Mandated Medical Loss Ratios’ Unintended Consequence

The health care reform package currently being negotiated in the Senate contemplates requiring health insurance companies to spend at least 90 percent of premiums on medical claims. But the Congressional Budget Office is warning lawmakers mandating such a high Medical Loss Ratio would be overreaching – unless their goal is to takeover those health insurance carriers. Which, as Megan McArdle notes on The Atlantic’s site, means the 90 percent mandated medical loss ratio would turn “the operations of the nation’s health insurers [into a part of] the financial statements of the United States government.”

Lawmakers could ignore the CBO memo, but are unlikely to do so. The credibility of the CBO is simply too high. This means the chances of a 90 percent medical loss ratio (“MLR”) requirement making it into the final health care reform bill has dropped from “well, maybe” to “not a chance” – or lower.

The CBO memorandum reasons that requiring carriers to meet a 90 percent medical loss ratio could drive carriers out of business, reduce plan offerings and take other actions limiting choice in the marketplace. The key to determining the impact of MLR requirements is to look at the percentage of health insurance carriers impacted by the requirement. “A policy that affected a majority of issuers would be likely to substantially reduce flexibility in terms of the types, prices and number of private sellers of health insurance,” the CBO memo states.

The CBO won’t say precisely when a required medical loss ratio crosses the line and becomes a government takeover of the industry. But it did give a hint, saying an MLR requirement “at 80 percent or lower for the individual and small-group markets or at 85 percent or lower for the large-group market would not cause CBO to consider transactions in those markets as part of the federal budget.”

Moving health insurance transactions isn’t what proponents of a mandated MLR had in mind when the put forward the idea. But unintended consequences are, well, just that: unintended. There are a lot of reasons why mandating medical loss ratios is bad public policy. The CBO has added another to the long list, a reason that even it’s most ardent advocates are unlikely to be able to overcome.

Senate Likely to Move Forward with Health Care Reform Absent a Public Option

Liberal Democratic Senators appear to be sliding down a slippery slope, but one that will likely move health care reform to a conference committee.

In the beginning was a robust public option: a government-run health care program to compete with private carriers that would pay doctors, hospitals and other providers a small percentage above Medicare’s reimbursement levels (which for many services are below those medical providers’ actual cost). Moderate and conservative Democrats balked, claiming a public option paying Medicare-like rates would decimate the private market.

So liberal Democrats offered a compromise: the public health insurance plan would negotiate with medical providers as private carriers do. Never mind that this approach undermines the rationale for a public option – driving down health care costs. At least it preserved a government-run plan. Still no love. Moderate and conservative Democrats balked, claiming the government-plan would still have an unfair competitive advantage in the market, driving private health plans out of business.

So a group of Senators negotiated another health care reform compromise. The Gang of 10 (five liberals and five moderates) proposed turning to the Office of Personnel Management to administer a health care program involving private carriers in a manner modeled after the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan (which is the program that covers members of Congress). They also proposed allowing individuals 55 through 64 to buy into the Medicare program. At first the Gang of 10’s compromise seemed to have some wind at its back. But Senator Joe Lieberman announced his opposition to the Medicare buy-in concept (a proposal he previously had supported). And on Monday, after a caucus of Democratic Senators concluded, the party’s leadership in the chamber all but announced the Gang of 10’s compromise proposal was off the table. Which means liberals face an uncomfortable choice: see health care reform fail or remove the public option and push legislation through the Senate – then hope they can improve it in the conference committee.

While this result was far from certain, it isn’t much of surprise either. The fate of health care reform has long been in the hands of moderate and conservative Democratic Senators. Republicans have been united and vocal in their opposition. Announcing early in the debate that they could never support any health care reform plan that contained provisions core to the Democratic platform is not a high percentage approach to being invited to negotiate on the legislation. So their 40 votes have long been off the table. That meant that the discussion would take place exclusively among the 58 Democrats and the two Independent Senators who caucus with them.

And that’s what’s happening. And that’s why the Senate is likely to pass a health care reform bill before Christmas leaving it up to a House-Senate conference committee to come up with the final version of the reform bill. Liberals won’t be happy with the process. There will be a lot of complaining by their supporters that Democrats are failing to deliver on meaningful reform. But the reality is that moderates like Senators Tom Carper and Blanche Lincoln are as much a part of the Democratic party as Senators Jay Rockefeller and Charles Schumer. Whatever emerges from Congress will need to be acceptable to all Democrats. not just the most liberal. Or the loudest.

What all this also means is that the real work of drafting comprehensive health care reform legislation is about to get underway. It’s been a long strange trip, but that’s American politics in 2009 – and 2010, too.

Medicare Buy-in Compromise Unraveling?

Nothing lasts forever … not even health care reform compromises. The Congressional Budget Office is expected to come out with its analysis of the latest proposal – replacing a the creation of a new government-run health plan (the controversial “public option”) with a program in which Americans 55-64 could buy Medicare coverage. However, it’s looking like even if the CBO determines the idea makes financial sense, the votes to go forward with the proposal there doesn’t seem to be enough votes around for it to move forward. Which means the public option remains the big make-or-break element of health care reform in the Senate.

Only a few days ago, along with the idea of empowering the Office of Personnel Management to organize a coverage program, the Medicare buy-in compromise  seemed to be the solution to breaking the public option impasse. Now the idea seems to be losing steam.

First, doctors and hospital groups came out in opposition to the Medicare buy-in compromise, with the Washington Post reporting them as claiming the approach “would be financially untenable and would jeopardize access to health-care services for millions of Americans.”  The medical and hospital groups are concerned, according to the Washington Post, “because the program pays providers at much lower rates than private insurers, and because older Americans are the greatest consumers of health-care services.”

And then two conservative members of the Democratic caucus indicated their disapproval of the Medicare buy-in. According to the Associated Press, Senator Joe Lieberman, who had originally sounded open to the idea, now considers it “a bad deal for taxpayers and the deficit.” And the AP quotes Senator Ben Nelson as saying “I’m concerned that it’s the forerunner of single-payer, maybe even more directly than the public option.”

So while, as the Washington Post and others are reporting, the President Barack Obama and many Democrats are praising the compromise, the fact is, the Democrat’s need 100 percent buy-in by their caucus to pass any bill. (Yes, it’s possible Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins might cross party lines and vote for a bill, but it’s hard to see how these Republican Senators could support any legislation conservative Democrats like Senators Lieberman and Nelson could not).

Democrats are trying to dodge a nasty choice: dropping the public option from health care reform. Liberals have made inclusion of a public option their litmus test for meaningful reform. As the liberal blog Daily Kos put it this past summer, the public option is the compromise progressives are willing to make between a single payer system and the status quo.

In the end, however, liberals will need to decide whether the absence of a public option is enough to get them to walk away from reform. Because there does not seem to be any way they will obtain 60 votes in the Senate for a bill that includes a new government-run health plan. My guess? Liberals will complain bitterly, but ultimately vote for a bill without a public option. Health care reform has been on their agenda for decades and they have moved the issue further through Congress  than ever before. To abandon it now would set back health care reform for at least a decade if not longer. Failure would hand Republicans a huge stick to use against them in the 2010 elections.

Passing reform, even reform liberals perceive as too weak, provides a foundation for future efforts. This might seem like a hollow victory for many progressives, but it would be a victory for them nonetheless. And I just don’t see them trading even a hollow victory for a hard defeat.

Devil Dwells in the Details of Health Care Reform Compromise

A critical health care reform compromise seems to have emerged from negotiations between five liberal and five moderate Democratic Senators (the so-called “Gang of 10”). They are putting forward a compromise that eliminates (or at least postpones) the creation of a government-run health plan while allowing Americans 55 through 64 years of age to purchase Medicare and tasking the Office of Personnel management to administer a program offering coverage through non-profit, private health plans. Of course, as with anything as complicated as health care reform, a solution or compromise on one issue creates new ones elsewhere – think of trying to flatten a partially inflated balloon. Push down on one part and the air pops up in another.

As I noted the other day, expanding Medicare is an idea that appeals to both liberals and conservative Democrats. For example, former Governor Howard Dean, a leading and vocal advocate for a government-run health plan called the compromise “a positive step forward” on the CBS’ “The Early Show.” Meanwhile, Senator Joe Lieberman, who had threatened to support a filibuster of any health care reform plan containing a public option signaled the compromise might be acceptable. According to MSNBC Senator Lieberman said he was “’open- minded’ about the deal” and indicated he was encouraged by what he’s heard so far about the compromise. In other words, he’s pretty much on board.

Senator Reid will be submitting the Gang of 10’s compromise to the Congressional Budget Office where its financial impact will be determined. In the interim, it’s worthwhile asking some questions about the impact of elements of the health care reform compromise as it is in the details that the devil likes to linger.

For example, how will allowing 55 through 64 years old enroll in Medicare impact private health insurance premiums?  It is widely accepted that Medicare often pays doctors, hospitals and other providers less than the actual cost of the care they provide. For example, “payment levels for hospital services under Medicare are equal to only about 71 percent of what is paid by private health plans for the same service,” according to a study by the Lewin Group. Medical care providers make up for the Medicare reimbursement shortfall by charging more to their insured patients. This cost shifting is reflected in higher health insurance premiums.

To the extent the 55-through-64 year olds signing up for Medicare previously were insured by private carriers the amount of dollars being shifted to private insurance will increase and the number of privately insured consumers absorbing this cost will decrease. The result, upward pressure on health insurance premiums.

However, to the extent that these new enrollees were previously uninsured it will reduce the cost of private coverage. Right now virtually all the costs incurred by the uninsured are shifted to private carriers. If Medicare pays for 71 percent of these expenses that’s 71 percent less in losses providers need to shift to their insured patients. How these two consequences balance out is as yet unknown – and may not be knowable until after the fact. But lawmakers should be aware of these consequences.

There’s another detail of the compromise potentially offering affordable housing to the devil.  Alison, a regular reader of this blog, pointed out a provision that would require private carriers to spend at least 90 percent of premiums on medical care. Forcing carriers to spend a high percentage of premiums on medical costs is one of those proposals that: 1) sounds great; and 2) emerges with the regularity of ground hogs in Pennsylvania in February. And it’s a seriously flawed proposal.

Consider: requiring carriers to maintain a specified medical loss ratio (as the percentage of premium spent on claims is called) could reduce the availability of low cost plans. It costs just as much to process claims for a plan costing $300 per month as it does for one with a monthly cost of $100. If these fixed costs amount to $15, they represent 15 percent of the lower cost plan’s premium, but only 5 percent of the premiums for the more expensive plan. Need to get your medical loss ratio (as the percentage of premium spent on claims is called) to 10 percent? Raise your premiums. It’s counter-intuitive, but do the math and you’ll see the danger.

There are several other potential dangers from requiring a high and specific medical loss ratio. Economic swings or flu outbreaks (or the lack of expected flue outbreaks) can greatly alter the percentage spent on claims. So can government-imposed mandates to cover certain conditions. Private carriers pay taxes and need lawyers to deal with government regulation. These costs are beyond their control, but they tend not to increase over time (taxes and regulations have a nasty habit of piling up), meaning these uncontrollable costs are likely to absorb funds needed for truly administrative costs – like answering the phone. Answering the phone, of course, speaks to customer service, a likely victim of mandated loss ratios.

And setting the medical loss ratio at 90 percent would certainly eliminate broker commissions. Brokers would either need to charge fees directly to clients (if that’s permitted) or go away, leaving consumers bereft of independent advocates and counselors.

The good news is that just because a provision is in the compromise doesn’t mean it will be part of the final legislation. Or that it can’t be improved upon before reaching President Obama’s desk. When California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed an 85 percent medical loss ratio in his 1997 health care reform plan, lawmakers recognized the potential pitfalls. The provision was amended to make clear, for example, that taxes and disease management programs would be part of the claims side of the ledger. Eventually a workable compromise was was reached. (The bill did not pass the Legislature, however).

Of course, fixing California’s version of a mandated medical loss ratio didn’t happen of its own accord. Many interested parties, including the California Association of Health Underwriters, expended considerable effort to educate lawmakers about the implications of this provision. An effort of similar magnitude will be required to make sure that the devil is unable to take up residence in the details of the health care reform compromise shaping up in Washington.

New Elements Added to Health Care Reform Debate

I haven’t been writing much of late. The Senate debate has simply been too predictable to merit much comment. The partisan attacks could have been scripted months ago. The votes unsurprising, and the difficulty Democratic Leaders face in fashioning a 60-vote majority is to be expected.

Consider: Republicans charge the Democrats will destroy Medicare. The fact that not long ago it was the GOP wanting to eliminate waste and abuse from the program seems to be forgotten. Democrats, meanwhile, seem incapable of understanding the relationship between medical costs and insurance costs. Listening to their claims that cracking down on evil insurance companies will lower health care spending is disappointing. It would be nice if now and then a Senator would acknowledge that medical costs drives up premiums and not vice versa – a wish not likely to be realized any time soon.  I heard on the radio last week (sorry, not sure what station) a lawmaker complaining that health insurance companies use actuaries, an unfair advantage they wield to the detriment of consumers.

But in the past few days some ideas seem to be gaining traction that could mix things up considerably. One proposal is to allow 55 through 64 year olds to buy into Medicare. The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein seems to be the first blogger to report the Medicare buy-in proposal is “attracting the most interest” as an alternative to creating a new government-run health plan to compete with private carriers. The under 65 cohort would not get basic Medicare coverage for free nor does it look like this approach includes subsidies not already on the table. It simply is a way to create access for some Americans to a public health plan without creating a new public health plan. And as with the public option, participation by 55 year olds would be voluntary.

That the idea of a Medicare buy-in option is gaining traction would seem to indicate that chances for a “true public option” are diminishing. Even liberal bloggers like AntonRobb at Benzinga.com are reaching this conclusion. “… proponents of the public option may be compelled to get behind this plan as an alternative. The severeley (sic) comprised … versions of the public option that have any chance of passing … would probably be worthless and probably do more damage politically to the Dems than good,” he writes.

The other interesting idea to emerge is to, as CBS News describes it, “establish national health insurance options, which would be administered by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) but operated by private, nonprofit insurers ….” Since the OPM already administers the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program (FEHBP), which insures members of Congress and their staffs among others, this alternative to a public option is being viewed as the equivalent of opening up the FEHBP to non-government workers. (Incidentally, although the CBS reports implies the plans would be administered only by nonprofit carriers, this is far from certain. None of the other news reports mentioned this restriction – and there are for-profit carriers participating in the FEHBP.)

The “what’s good for Congress is good for the public” approach seems to appeal to moderate and conservative Democrats who have been objecting to the creation of a new government-run health plan run by the Department of Health and Human Services. As CBS notes, Senators like Ben Nelson describes this proposal as an alternative to, not a version of, a public option.

The import of these proposals go beyond the fact that new ideas are on the table. It also shows the influence likely to be wielded by the “gang of 10” Senators formed over the weekend. These 10 Senators, five liberals and five moderates, are charged with hammering out a compromise on the public option, according to MSNBC. While focused on the public option, it is likely this group of lawmakers will be called on to bridge the chasm that separates liberal Democratic Senators from their moderate and conservative colleagues. Remember, liberals have long claimed that health care reform without a public option is no reform at all. So if the gang of 10 manages to find a way to remove a government-run health plan from the legislation while still keeping liberals on board, they will position themselves to fashion compromises on other divisive issues as well.

(For those interested, the gang of 10 is comprised of Senators Sherrod Brown, Russ Feingold, Tom Harkin, Jay Rockefeller, and Charles Schumer from the liberal wing of the party and moderate Democratic Senators Tom Carper, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson and Mark Pryor).

As noted above, the momentum building behind the Medicare buy-in and an FEHBP-type proposal is that the public option is not going to make it into the Senate bill. Not with a trigger. Not with an opt-out. Instead it appears the public option won’t be in the legislation at all. This should mollify Senator Joe Lieberman who has promised to vote with Republicans against bringing a health care reform bill to the floor if it contains a public option.

All of this also makes clear the strong desire of Democrats, regardless of their ideology, to pass health care reform. The New York Times reports on various lawmakers’ description of President Barack Obama’s message to Senate Democrats on Sunday. “He reminded us why we are here. He reminded us why we run for office. And he reminded us how many people are counting on us to come through.” “Decades from now this will be the kind of vote you remember. It will be written in the faces of children and families who are relieved of the burden of anxiety and sorrow.”

Democrats consider this a historic moment. While grasping it carries political risk in the upcoming 2010 elections, failing to seize the opportunity poses even greater dangers. And the crushing of a dream many of these lawmakers have held for decades.

There are still controversies that could scuttle health care reform. And there will enough political charges and counter-charges bandied about to satiate even the most verbose pundits. But Senators are serious about finding a path to passage and it is increasingly likely they will pass some version of health care reform before years-end. Of course, this will only set the stage for the real work to begin: the House-Senate Conference Committee likely to convene shortly after New Year’s Day.

Length of Health Care Reform Bills Silliness

It is both amusing and disappointing to see the silliness that surrounds the serious issue of health care reform.  Examples abound: calls for keeping the government out of Medicare (a government-run health plan, for those keeping score at home); claims that a government-run plan will usher in an era of lower medical premiums buying better coverage; promises of death panels; and the list goes on.

The foolishness that seems to crop up most often are criticizing the bill for being too long. Some opponents of the bill have taken to printing out the 2,074 page Senate Health Care Reform bill (even longer than the House health care reform legislation which came in at 1,990 pages) and lugging it around on their shoulder. Or taping the pages together and rolling the result down the Capitol steps. The theory, apparently, is that health care reform is such a simple problem, it should be easy to accomplish in just a few pages.

I wrote about the importance of looking at what the bill does, rather than how long it takes to do it, in a previous post. But now the Associated Press has actually put things into (numerological) perspective. Here’s what the AP reports concerning the literal size of the health care reform bills being considered by Congress.

• The House health care reform legislation, HR 3962, is 319,145 words.
• The Senate health care reform bill, HR 3590, is 318,512
• The No Child Left Behind Act (supported by many of those criticizing the health care reform bills) was over 280,000 words.
• English translations of War and Peace, which some critics has claimed is shorter than the Democratic health care reform bills, are 560,000-to-670,000 words.
• When published in a more normal fashion than formal bills are (single spaced, normal font, regular margins) the bill comes to 209 pages.

Here’s some other meaningless statistics:

The Harry Potter series totaled 1,090,739 words. The longest: Order of the Phoenix at 257,045 words.

The Old Testament has 593,493 words; (No idea which English translation the source used).

How many words would it take to legislate the status quo? Considering the need to create Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans health care, regulate the private market, etc. etc., my guess is we’re talking about reams of paper.

Let’s focus on what matters – what the legislation does – not how many words it takes to do it. There’s plenty of substantive issues to debate. And now’s the time to do it.

Obama Administration Presents State-by-State View of Status Quo and Impact of Health Care Reform

Most readers of this blog understand the benefits and problems of the health care system status quo. And they can make an educated guess at how the various health care reform proposals will impact their world. Most voters (and much of the media, I might add), don’t have as informed a view on these issues.

Into this vacuum comes the Obama Administration with a state-by-state description of the current health care system in the jurisdiction and its view as to the benefits health care reform will deliver to the states’ residents.

Yes, the site is aimed at building support for health care reform. Still, it provides some interesting data and observations. For example, it warns that the “amount of uncompensated care provided will more than double in 45 states” by 2019 as the number of uninsured grows by at least 10 percent in every state and by more than 30 percent in 29 states.

It’s worth spending some time. You may disagree with some of what’s presented. And some of it is inaccurate — it claims, for instance, that health care reform would establish a high risk pool in California, but the state already has one. And it seems to imply that 100% of the individual market would buy through the exchange, something no one is claiming (that I’m aware of). So read it with a handful of salt. However, the reports do provide an interesting, more granular glimpse into health care in America than is usually available. And the more detailed look we all give to reform, the better.

Senate Health Care Reform Still Alive, But Likely to Change

The Senate has just spent most of today (Saturday) engaging in a debate on whether to allow a debate on comprehensive health care reform. Later this evening 58 Democrats and 2 Independents will vote to allow Majority Leader Harry Reid’s health care reform bill come to floor for debate and consideration of amendments. 40 Republican Senators will vote unanimously against allowing this to happen. Senator Reid’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is still alive. It is unlikely to survive in its current form for long, however.

Don’t get me wrong. Tonight’s vote is significant, very significant.  The vote is a test of President Barack Obama’s and Senator Reid’s ability to line up enough votes to keep the bill alive.  The debate leading up to the vote has been an opportunity for Republican Senators to present their opposition to HR 3590. (Yes, the Senate has taken a bill passed by the House and moved to the Senate, gutted that language and substituted their health care reform package. Consequently, the Senate legislation has a House bill number.) And the vote to allow debate has served as an action forcing event, sort of, for Democratic moderates.

Those moderates could have sided with the Republicans killing the bill before it could be brought to the floor. Instead, they joined with their liberal colleagues and kept health care reform alive. While there are 18 moderate Democratic Senators (including Senator Joe Lieberman, who is an Independent), it eventually came down to three:  Senators Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson. All three made clear they would seek amendments to the bill before voting for it. And all three are among those moderates making it clear further changes to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is necessary before they’ll commit to voting for it.

We’ll learn more about the changes moderates will demand over the several weeks before a final vote on health care reform is held in the Senate.  Democratic leaders are hoping to hold that vote before the end of the year. The legislation would then move on to a conference committee that will attempt to reconcile it with legislation the House passed earlier this month.  More importantly, that conference committee, made up of an equal number of Senators and House members, will seek to fashion legislation they hope will earn the support of a majority of House members and 60% of Senators. As I’ve noted before, passage of legislation by the Senate is merely the final playoff game. The World Series — the conference committee — is yet to come.

Uniting the Democrats to allow debate on health care reform is a victory for the Obama Administration and for Senator Reid personally. That it took this much effort, however, demonstrates the challenges they yet face. Republicans appear to be uniting in opposition to the legislation. Even Senator Olympia Snowe, who voted for a health care reform bill in the Senate Finance Committee, is expected to vote against bringing HR 3590 to the floor.

I’ve written before about the power moderates have to determine if health care reform legislation will pass Congress and what the final bill will contain.  Now we’ll see that power put forward. Some of what they’ll ask for will be parochial. (That there’s a provision in Senator Reid’s bill that would send additional Medicaid money to Senator Landrieu’s state of Louisiana is neither a coincidence or accidental). But most of their demands wil concern public policy issues. Moderate Democrats tend to be more fiscally cautious than their more liberal colleagues, giving them pause to legislation that greatly expands governmental powers,  spends nearly a trillion dollars over the next decade and taxes corporations and individuals to pay for it. These are the issues on which they will focus.

Republicans will have their own pet issues, but those are unlikely to influence the outcome. Having already declared their unmoving opposition to any health care reform Democrats could claim keeps their campaign promises, the GOP has removed themselves from negotiations. (A couple of the Republicans, most notably Senator Snowe and her colleague from Maine, Susan Collins, might vote what moderate Democrats fashion. But whether they’ll be able to insert provisions without committing to voting for the bill if their amendments are accepted is unlikely. 

We don’t know yet what changes to HR 3950 moderate Democrats will demand, but the possibilities are extensive. They could eliminate a public option — or at least postpone its implementation until after other reforms have had a chance to take effect. They could  demand additional cost containment provisions. They could strengthen — or weaken — the requirement that all consumers obtain coverage. Certainly they will modify what taxes and fees are imposed to pay for health care reform.

What’s important to remember is that moderate Senators will have two shots at the bill. They’ll extract as much as they can during the current Senate debate. Then at least two or three of them are likely to agree to vote for the bill “in order to keep the process moving forward.” However, they’ll also make clear they want significant changes made to the legislation by the conference committee before they’ll commit to a vote that would place the legislation on the president’s desk. Liberals will insist they have compromised all they can, but in reality, the moderates (and the liberals) know that the progressives are likely to accept any legislation that can be called “health care reform” with a straight face. And as politicians, they have great skill in passing the straight face test.

Yes, Democrats have won the debate on whether to debate health care reform. What legislation eventually emerges from the Senate, if any, is still uncertain.

Health Care Reform’s Likely Outcome: Worse Than Promised; Not as Bad as Feared

As the Senate begins their effort to pass health care reform anxiety levels are, quite naturally and rightly rising. Health care is highly personal. For those of us working within the current framework, having politicians mess with our livelihood is a stressful to say the least. That these politicians (both Democrats and Republicans) seem to care less about the substance of the reform and more about how they appeal to their electoral base does nothing to reduce that stress.

Of course, what we’re reacting to at this stage is not the final reform legislation. The House and Senate proposals foreshadow what Congress will eventually pass (if it passes anything). The actual legislation is still to come. Put another way, we know the basic outline, but the devil resides in a suburb of the details. As I pointed out in my previous post, however, the real drafting of health care reform legislation hasn’t started yet. With the Senate taking up the issue we’re seeing the end of the legislative phase in which the parameters are defined. It’s in the upcoming conference committee that will define health care reform 2009-style (or, more likely, early 2010).

Concerning that prior post, Ron Masters, a friend and frequent reader/commenter of this blog, took me to task for writing too kindly about the current House and Senate versions of health care reform. “I’m surprised that you seem to feel that either of these bills are any good,” he write. This after a litany of shortcomings concerning the current administration, the ability of government to deliver much of anything, and the foolishness of imposing taxes and creating new entitlements in the midst of the current economic mess. And he makes some fair points.

He’s not alone. I’ve heard from a lot of brokers, readers and others who are convinced the coming health care reform will be a disaster leading to ruin and damnation for the country. I disagree. Here’s why.

As any reader of this blog knows, I don’t buy into the premises of those at the extreme. Not all government programs are good, but some are. Not all taxes are bad, but some are. Change is important, but getting change right is more important. Defending the status quo just because it is the status quo is indefensible. In other words, I’m comfortable with the gray shades of reality and uncomfortable with the black-and-whites of true believers.

I’m also comfortable with the government doing stupid things now and then. No party and no administration has a monopoly on such foolishness. (Nor has any party or administration failed to achieve some truly noble accomplishments). What’s more, no administration lasts forever. Whatever health care reform passes in the next few months will be administered by a parade of future administrations and modified by Congresses yet to-be-elected. Many people have a tendency to believe whatever Congress passes and how the current administration implements it will remain unchanged forever. It won’t. Medicare was vilified as socialistic and a fast slide toward America’s ruin when it was being created. Things didn’t work out that way. The program has survived for nearly 45 years under the administrations of Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush-the-first, Clinton and Bush-the-second. Yes, it is a far from perfect program and faces significant challenges. Still, it works, it’s evolved and it will continue to do so. And the country has survived.

Another reason I’m not outright opposed to health care reform is because I believe expanding access to health insurance is critically important. It is well understood that everyone in America has access to health care. But it is also well documented that people with health insurance live healthier, longer lives. A recent study by researchers at Harvard Medical School confirmed an earlier study from the 1980’s that “uninsurance is associated with mortality.” That’s an awkward way of stating a well-accepted truism: being uninsured can be hazardous to your health.

Expanding coverage, however, is expensive. The more people who have coverage the more people who will incur medical expenses. That is after all, the whole idea and a desirable outcome. It’s also an expensive outcome. In my mind, it’s a price worth paying. Especially considering the potential return on this investment.

Those with insurance are already making heavy payments to pay for care received by the uninsured according to a study by Families USA. In 2008, the study reports, nearly $43 billion of health care the uninsured received from hospitals, doctors and other providers went unpaid. This uncompensated care results in higher premiums for those with coverage. In 2008 this hidden tax increased premiums $368 for single coverage and $1,017 for family coverage. Given the recession, this amount has no doubt gone up. Increasing the number of Americans with insurance should reduce this burden.

Early identification of potential health conditions before they blossom into serious diseases can generate tremendous economic benefits, although these savings are rarely considered in a cost-benefit analysis. Every dollar invested in preventing and treating heart attacks generates $7 in increased productivity, according to a study by United BioSource Corporation.

In other words, it’s not just the reform bills being considered in Washington that are expensive. So is the status quo. Health care costs are crippling businesses, bankrupting families and state governments, enabling fraud and abuse, increasing taxes, and failing to deliver on many of its promises. Change is inevitable – and it’s coming.

Too many in Washington believe (or at least claim to believe) that reforming the health insurance industry will reduce the cost of coverage. Far from it. The bills being considered in Congress will cause premiums to increase. Until Congress tackles the underlying causes of skyrocketing medical costs, health insurance coverage will become increasingly unaffordable. The House and Senate health care reform bills do have more cost containment provisions than is generally acknowledged. Could they be stronger and more ambitious? Yes. Are obvious cost containment opportunities missing (e.g., malpractice reform?) Yes. But they’re there. And future efforts to restrain medical costs will benefit from the seeds planted in the current reform debate.

Which brings us, I suppose, to the key question: are the House and Senate health care reform bills good? No, not really. They’re too heavy handed, using an axe when a scalpel is required. As noted, their cost containment provisions are weaker than the American people deserve. The bills reflect a misunderstanding of how health insurance works and about what drives premiums. The costs for the program are no doubt understated (few initiatives of this magnitude, whether attempted by government or business, come in under budget).

If either the House or Senate bills were the final legislation I’d be more concerned than I am now (and, for the record, I am concerned). But neither HR 3962 nor Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s proposal are going to be enacted, not as currently written. I believe the conference committee will need to make significant changes in order to get the votes needed for passage – if that’s even possible.

There are plenty of substantive problems with these health care reform proposals. To make matters worse, their backers and opponents are knowingly overpromising or attempting to frighten the public. Democrats claim their reforms will reduce overall health care costs, lower premiums and reduce the deficit. Wrong on all counts. Republicans claim it will destroy American businesses, annihilate Medicare, create death panels and bankrupt the country. Just as wrong.

We’ve seen this script before concerning Medicare, Iraq, and a host of other issues. Partisans on one side over promise, their opponents dredge up scenarios of doom. That both sides are equally guilty makes it no more acceptable or welcome. But it is what it is.

The main point of my previous post, and of this one, is that if reform passes, it will not be as bad as feared nor as good as promised. It will be refined sooner (by regulation) and later (by future legislation). The fight for a better health care system will continue. Only the status quo will have changed. The need to improve on it will remain.

House and Senate Health Care Reform Bills Mark the Beginning of the Endgame

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is unveiling his health care reform plan after it received passing grades from the Congressional Budget Office. Whether he has the 60 votes he needs to bring the bill to the floor is still an open question, but odds are he’ll have the votes when he needs it, perhaps by this weekend.

Then the fun begins. Senators will debate the bill, offer amendments, vote on those changes, and finally craft a bill. If Senator Reid and his allies play their cards well, they’ll have the 60 votes needed to allow a vote on the legislation. (Yes, before there’s a vote there’s a vote on whether to have a vote – you’ve gotta love democracy). Only then will the Senate make history and pass health care reform.

Of course, what the Senate passes and what becomes law are two different things. Just as passage by the House of Representatives of HR 3962 was only a prelude to what will be the act of drafting the “real” health care reform bill.

Many have tried, but only President Barack Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have gotten this far with health care reform. What they’ve accomplished is historic and Herculean. Whether you support or oppose their bills, respect for their accomplishment is appropriate. But getting this far is not the end. Well, it’s the end of the beginning. And it brings us closer to the beginning of the endgame.

The legislative process involves several stages. In the beginning there’s a lot of sincere questions being asked as lawmakers seek information, float trial balloons, and generally get a lay of the political landscape and the issues. During this phase there are a lot of options on the tables, including the most extreme positions (e.g., do nothing or enact a single payer system).

This phase was also when it became clear that, for the most part, Republicans were as interested in defeating “Obamacare” as they were in reforming the health care system. By publicly declaring so early in the process they would oppose any legislation containing provisions dear to the Democrats, the GOP effectively removed themselves from the deliberations. Why, after all, would Democrats negotiate with a party that had made clear they would oppose anything other than their own proposals?

Of course, Republicans could ask the same question of the Democrats (and do). The difference is that Democrats are in the majority in Congress. So if the two parties go their separate ways, the Democrats could still, under the right circumstances, pass a bill. In other words, it’s their bat and ball, so if the Republicans stalk off the field, the game continues.

In the second legislative phase the House and Senate committees with jurisdiction on health care weighed in. General concepts became legislative language. Lawmaker’s inclinations became public votes. Options feel by the wayside. (This is the phase in which the possibility of enacting a single payer system was formally laid to rest).

What the committees produced generated a lot of concern, anger and raucous  objections. Apparently some folks thought someone in Washington really thought these bills would become law. Nope. What the committees were producing were negotiating positions, not laws. Everyone had their eye on the main battle to come in the fourth phase. They were setting up their arguments, gathering their support for the real showdown.

Before the showdown, however, we have to get through the current phase, phase three. In this portion of our program, ideology and public policy take a back seat to a very practical concern: what needs to be in the bill – and what needs to stay out of the legislation – in order to get enough votes to pass it.

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle describes this process as shoveling frogs into a wheelbarrow. Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s job: craft a bill that could get 218 members of the House into her wheelbarrow. She succeeded by cobbling together legislation that is an abomination to many of the House Members who voted for it.

Senator Reid’s task: to get 60 Senators into his wheelbarrow. To do that he’s pared back provisions (such as on a government-run plan) in ways that only three weeks ago liberals would have labeled a betrayal (and some still do. Of course, those progressives complaining about the compromises Senator Reid has made tend not be in the Senate. Because liberal Senators understand the process. If they need to accept a weakened public insurance program to help Senator Reid keep 60 frogs in the wheelbarrow, so be it.

Why do liberal House members vote for a bill they consider an abomination and progressive Senators accept compromises that were absolutely unacceptable a few weeks ago? Because this is the phase where it’s about getting something passed, not public policy.

If the Senate passes Senator Reid’s health care reform legislation, the fourth phase begins. A conference committee will be created made up of members of the House and Senate. Their task: to meld together the House and Senate proposals into a single bill for which Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid can shovel enough frogs into their respective wheelbarrows to pass.

Think about that challenge. A single bill that can get majorities in both chambers. That won’t be easy. The process won’t be pretty. Decisions will be made based on factors outside of health care reform.

Take Senator Joe Lieberman. He’s on record declaring his opposition to a government-run health plan is a matter of conscience. His history makes clear he loves being Chair of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Keeping the chairmanship he loves may require him to bend his conscience a bit. Yes, who chairs a particular committee has nothing to do with the substance of health care reform. But it has everything to do with the politics of health care reform.

(By the way, I’m not saying Senator Lieberman has been threatened with losing his chairmanship unless he agrees to let health care reform come to a vote in the Senate. But if it turns out he was, no one should be surprised. Hardball is a sport played by both parties. And  the higher the stakes, the harder the ball.)

Given the nature of the issue and the politics, the conference committee will forgo public policy debates and focus on fashioning a compromise that majorities of the frogs – I mean, lawmakers – in each chamber can support. This means what the House passed and what the Senate may pass are now the extremes in the health care reform debate. Compromises, after all, tend to wind up in the middle of two poles. The Congressional leaders making up the conference committee will try to establish a middle ground on which their needed majorities can stand. Their building blocks will be what it takes to get the bill passed. That the result may be messy, perhaps even unworkable is of less concern. There will be time enough to fix those problems.

Getting reform right was for an earlier phase in the process. And by eliminating some of the more extreme ideas, by establishing the boundaries of reform, those phases assured that public policy considerations would have an impact on the final legislation. But that was then. In this final phase of the legislative process it’s is about getting reform. Period.

In short, the health care reform process to date has been fascinating and important, but it’s main purpose has been to define negotiating positions. We’ll see the end of the beginning of health care reform if and when the Senate enacts its version of reform.

Only when the conference committee convenes, however, do we move into the beginning of the endgame, the point where the drafting process of health care reform begins in earnest.