It’s not because of what you think.
The common thought is that health insurers will quiver at the sight of a government plan, with the public option offering lower premiums to patients due to leaner administrative burdens.
But Charlie Baker, CEO of Massachusetts’ Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, isn’t so worried about that. Instead, he first wonders about the government’s competence in handling another large bureaucratic program:
I worry less about the impact of having the federal government writing the rules and competing directly with plans like Harvard Pilgrim for business, and more about the federal government’s ability to do this at all, much less do it well. Merely coordinating basic demographic information between Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid – three big federal programs that millions of Americans belong to – can be a chore for beneficiaries, their children, and their health plans. It’s not unusual for our members to spend six months or so trying to get this stuff corrected before they call us and ask us to step in on their behalf.
And next, he has zero confidence that the government will be fiscally disciplined administering such a plan. With how it handled the General Motors fiasco as an example, Mr. Baker wonders how any proposed public plan “will negotiate with providers for a mutually agreeable fee . . . will balance its books every year . . . will have to cover its costs of doing business – just like the private plans do – [but] won’t add to the federal deficit.”
Is that even possible?
Related posts:
- Should a public plan option be part of any health reform initiative?
- Convincing doctors to accept a public health care plan option
- Can the Massachusetts health reform plan be replicated nationally?
- A health insurer positive on Hillary Clinton?
- Senate health reform plan analysis
- Should private insurers be kept in the health reform mix?
- CBO cost analysis of the Baucus health reform plan
{ 1 trackback }
{ 3 comments }
He expresses a few of many concerns. To anyone with any degree of business sense, creating savings on a project by asking the federal government to handle it is the height of delusion.
The federal government does do some things adequately, and some things well: the military, the highways, the post office. However, it has never done them cheaply, and has never adjusted quickly in times of crisis. Bureaucracy thrives in government, as in cannot in a profit-driven enterprise, and as a result, delays are inevitable as all must be appeased before treatment and compensation can occur. One would do well to understand this before endorsing a government public healthcare system.
We could also discuss competition, monopoly, financing, etc, but what it comes down to is an artificial sense of urgency for a problem that has existed for years. There is a rule that I believe makes good sense when considering the implementation of a new system: you must understand why the old system exists, and works, before you try to replace it. I suspect that this has not been done on any level in the federal government. They do not understand what they are seeking to replace, yet insist that their solution is best. It is not: it is too expensive, too intrusive, too slow, and too laden with hurdles that must be crosed before patient care is granted.
If private insur are sooo good how come we are paying such high premiums, going up 3 times more than inflation rates? Is this why they paY their CEO muti millions while many with pre exisiting canditions are fleeced. A lady who was treated for Acne , had the term precancerous written in chart by her dermatologist, so when she had breast cancer, the insur turned around and cancelled her coverage while her cancer was spreading! I think the private insur is totally screwed, they are people who have to look out for consumers while limiting costs, which is kinda of OXYMORON. I think we need public option for those who want it. Fear mongering is what is going on.
Thanks for the post Kevin. I have a solution that will probably make everyone happy and improve patient care. I take Mr. Baker at his word when he states that he is concerned about how well the government will handle a public option.
My suggestion is that we have Mr. Baker and his colleagues voluntarily resign from their current positions and take positions with the federal government as the managers for the public option. This way, we will have the most skilled individuals “coordinating the basic demographic information between Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid”. Patients will recieve better, more streamlined care with experienced CEOs and administrators at the helm, costs will decrease (due to their superior expertise) and healthcare will improve for all.
Of course, these CEOs may have to take a slight pay cut to work for the government and take charge of the public option, but, this was never about executive compensation, was it? It was about what is best for the patients.
So, Mr. Baker, feel free to forward your resume to me and I will make sure it gest to the right people in Washington. Problem solved.
Yeah right.
Comments on this entry are closed.