WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE DIDN’T SAY ABOUT THE B.R.T. HEALTH CARE REPORT
Source: House Republican Leader John Boehner
Nov 13, 2009 - 8:41:12 PM
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION MISLEADINGLY CHERRY-PICKS NEW REPORT THAT WARNS AGAINST GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE, NEW TAXES, JUNK LAWSUITS
November 13, 2009
President Obama yesterday trumpeted the release of a new report by Hewitt Associates that was done for the Business Roundtable (BRT), suggesting that the report makes the case for speedy enactment of the government takeover of health care being rammed through Congress by Democratic leaders. White House officials even held a conference call with reporters to talk about the report. But did the White House actually read it?
While the BRT report does embrace some aspects of the Democratic plan, such as the “individual mandate” in Speaker Nancy Pelosi's bill that would subject Americans to possible imprisonment if they fail to purchase health insurance the government deems acceptable, the BRT report is also full of warnings about the Democratic plan – warnings many would say argue for scrapping the Democrats' bills and starting over. The report, for example, warns that the government-run option featured in the Pelosi plan may raise health care costs for many Americans and cause the “unraveling” of the entire employer-based health care system. It notes that real medical liability reform – something absent from the Pelosi plan, which actually promotes junk lawsuits in health care – is essential to lowering health care costs. And it warns that new taxes on employers – a central component of the Senate Democrats' bill – “may make health insurance costs worse” for many Americans.
Here are some of the findings contained in the Hewitt Associates/BRT report that the White House curiously declined to discuss yesterday when the report was released:
Government-run option could “significantly” raise private health plan costs for workers. “There has been much heated debate about the merits of a public health insurance option to compete with private insurance plans. While some legislative proposals would create a public plan option for both individuals and small businesses through the exchanges, the market dynamics of any public plan will likely extend to large employers outside the exchanges. . .As private-plan costs continue to rise under this pressure, more employers will be squeezed out of the employer health care system as coverage becomes unaffordable. Over time, this cost-shifting cycle could risk unraveling the entire employer-based system. . .would create even more cost-shifting pressure on private payers and potentially lead to a two-tier system where employers offering their own plans are at a significant cost disadvantage. In light of the significant risks to private health insurance coverage associated with a public plan and the expected availability of competitive options through the exchanges, the potential savings from reductions in federal spending could have the adverse impact of significantly raising private health plan costs for employers and for employees.”
Without real medical liability reform, health care costs will not decrease. “Medical liability reform would foster greater freedom to create alternative treatment models for routine triaging that rely less on direct physician involvement. These models would not only affect cost favorably by encouraging greater use of lower-cost providers, but it would also enable primary care physicians (PCPs) to spend more time on patient care management. Unless actions are taken to bolster the ranks of PCPs, such alternative treatment models may prove critical to enhance overall care management and encourage the type of patient-physician interaction that leads to true behavior change. Absent tort reform, creative advancements could be tempered or abandoned altogether.”
New taxes on employers will drive up Americans’ health care costs. “The most important controllable factors affecting an employer’s health plan costs are the amount that employees contribute toward the cost of the plan, the plan design itself (e.g., coinsurance, copays, and deductibles), geographic location, and the health status of the covered population. The proposed tax on high-cost plans does not take into account that some health plans may exceed the cap because of factors like the age, health status, and geography of their workforce, rather than an overly generous plan design. Employer plans with participants in these situations could see their health costs increase as the costs of the high-cost tax are paid by the health plan, passed directly to employers, and then passed on to health plan participants. There is little doubt that the tax paid by the health plan will be passed to the employer in full. In fully insured plans, one need only look at state premium tax assessments as evidence that insurers include taxes in their expense formulae. In self-insured plans, third-party administrators do not collect enough in administrative fees to offset any portion of tax payments, and the taxes paid would undoubtedly be assessed directly to the plan sponsor. If the employer pays the tax, it would be at the expense of wage growth or normal increases in employer subsidies for health care. If the employer assessed the employee participating in the plan, it would translate into a direct reduction in take-home pay, further restraining economic growth.”
Curtailing Americans’ ability to utilize tax-free flexible spending arrangements “will raise costs for individuals.” “Almost all large employers, including the federal government, offer a flexible spending arrangement through which employees can pay health care and dependent care expenses on a tax-free basis. The Flexible Spending Accounts for Federal Employees (FSAFEDS) program offers three different flexible spending accounts (FSAs): a health care flexible spending account, a limited expense health care flexible spending account, and a dependent care flexible spending account. In general, these programs have never had large participation, primarily because of the annual use-it-or-lose-it requirement. Employees who do choose to participate find the benefit very valuable. . .According to Hewitt data, three-quarters of FSA expenses are for prescription drugs and medical treatments, which is an important source of funds for maintenance care and medications. Reducing the availability of the benefit will make care more costly for the employee, particularly for those needing maintenance care related to chronic conditions and for those whose health needs are not covered by the medical plan, such as dental and vision care.”
Republicans have offered a better solution than the Democratic plan, and it can be read online in its entirety at http://HealthCare.GOP.gov. The Republican alternative, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has confirmed will lower health care premiums for millions of Americans by up to 10 percent, is a step-by-step, common-sense approach to health care reform that our nation can afford. It’s an approach that features real medical liability reform and doesn’t rely on higher taxes, new mandates on employers, individuals, or the creation of a vast new federal bureaucracy to replace Americans’ current health care. Washington Democrats should scrap the current bills moving through Congress and start over, this time working with Republicans for enactment of a step-by-step, responsible plan that will lower health care costs and improve the current system at a cost our country can afford.
Political Tracker: Additional articles on - House Republican Leader John Boehner
Error: Program was unable to connect to the MySQL database 'lvtsg3_biznews' on 'localhost'.
The reason given was: Access denied for user 'lvtsg3_mgdamore'@'localhost' to database 'lvtsg3_biznews'
