target=”_blank”>months of publicly supporting health care reform
, America’s Health Insurance Plans –- the lobbying arm of the health insurance industry – issued an inflammatory report warning Congress that the Senate Finance Committee’s . But a quick read of the analysis reveals the report for what it really is: the best argument yet for why reform must include a public option.Critics have argued that the report is a skewed analysis that doesn’t consider the totality of reform. As the Senate Finance Committee points out, the industry-backed analysis “has in reaching its numbers.” “These other reform provisions would have the opposite effect and lead to lower premiums – but those provisions were ignored,” the committee . The actual report admits as much on page eight. “The reform packages under consideration have other provisions that we have not included in this analysis,” the study says. “We have not estimated the impact of the new subsidies on the net insurance cost to households. Also, if other provisions in health care reform are successful in lowering costs over the long term, those improvements would offset some of the impacts we have estimated.”
According to the Congressional Budget Office, some reform provisions would tend to make premiums higher than under current law; other provisions would “.” Americans from different income brackets will pay different amounts for health care, but on the whole, premiums in the exchange would be . As MIT economist’s of CBO data points out, young people, older individuals, and families would all see savings under the current bill.
That said, the Senate Finance bill must do more to control health care spending and lower premiums in the private market. After all, Congress shouldn’t force Americans to purchase coverage from an industry that has just admitted that it would increase premiums by some 111% if reform passes. As Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., pointed out, “if you have the health care industry complaining that we’re going to raise costs because of these changes, it is them putting us on notice that .” “That should be a tell to the Baucus team that you know what, maybe it’s time for them to go back and revisit the public option.” Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office has concluded that a robust public option could save up to $150 billion over 10 years and lower premiums by 10%. Most importantly, it would inject competition into concentrated insurance markets and help keep private insurers honest.
“It’s a powerful argument, frankly, for why we ought to have a public plan and it’s a powerful argument for the attitude of an industry towards this effort,” Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said yesterday before the Finance committee reported its bill out of committee, suggesting that if the AHIP report pushes Democrats to vote for a public plan, it may prove relevant after all.
Igor Volsky is a health care researcher at the Center for American Progress and the co-author of the book, Howard Dean’s Prescription For Real Health Care Reform. He blogs daily about health care reform at the
.
This <a target="_blank" href="/news/101509volsky/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">
<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=9148&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>The truth is, despite attempts to “chase” down conservative votes, opponents of reform will that greater government involvement in health care will lead to rationing of care and denial of coverage. Just listen to Finance Committee member Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who says that a government-run health care system would place a bureaucrat between “you and your doctor,” a claim he repeated at least during a recent interview on Fox News.
Hatch isn’t just stubborn, he’s hypocritical. While he is afraid of bureaucrats inserting themselves into the process, he appears to be an advocate of lawmakers getting in the way. According to some reports, Republicans on the Finance Committee are pushing for language in the reform legislation that would require insurers operating within a new health insurance exchange to . Nineteen House Democrats have also sent a to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., stating that they will not vote for health care reform legislation “unless it explicitly excludes abortion funding from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance planFurthermore, we want to ensure that the Health Benefits Advisory Committee be included under covered benefits or as part of a benefits package,” the members wrote.
The available language from the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Senate Committee and the House’s Tri Committee bill leaves the coverage decisions-the design of the so-called “essential benefit packages”-to the Secretary of Health and Human Services or a committee of experts. The chairman’s mark of the HELP bill states that “the Secretary shall ensure that the scope of the essential health benefits under paragraph (1)(A) is to the scope of benefits provided under a typical employer plan, as determined by the Secretary.” The Tri Committee legislation establishes a “private-public advisory committee which shall be a to be known as the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and an essential benefits package.”
Should Republicans be successful, the Senate Finance version would be the only bill that specifically prohibits-takes away or “rations” in Republican parlance-a medical service. Approximately one in three American women will have an abortion by age 45 and private insurers typically cover the procedure. In 2002, The Guttmacher Institute found that 86.9 percent of “typical” employment-based health plans “routinely cover” surgical abortion and medical abortion. The language under consideration would take away this benefit from women receiving insurance through the Exchange, eliminating a service millions of American women currently have coverage for.
If denying important health services to women is the price of bipartisanship, then perhaps winning those one or two Republican votes in the Senate or holding on to some socially conservative Democrats isn’t worth the price of jeopardizing women’s health and well-being. Throughout the legislative process, Democrats should establish certain principles for reform – affordability, access, adequacy of coverage – and find ways to pay for them. Setting a price tag before developing an explicit goal in terms of adequacy coverage, may carry the lure of ‘bipartisanship,’ but it will only amount to incremental reform.
Igor Volsky is a healthcare researcher at the Center for American Progress and the co-author of the forthcoming book, . He blogs daily about health care reform at the Wonk Room ().
ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .This <a target="_blank" href="/news/070909volsky/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">
<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=8884&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>target=”_blank”>months of publicly supporting health care reform
, America’s Health Insurance Plans –- the lobbying arm of the health insurance industry – issued an inflammatory report warning Congress that the Senate Finance Committee’s . But a quick read of the analysis reveals the report for what it really is: the best argument yet for why reform must include a public option.Critics have argued that the report is a skewed analysis that doesn’t consider the totality of reform. As the Senate Finance Committee points out, the industry-backed analysis “has in reaching its numbers.” “These other reform provisions would have the opposite effect and lead to lower premiums – but those provisions were ignored,” the committee . The actual report admits as much on page eight. “The reform packages under consideration have other provisions that we have not included in this analysis,” the study says. “We have not estimated the impact of the new subsidies on the net insurance cost to households. Also, if other provisions in health care reform are successful in lowering costs over the long term, those improvements would offset some of the impacts we have estimated.”
According to the Congressional Budget Office, some reform provisions would tend to make premiums higher than under current law; other provisions would “.” Americans from different income brackets will pay different amounts for health care, but on the whole, premiums in the exchange would be . As MIT economist’s of CBO data points out, young people, older individuals, and families would all see savings under the current bill.
That said, the Senate Finance bill must do more to control health care spending and lower premiums in the private market. After all, Congress shouldn’t force Americans to purchase coverage from an industry that has just admitted that it would increase premiums by some 111% if reform passes. As Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., pointed out, “if you have the health care industry complaining that we’re going to raise costs because of these changes, it is them putting us on notice that .” “That should be a tell to the Baucus team that you know what, maybe it’s time for them to go back and revisit the public option.” Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office has concluded that a robust public option could save up to $150 billion over 10 years and lower premiums by 10%. Most importantly, it would inject competition into concentrated insurance markets and help keep private insurers honest.
“It’s a powerful argument, frankly, for why we ought to have a public plan and it’s a powerful argument for the attitude of an industry towards this effort,” Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said yesterday before the Finance committee reported its bill out of committee, suggesting that if the AHIP report pushes Democrats to vote for a public plan, it may prove relevant after all.
Igor Volsky is a health care researcher at the Center for American Progress and the co-author of the book, Howard Dean’s Prescription For Real Health Care Reform. He blogs daily about health care reform at the
.
This <a target="_blank" href="/news/101509volsky/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">
<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=9148&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>The truth is, despite attempts to “chase” down conservative votes, opponents of reform will that greater government involvement in health care will lead to rationing of care and denial of coverage. Just listen to Finance Committee member Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who says that a government-run health care system would place a bureaucrat between “you and your doctor,” a claim he repeated at least during a recent interview on Fox News.
Hatch isn’t just stubborn, he’s hypocritical. While he is afraid of bureaucrats inserting themselves into the process, he appears to be an advocate of lawmakers getting in the way. According to some reports, Republicans on the Finance Committee are pushing for language in the reform legislation that would require insurers operating within a new health insurance exchange to . Nineteen House Democrats have also sent a to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., stating that they will not vote for health care reform legislation “unless it explicitly excludes abortion funding from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance planFurthermore, we want to ensure that the Health Benefits Advisory Committee be included under covered benefits or as part of a benefits package,” the members wrote.
The available language from the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Senate Committee and the House’s Tri Committee bill leaves the coverage decisions-the design of the so-called “essential benefit packages”-to the Secretary of Health and Human Services or a committee of experts. The chairman’s mark of the HELP bill states that “the Secretary shall ensure that the scope of the essential health benefits under paragraph (1)(A) is to the scope of benefits provided under a typical employer plan, as determined by the Secretary.” The Tri Committee legislation establishes a “private-public advisory committee which shall be a to be known as the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and an essential benefits package.”
Should Republicans be successful, the Senate Finance version would be the only bill that specifically prohibits-takes away or “rations” in Republican parlance-a medical service. Approximately one in three American women will have an abortion by age 45 and private insurers typically cover the procedure. In 2002, The Guttmacher Institute found that 86.9 percent of “typical” employment-based health plans “routinely cover” surgical abortion and medical abortion. The language under consideration would take away this benefit from women receiving insurance through the Exchange, eliminating a service millions of American women currently have coverage for.
If denying important health services to women is the price of bipartisanship, then perhaps winning those one or two Republican votes in the Senate or holding on to some socially conservative Democrats isn’t worth the price of jeopardizing women’s health and well-being. Throughout the legislative process, Democrats should establish certain principles for reform – affordability, access, adequacy of coverage – and find ways to pay for them. Setting a price tag before developing an explicit goal in terms of adequacy coverage, may carry the lure of ‘bipartisanship,’ but it will only amount to incremental reform.
Igor Volsky is a healthcare researcher at the Center for American Progress and the co-author of the forthcoming book, . He blogs daily about health care reform at the Wonk Room ().
ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .This <a target="_blank" href="/news/070909volsky/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">
<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=8884&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>