The Scoop

Latest Research

August 20, 2009

Public Plan: Bad Option No Matter What Version

Different versions of a “public plan” for health insurance have been proposed. In “Why a New Public Plan Will Not Improve American Health Care,” Walton J. Francis dissects the most prominent proposals and explains the pitfalls in each.

Two especially troubling elements of many proposals are government price controls—which are payment rates set by law rather than emerging from a competitive market—and mandatory provider participation requirements—which demand that doctors accept patients with public plan coverage. If a public plan included these regulations, it would not be on a level playing field with private plans.

A public plan proposal by Dr. Jacob Hacker of the University of California-Berkley includes these two elements, calling for “expanding a benefit-enriched variant of Original Medicare to Americans of all ages.” A similar plan from Dr. Karen Davis and colleagues of The Commonwealth Fund also preserves “government-dictated payment rates.”

Dr. John Holahan and Dr. Linda Blumberg of the Urban Institute have designed a public plan while remaining vague on whether it includes price controls and mandatory provider participation. However, “implicit in [Holahan and Blumberg’s] proposal is that the core requirements for a public plan are the ability of the government to compel provider participation and to dictate the prices of medical goods and services provided.”

Although these three plans are put forth with the goals of boosting choice and competition, they would actually undermine these important values. They would “displace most private sector health plan enrollment,” and their enactment would lead America towards a “single-payer system with private plans tolerated as second-rate alternatives.”

Arguments that these plans could contain costs or boost quality by modeling themselves on Medicare overlook the fraud and lack of managed care in traditional Medicare and the quality deficiencies in an existing public health insurance program— Medicaid.

Francis concluded, “No governmental entity in the United States actually administers a true health insurance plan,” so there is little preparation for this type of program. Finally, “Congress will not let the public plan fail,” so “competition and choice” in health care markets would become a memory.

Tags: , , , ,

  • Bookmark and Share
Comments Author: Jeet Guram
  • The health care companies must improve their plans.
  • 4bobjonz49
    your health plan is total bullshit
  • Danny W. Wise
    If this bill is so good ,why does Congress and gov't works not have to be part of it. I know why, congress has a better plan. I don't know of anything the that gov't does right other than the
    military. Keep government out of our lives.
  • peggycravens
    I am thankful for The Heritage Foundation where we are able to hear and learn the Truth!
  • groupbenefitsnyc
    Regarding the public plan plans by the government cannot improve American health insurance i guess we just wait for their implementing how effective it is so we can see if that really works ...
    Group Health Insurance Plans
  • speedeesam
    I think I speak for many others in saying too many people haven't a clue regarding the different logos referred to in health care discussions. It seems many are under the impression that "Public Option" means one has the opportunity to belong to the Government Plan OR a private insurance entity. Thank You for your excellent explanation. Please influence as broad an audience as possible the correct definition because the Progressives are using this flippant category to "sell" their murky-diabolical plan.
  • DOOW
    “Because Medicare pays providers substantially less than private insurers, premiums for the
    public plan would be substantially less than comparable coverage in a private plan.”

    The Lewin Group is not an advocate for or against any legislation. The Lewin Group is part of Ingenix, Inc., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the UnitedHealth Group. To assure the independence of its work, The Lewin Group has editorial control over all of its work products.”

    The study appears impressive considering the amount of data that’s been utilized for its conclusion. However, despite the disclaimer from the Lewin Group I have concern for its alleged impartiality. I recall a recent article regarding UnitedHealth Group’s agreement with the Federal government to replace its medical reimbursement index due to faulty data, that resulted in lower reimbursement of medical expense fees to its insurance customers and medical providers.

    The study claims the Medicare reimbursement has an adverse affect to its bottom line. I failed to understand how is it possible that why do so many Health Insurance Companies have contracts with Medicare servicing its recipients. Medicare pays a fixed cost to various Health Insurance firms in return for servicing its beneficiaries. If it’s such a losing deal, why do they still exist? I also note the irony that United Health is one of the largest Medicare Vendors in the US.
  • Dorothy
    The government has proven it can't run anything efficiently. It just employs more and more bureaucrats so diversified, no one knows what the other is doing, therefore utter confusion. The big problem w/ medicare RX plan was it did not include bargaining over prices like the VA does, so the drug companies could charge whatever they wanted.
    There are more college grads going into law than medicine: that's where the big money is with all the frivolous lawsuits.
    With more people in a Gov. healthcare plan and less doctors, what care is anyone going to receive?
  • DOOW
    "The government has proven it can't run anything efficiently"

    Response:
    Can't run anything efficiently? Do you mean all public service employees are lazy and incompetent, thus, can run anything efficiently? Like our Highways, Public Schools, Sanitation, Social Security, Medicare. Can you name more inefficient public services?
    What is your support for 'all' those inefficiencies? You do mean "all" public service employees, right?


    "/ medicare RX plan was it did not include bargaining over prices like the VA does,"

    Response:
    Strange, I thought the point of the article was the Private Health Insurance's complaint on government price control?
  • Chewysfriend
    The government has continued to fail at health care for indian tribes and done poorly for our military what makes anyone think they could handle the entire nation? None of the government programs around the world have done anything but make life shorter and more painful for their citizens.
  • DOOW
    How about Medicare?
  • paulstanger
    A "public" option should be called by it's proper name which is a "government option". Ideologically and practically the idea is rediculous. If the federal goverment can bring competition to the marketplace in the healthcare industry, then why not other businesses? I firmly believe that this is a purposeful back door effort to move to a single payor system.
  • rmoore3
    Why not other businesses? The government ignites competition in lots of other industries, like shipping. Competition with an affordable plan would not only make healthcare affordable to everybody, but it would make the system more efficient because competition drives these factors, so healthcare professionals and insurers would be forced to stand out. Or, maybe that's what they don't want and that's why all the complaints. Do you know that more than 25 million small businesses are without health insurance because they can't afford it? Do you know that I pay almost $600/month for my own health insurance?

    And to the person who wrote this: "None of the government programs around the world have done anything but make life shorter and more painful for their citizens." Prove it. Where do you get your facts from?
  • DOOW
    paulstanger:

    “If the federal government can bring competition to the marketplace in the healthcare industry,”

    Response:

    The Federal Government not only brought competition to the market place; it also engendered innovation in the private sector. Have you notice the many private health insurance firms peddling ‘their’ insurance that replaced ‘Medicare?’ Medicare pays a fix ‘cost’ to private insurance firm that acts as individual vendors. They provide a standard set of medical services, and then they add additional services to compete for Medicare beneficiaries. United Insurance the sponsor of the study for the articles here is one of the largest Medicare vendors in the US.

    See part of my previous comment below:


    The study claims the Medicare reimbursement has an adverse affect to its bottom line. I failed to understand how is it possible that why do so many Health Insurance Companies have contracts with Medicare servicing its recipients. Medicare pays a fixed cost to various Health Insurance firms in return for servicing its beneficiaries. If it’s such a losing deal, why do they still exist? I also note the irony that United Health is one of the largest Medicare Vendors in the US, and the sponsor of this study.


    End
  • paulstanger
    If the federal government brought competition to the health care industry, then why are costs spiraling out of control? Health care is not a "system" in this country. It is a collection of mostly privately owned businesses that compete for their patients by being consumer friendly, productive, innovative, and efficient. This produces profit! Profit is good! I want my doctors, nurses, etc to always be trying to improve how they do their jobs, and be compensated for those improvements. We need to de-couple insurance from the process as much as possible and let the industry be more consumer driven.

    I have an excellent example currently. My wife had a serious compound fracture to her leg requiring several surgeries, and more follow up care. There are several orthopedic groups that we could have went to for her care. The one we chose is very responsive, returns phone calls, schedules appointments quickly, etc. Take away the profit incentive and the doctor and his assistant go home at 4:30 PM and we wait much longer to see a doctor, or get a procedure done.

    Government driven competition is an oxymoron.

    Paul Stanger
    Broker

    www.highpointerealtyinc.com
    651-248-8618
    paul@paulstanger.com
  • nancyshank
    As a retired nurse I know what public health plans do to small business. I have worked in some small hospitals that had to borrow money to pay payroll as the slowness of big government to pay their bills. Only wished government was so fast as to want my taxes.
  • glynnsoyars
    What bothers me is all of the state insurance commissoners, that are filled with fluff. We hear nothing about correcting big problems with insurance products that can't cross the state lines.
    Rates that make no sense at all. The insured can go to the doctors and hospitals but the plans
    must stay in each state.
    I'm as insurance agent and sell in four states. We hear nothing at all from the companies.
    Glynn Soyars
  • DOOW
    glynnsoyars:

    "The insured can go to the doctors and hospitals but the plans
    must stay in each state. "


    I don't understand, doesn't coverage depends on whether its a national or local plan?
  • rtwingman
    My sister was diagnosed recently with a carcinoma in her Thymus Gland. Within 3-1/2 weeks, she had three of the best in the field networked and working together to treat, then hopefully remove the gland. There are no guarantees she will ultimately survive, but quick action has her at least on the proper treatment program. I can't even imagine the scenario if we have a National Healthcare plan. She would be at the mercy of an inefficient, slow-moving, plodding system that may end up with her in an eternal state of waiting. She would quite possibly never get to the point that has only taken a month with our 'broken' system (pun intended).
blog comments powered by Disqus