Health reform debate in the news

The battle over health-care reform has taken to the airwaves, reporters at New York Times and the Wall Street Journal write in today’s papers. 

Health Care for America Now, a group that wants Congress to pass comprehensive health reform that guarantees universal coverage, is running ads that push for a public insurance plan to compete with private insurers (more about that in the next post). 

But Conservative critics of this and other reform proposals currently moving through Congress, like the Americans for Prosperity Foundation and Conservatives for Patients’ Rights, are running ads that say the reforms favored by the Democrats will lead to rationing and a deterioration in the quality of care Americans receive.

Robert Pear writes in the New York Times:

“In some ways, the dueling advertisements are mirror images of each other. For instance, one says that you don’t want government between you and your doctor, another that you don’t want the insurance company between you and your doctor.”

And in the Wall Street Journal, Janet Adamy writes:

“The conservative groups’ campaigns seek to liken the Democrats’ proposed system to those in countries where the government has more involvement in the health system. Many experts don’t believe such systems offer worse care than the current U.S. system, which is based largely on private plans and coverage.”

To learn more:

• Read Robert Pear’s article: Warring Sides on Health Care Carry Their Fight to TV and Radio Ads.
• Read Janet Adamy’s article: Conservative Groups Fault Health-Care Agenda. (Subscription may be required.)
• Visit the Web sites of Health Care for America Now and Conservatives for Patients’ Rights.
• Many of these ads and related videos are also available on YouTube.

What is “Public-Plan Choice”

A health reform proposal to create a public health insurance plan to compete with private plans has been gaining support in Washington, D.C.

What is “public-plan choice”, as the proposal is called, and is it a good idea?

This week’s issue of the New England Journal of Medicine features three perspective articles discussing the proposal.

The articles are available on the Web for free.

Jacob Hacker, a professor of political science at the University of California at Berkeley, argues that if a public plan is set up so that it does not have any unfair advantages over private plans, the two systems will keep each other honest.

Hacker writes:

“If public and private plans are competing on fair and equal terms, allowing enrollees to choose between the two will place a crucial check on each. If the public plan becomes too rigid, more Americans will opt for private plans. If private plans engage in practices that obstruct access to needed care and undermine health security, then the public plan will offer a release valve.”

Mark Pauly, a professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, thinks the public-plan option might help reduce political opposition to health reform.

Pauly writes:

Allowing some Americans to make a choice they like even if others consider it a mistake will still be a hard concession for some, but the two-choice solution widely accepted as genuinely neutral may allow for progress that breaks the 40-year political logjam (over health reform).”

But Victor Fuchs, an emeritus professor of economics at Stanford University, says the public-plan choice proposal will not solve the problems of high costs, poor quality and the growing number of people without coverage.

Fuchs notes that supporters of the public-choice plan point to Medicare, which has low administrative costs and high patient satisfaction, as a model.

But Medicare, he points out, is headed for insolvency.

Fuchs writes:

“Real reform requires replacing our inefficient, inequitable financing system with a simple, straightforward approach that subsidizes the poor and requires everyone to pay their fair share.”

To learn more:

• Read the articles by Hacker, Pauly and Fuchs available for free at the New England Journal of Medicine Web site (May 28 issue).

Tags: Health Insurance, Health-care Reform, Healthcare Policy, Insurance, Washington

Category: Health Insurance, Health-care Policy