If Congress is to enact comprehensive health care reform on anything approaching a bi-partisan basis, Democrats are either going to have to jettison their calls for creating a public health care plan to compete with private insurers or fashion a compromise that makes such a government-run plan acceptable. This won’t be easy.
Last week, 17 Senators signed a letter to Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chair Edward Kennedy insisting that a public health plan needed to be a part of any health care reform package. The 16 Democrats and one independent argued that “There is no reason to believe that private insurers alone will meet the public purpose of ensuring coverage for all Americans at affordable prices for taxpayers.” According to The Hill, the originator of the letter, Senator Sherrod Brown, told reporters that “A public plan option ‘would provide competition to the sometimes dysfunctional private insurance market.'”
Seventeen Senators is a significant block of votes, especially when they’re expressing the position of the Obama Administration as well. Yet Republicans are, thus far, united in their opposition to a government-run plan. And not all Democrats are sold on the idea, either. The New York Times counts Democratic Senators Ben Nelson and Arlen Specter as among those expressing “reservations about a public plan.” If these and other moderate Senators object to the public plan, their liberal colleagues will be faced with the need to either give in on the issue or give up on comprehensive health care reform.
Thus the search for common ground.
The New York Times reports Senator Charles Schumer is attempting to do just that. The article is indispensible reading as Senator Schumer’s was asked to search for a compromise by Finance Chair Baucus. Senator Schumer identified four principles that might make a public health insurance plan acceptable to moderates:
- “The public plan must be self-sustaining. It should pay claims with money raised from premiums and co-payments. It should not receive tax revenue or appropriations from the government.
- “The public plan should pay doctors and hospitals more than what Medicare pays. Medicare rates, set by law and regulation, are often lower than what private insurers pay.
- “The government should not compel doctors and hospitals to participate in a public plan just because they participate in Medicare.
- “To prevent the government from serving as both “player and umpire,” the officials who manage a public plan should be different from those who regulate the insurance market.”
This approach was echoed, with less specificity, during testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee by the new Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sabelius. According to The Wall Street Journal, she told a Congressional Committee, “What I can assure is that it can be done as a level playing field.” The key, she went on to say, is how the program is set up. “It is about the rules that are established at the beginning.”
But there’s the rub. The rules in the beginning are not necessarily those that apply long term. California had a government managed health plan competing with private carriers in the small group market not all that long ago. The Health Insurance Plan of California (HIPC) was created by AB 1672 as part of a comprehensive small group health care reform package. The HIPC operated under many of the prinicples put forward by Senator Schumer. Ultimately the HIPC, which was spun off from the government and became the PacAdvantage, failed.
Yet almost immediately after it’s creation, legislators from both sides of the aisle put forward proposals to buttress the plan by giving it special status. Government, regardless of the party in charge, when seeking to build new programs, tends to look to existing programs as a foundation. Which means the level playing field promised by Secretary Sabelius may not last long. The principles enunciated by Senator Schumer may not last. As with any public program, once a government run health plan is in place, the rules that apply can be changed at any time. And someone is likely to try.
This doesn’t mean the search for a compromise shouldn’t continue, but it highlights the difficulty involved. Unless the restrictions on the public plan aimed at preventing it from gaining an unfair advantage in the market are strong and long lasting, any compromise will simply be a milestone on an inevitable journey.