The health care reform debate in Washington DC may be quieter than it had been before the Democrats lost their filibuster-proof majority, but it’s far from over. In the old days, pre-Massachusetts, the goal was to pass one big comprehensive reform bill festooned with provisions, compromises, deals and more. Negotiations continue to between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to try to fashion a substantial bill that could be passed over a Republican filibuster. But more likely we’re about to enter a period where small, targeted bills become the norm.
Which means it’s not surprising that Speaker Pelosi has announced a vote next week on repealing the antitrust exemption currently enjoyed by health insurance carriers. No one will argue that the world will change if insurers lose this exemption. It will make their life more difficult as new rules, procedures and regulations will apply to their activities. But carriers are already subject to state anti-trust laws and other regulations.
Supporters of the exemption repeal, however, claim the anti-trust exemption is outdated and that “states lack the resources to regulate the insurance industry effectively,” according to Reuters and that “Eliminating this industry giveaway will create more choice for consumers and create more competition for insurance companies.”
Well, not so much. It’s more likely to create more opportunities for demagoguery about pernicious health insurance companies than have any meaningful impact on consumer choice and competition in the marketplace. That’s the conclusion reached by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi the NAIC stated “it is unlikely that a repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson antitrust exemption for health and medical malpractice insurers will lead to more competition and lower premiums.” The letter goes on to note that “The most likely result of this repeal would therefore not be increased competition, but a series of lawsuits testing the limits of the state action doctrine, with associated litigation costs being passed along to consumers in the form of higher premiums.”
So if applying the McCarran-Ferguson Act to health insurance carriers is at best going to change little and at worse be counter-productive, why move forward on the issue? Part of the motivation is no doubt political pay back. Health plans aggressively opposed Democrats’ health care reform bills. Another impetus is also political: insurers have been demonized in the health care reform debate. Repealing their anti-trust exemption (an exemption they share only with major league baseball) allows supporters to claim they’re taking on those evil carriers. And some lawmakers legitimately believe it’s a good, helpful idea. (Reasonable people can disagree, after all).
And there are two, more subtle benefits that could result from passage of the exemption repeal. First, it might prove the viability of a piecemeal approach to health care reform. Speaker Pelosi’s office has made it clear that considering the anti-trust repeal bill separately signals a move to break the comprehensive bill into bite-size pieces, according to the Reuters article. Yet if the anti-trust exemption issue is dealt with separately it will be evidence that other matters can be as well.
The second benefit of passage of this legislation: one less thing for critics of the industry to complain about. Hey, you get your good news where you can.