• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The One State Taking a Big Run at Health Reform

Greenbeard

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
20,036
Reaction score
21,260
Location
Cambridge, MA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I don't agree with the title of this Politico article, but it's a decent look at what Washington went through recently in passing the first 'public option' and the implications of that process for looming national reform efforts. And it's timely, given that other states are following closely behind with their own variations of the public option concept (Colorado may be next: Colorado's new public option proposal) and a federal approach, whether conceptualized as a pre-cursor to or a substitute for something more expansive, likely to be on the agenda.

As the co-sponsor of Washington's legislation in the state Senate notes late in the article, the biggest challenge was the backlash from health care providers in response to attempts at cost containment: "'The most contentious issue is going to be, how do you compensate the providers and the hospitals?"' Frockt says."

The One State Taking a Big Run at Health Reform
Cody and Frockt also held out some hope of bipartisan support. Where some other public option plans call for the government to form its own insurance company, an idea many conservatives reject, Washington state would merely define standards for the program and contract private insurers to run it.
Where Cody and other backers suspected they’d get pushback, however, was over the policy's cost-control mechanism. To force down premium costs, Washington’s public option would cap the rate at which contracted insurers could reimburse doctors, hospitals and other providers for treating public option enrollees. The cap is a key point both for the policy itself and for the politics.

In health care policy circles, a reimbursement cap is the heart of a public option plan: In theory, it forces doctors and other health care providers to find ways to lower costs, rather than simply passing on cost increases to insurers, who pass them on to consumers in higher premiums.
One thing Cody and other reformers realize they needed is better data about what health care actually costs to deliver, so legislators know when to hold the line on things like reimbursement rates. Cody says Washington state could benefit from something like Massachusetts's "health care cost growth benchmark" initiative, which tries to drill down into the true costs of the entire health care process—everything from the provider's actual costs and total out-of-pocket costs for patients to net costs for private insurers.

Interesting nod to the all-in statewide health care cost growth target Massachusetts has been tracking to for the past seven years.
 
California now requires all state residents to have health insurance and they offer subsidies to those who cannot afford it.
(law goes into effect Jan. 1, 2020)
I don't know if that is exactly the same as a Public Option but California's state Medicaid, called "Medi-Cal" is maybe the most robust Medicaid plan in the country.

It wouldn't surprise me if we eventually get to single payer out here anyway. We have more people than Canada does and they make it work. I actually believe we just might wind up doing it better than they do.

It is the only way Californians will be able to avoid the damage being done by "45".
 
It's fine to talk about "forcing providers to find ways to reduce costs" but the end result of some insurers "capping costs" for their patients is typically just forcing the providers to raise the costs of other patients (by padding their bills).
 
It's fine to talk about "forcing providers to find ways to reduce costs" but the end result of some insurers "capping costs" for their patients is typically just forcing the providers to raise the costs of other patients (by padding their bills).

That is why the only way to really get costs under control is to do like most countries and negotiate prices at a national level. Half of all healthcare markets are a monopoly with one large health system controlling the entire market. Insurers have no ability to negotiate prices in those markets, and as those providers know their consumers are captive, and that necessary healthcare demand is highly predictable in a market, they have zero incentive to reduce prices.

The whole Medicare for All debate just ignores that. You pass Medicare for All and all you do is change who is paying for care, it doesn't do anything about costs which are driven by healthcare prices. The fact is there is a massive amount of rent seeking behavior in our healthcare system that just isn't present in other healthcare systems. All the corruption has driven healthcare costs up to almost a 5th of our GDP. Everyone wants to blame pharma, but drugs are just 10% of healthcare spending. Those on the right push HSAs, which I think do make financial sense for many households, but that is really only for primary care, which isn't expensive to begin with, and amounts to only 7% of healthcare spending.

Point being, both parties are ignoring what drives 83% of our exorbitant healthcare costs in this country: critical and chronic care costs. That is where almost all the price gouging, rent seeking behavior and other forms of what amount to nothing more than corruption, are in our healthcare system and its why costs are out of control.
 
That is why the only way to really get costs under control is to do like most countries and negotiate prices at a national level. Half of all healthcare markets are a monopoly with one large health system controlling the entire market. Insurers have no ability to negotiate prices in those markets, and as those providers know their consumers are captive, and that necessary healthcare demand is highly predictable in a market, they have zero incentive to reduce prices.

The whole Medicare for All debate just ignores that. You pass Medicare for All and all you do is change who is paying for care, it doesn't do anything about costs which are driven by healthcare prices. The fact is there is a massive amount of rent seeking behavior in our healthcare system that just isn't present in other healthcare systems. All the corruption has driven healthcare costs up to almost a 5th of our GDP. Everyone wants to blame pharma, but drugs are just 10% of healthcare spending. Those on the right push HSAs, which I think do make financial sense for many households, but that is really only for primary care, which isn't expensive to begin with, and amounts to only 7% of healthcare spending.

Point being, both parties are ignoring what drives 83% of our exorbitant healthcare costs in this country: critical and chronic care costs. That is where almost all the price gouging, rent seeking behavior and other forms of what amount to nothing more than corruption, are in our healthcare system and its why costs are out of control.

Before messing with matters of life and death - let's start by "negotiating" the cost of public colleges down to an affordable level. Next "negotiate" away the cap on the number of medical doctors and other medical care professionals "produced" annually by those public colleges. Those improvements in public facilities alone would produce more doctors and other medical care professionals able (willing?) to work for lower salaries.
 
It's fine to talk about "forcing providers to find ways to reduce costs" but the end result of some insurers "capping costs" for their patients is typically just forcing the providers to raise the costs of other patients (by padding their bills).

It's not in the interest of a provider to raise the relative premiums of the public option's competitors, since that just makes the public option more attractive to consumers, ultimately increasing its market share and share of that provider's payer mix. It may well make sense to give pricing concessions to the public option's competitors (but still somewhere north of the prices the public option pays) to keep them in the game.
 
Before messing with matters of life and death - let's start by "negotiating" the cost of public colleges down to an affordable level. Next "negotiate" away the cap on the number of medical doctors and other medical care professionals "produced" annually by those public colleges. Those improvements in public facilities alone would produce more doctors and other medical care professionals able (willing?) to work for lower salaries.

Let's say a specialist starts out in practice with 200k in student loans. He or she may well earn 400k to 800k a year in practice (sometimes more). Would student loans be a big burden to you if they totaled to half your annual income at most?

In my opinion, the bigger problem is that they don't have to compete with H1Bs in the way that most professions do. That said, physician salaries are only 10% of healthcare spending in this country. Its all the rent seekers that are driving up costs, not them.

We could go a long way if we just started with breaking up provider monopolies and mandating clear and transparent prices.
 
It's not in the interest of a provider to raise the relative premiums of the public option's competitors, since that just makes the public option more attractive to consumers, ultimately increasing its market share and share of that provider's payer mix. It may well make sense to give pricing concessions to the public option's competitors (but still somewhere north of the prices the public option pays) to keep them in the game.

It may also force some care providers to simply no longer accept patients with that "public option" brand of insurance. I see this with Medicare supplemental (PPO) plans now - a given care provider may accept 1/3 (or less) of those insurance plans available for sale in that region.
 
Let's say a specialist starts out in practice with 200k in student loans. He or she may well earn 400k to 800k a year in practice (sometimes more). Would student loans be a big burden to you if they totaled to half your annual income at most?

In my opinion, the bigger problem is that they don't have to compete with H1Bs in the way that most professions do. That said, physician salaries are only 10% of healthcare spending in this country. Its all the rent seekers that are driving up costs, not them.

We could go a long way if we just started with breaking up provider monopolies and mandating clear and transparent prices.

Nope, labor costs are a significant part of the problem.

Labor represents about 60 percent of hospital costs and is the greatest driver of operating expenses.

Hospitals Target Labor Costs, Layoffs to Reduce Healthcare Costs
 
I don't agree with the title of this Politico article, but it's a decent look at what Washington went through recently in passing the first 'public option' and the implications of that process for looming national reform efforts. And it's timely, given that other states are following closely behind with their own variations of the public option concept (Colorado may be next: Colorado's new public option proposal) and a federal approach, whether conceptualized as a pre-cursor to or a substitute for something more expansive, likely to be on the agenda.

As the co-sponsor of Washington's legislation in the state Senate notes late in the article, the biggest challenge was the backlash from health care providers in response to attempts at cost containment: "'The most contentious issue is going to be, how do you compensate the providers and the hospitals?"' Frockt says."

The One State Taking a Big Run at Health Reform




Interesting nod to the all-in statewide health care cost growth target Massachusetts has been tracking to for the past seven years.

Indiana had a public option like program years ago. From what I read about it, it was a well-designed disaster.
 
I don't agree with the title of this Politico article, but it's a decent look at what Washington went through recently in passing the first 'public option' and the implications of that process for looming national reform efforts. And it's timely, given that other states are following closely behind with their own variations of the public option concept (Colorado may be next: Colorado's new public option proposal) and a federal approach, whether conceptualized as a pre-cursor to or a substitute for something more expansive, likely to be on the agenda.

As the co-sponsor of Washington's legislation in the state Senate notes late in the article, the biggest challenge was the backlash from health care providers in response to attempts at cost containment: "'The most contentious issue is going to be, how do you compensate the providers and the hospitals?"' Frockt says."

The One State Taking a Big Run at Health Reform




Interesting nod to the all-in statewide health care cost growth target Massachusetts has been tracking to for the past seven years.

If states can do their own thing, why do we need a federal approach?
 
It may also force some care providers to simply no longer accept patients with that "public option" brand of insurance. I see this with Medicare supplemental (PPO) plans now - a given care provider may accept 1/3 (or less) of those insurance plans available for sale in that region.

In the case of Medicare Advantage it’s more likely a provider isn’t in network because the insurer is curating its network to land quality bonuses. But yes, the biggest challenge these public options will face is forming a provider network. That limits how far down the prices paid can be pushed, as it should. This concept is a sort of soft rate-setting and the rates chosen can’t get too unmoored from what’s actually possible. It’s an interesting experiment.

Indiana had a public option like program years ago. From what I read about it, it was a well-designed disaster.

Most things from years ago that are called “public options” were just limited Medicaid expansions. Those were not generally substitutes for commercial insurance, were aimed primarily at expanding coverage, and had little to do with changing the dynamics of insurance markets. Access was limited to the targeted population by eligibility criteria.

The public option concept is aimed squarely at commercial marketplace dynamics, specifically to boost competition on premium and put downward pressure on the prices providers negotiate with insurers. Anybody can buy the public option (unlike say a Medicaid product), which means it has the potential to upend markets—particularly those that are concentrated on either the payer or provider side.
 
If states can do their own thing, why do we need a federal approach?

Why not? If a local market is intensely concentrated on the insurer or health care provider side and if the state is not taking or cannot (e.g., due to capture) take action to promote competition, an external jolt may be needed to give people choice and get the market putting downward pressure on prices again.
 
Before messing with matters of life and death - let's start by "negotiating" the cost of public colleges down to an affordable level. Next "negotiate" away the cap on the number of medical doctors and other medical care professionals "produced" annually by those public colleges. Those improvements in public facilities alone would produce more doctors and other medical care professionals able (willing?) to work for lower salaries.

I would be fine with allowing people to bankrupt out college debt if they can't find a decent job and for the underwriters to be able to recover a portion of those costs from the colleges. That would get things under control real fast and would be more of a market based solution (which we should use whenever feasible).

It will kill majors in liberal arts studies most likely, but that's fine there will be people who pursue it anyway to become professors.
 
Most things from years ago that are called “public options” were just limited Medicaid expansions. Those were not generally substitutes for commercial insurance, were aimed primarily at expanding coverage, and had little to do with changing the dynamics of insurance markets. Access was limited to the targeted population by eligibility criteria.

The public option concept is aimed squarely at commercial marketplace dynamics, specifically to boost competition on premium and put downward pressure on the prices providers negotiate with insurers. Anybody can buy the public option (unlike say a Medicaid product), which means it has the potential to upend markets—particularly those that are concentrated on either the payer or provider side.

Indiana has taken a few swings at this issue. The two problems always their undoing have been low reimbursement rates limiting providers and the unwillingness of the working poor to make their sliding-scale premium payments.
 
Why not? If a local market is intensely concentrated on the insurer or health care provider side and if the state is not taking or cannot (e.g., due to capture) take action to promote competition, an external jolt may be needed to give people choice and get the market putting downward pressure on prices again.

Because the states never agreed to let other states control such things. But more importanly, its inefficient. People are different, states are different. What you want or works in your state we dont want or doesnt work in my state.

Why do you care how my state deals with healthcare in my state?
 
I would be fine with allowing people to bankrupt out college debt if they can't find a decent job and for the underwriters to be able to recover a portion of those costs from the colleges. That would get things under control real fast and would be more of a market based solution (which we should use whenever feasible).

It will kill majors in liberal arts studies most likely, but that's fine there will be people who pursue it anyway to become professors.

That seems workable for college graduates, but ignores other factors contributing to why the graduate can't (or won't) get (or keep) a better paying job. In many cases the cause for low wages after college attendance was simply that the "student" never graduated with a degree, yet that was likely not the fault of the college.
 
I would be fine with allowing people to bankrupt out college debt if they can't find a decent job and for the underwriters to be able to recover a portion of those costs from the colleges. That would get things under control real fast and would be more of a market based solution (which we should use whenever feasible).

It will kill majors in liberal arts studies most likely, but that's fine there will be people who pursue it anyway to become professors.

The underwriter for these cases (the ones that can't be discharged in bankruptcy) is the federal government. I think that's a fine idea.

I would tend to ratchet it down from the other end though. If the students from college A are defaulting on $20,000 loans, then incoming students will have access to $10,000 loans.
 
Because the states never agreed to let other states control such things. But more importanly, its inefficient. People are different, states are different. What you want or works in your state we dont want or doesnt work in my state.

Why do you care how my state deals with healthcare in my state?

An insurance offering in the market that “doesn’t work” won’t have any uptake and, if it doesn’t pull out of the market outright, will be a non factor. So I’m not sure why the possibility of another seller entering or additional offerings being brought to market is worrying you.
 
That seems workable for college graduates, but ignores other factors contributing to why the graduate can't (or won't) get (or keep) a better paying job. In many cases the cause for low wages after college attendance was simply that the "student" never graduated with a degree, yet that was likely not the fault of the college.

If they don't graduate, then I would agree, its on the individual
 
If they don't graduate, then I would agree, its on the individual

Not showing up for work on time, arguing with the boss, shabby personal appearance, poor cooperation with others at work, moving away from (or not to) an area with better job opportunities, taking time off to spend raising children or pursuing "hobbies", refusing to travel or simply not being as good as other workers with similar degrees are all very good reasons that someone even with a fancy college degree would have difficulty finding or keeping a better paying job.

Once an employee screws up (for whatever reason) and loses one job that is a huge factor in not getting the next job or a promotion.

My point is that much more than Joe/Mary has a degree in X goes into their success (or lack of it) in getting or keeping a job.
 
An insurance offering in the market that “doesn’t work” won’t have any uptake and, if it doesn’t pull out of the market outright, will be a non factor. So I’m not sure why the possibility of another seller entering or additional offerings being brought to market is worrying you.

In this case youre talking about a tax funded and govt backed seller. This is unfair competition. One, youre already paying for it whether you want it or not. Two, it will use and abuse govt power to undercut private options.
 
I don't agree with the title of this Politico article, but it's a decent look at what Washington went through recently in passing the first 'public option' and the implications of that process for looming national reform efforts. And it's timely, given that other states are following closely behind with their own variations of the public option concept (Colorado may be next: Colorado's new public option proposal) and a federal approach, whether conceptualized as a pre-cursor to or a substitute for something more expansive, likely to be on the agenda.

As the co-sponsor of Washington's legislation in the state Senate notes late in the article, the biggest challenge was the backlash from health care providers in response to attempts at cost containment: "'The most contentious issue is going to be, how do you compensate the providers and the hospitals?"' Frockt says."

The One State Taking a Big Run at Health Reform




Interesting nod to the all-in statewide health care cost growth target Massachusetts has been tracking to for the past seven years.

Any policies that slash costs by slashing payments to providers is the wrong approach.
 
Back
Top Bottom