sadly, both political parties are corrupt.

    Quit Playing Politics
    Medicare 4 *ALL*!
    BTW I love your blog!


  4. Michael Kirsch, M.D. Says:

    “Health care costs could be reduced by less than 1/2 of one percentage point through malpractice reform ”
    Just repeating this false statistic doesn’t make it true. The costs (and medical risks) of defensive medicine cannot even be easily defined or measured, but it accounts for tens of billions of dollars. What did you think of Pelosi’s tort reform ‘incentives’. States can pursue ‘reform’ but are prohibited from addressing attorneys’ fees or caps on damages. Wow, real teeth in her proposal. See http://www.MDWhistleblower.blogspot.com under Legal Quality category for some balance.



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