The concept of so-called “Cadillac” health plans for consumers has been briefly introduced on this blog. Just as its title implies, higher than average premiums guarantee a certain level of care for the policyholder. The types of plans covered vary, and the coverage may apply to individuals or pooled, risk-stratified groups. Of course, premiums imposed by the latter are completely dependent on the health of that risk pool.
Among other things, the bill introduced by Dem Senator Max Baucus includes provisions for imposing a tax on premiums above a certain threshold for individuals and families. And although the “Cadillac” name may imply coverage for high wage earners, not everyone paying these premiums is especially well off financially. The tax on premiums is meant to affect the insurance companies; but many fear that the tax will be passed on to the healthcare consumer since the cost of healthcare delivery almost always rises faster than inflation. | LINK
So, Sen. Max Baucus has introduced his healthcare reform bill to the world. It was met with a resounding yawn. What’s next? Well, outside of the fact that Republican support is practically dead (save for some pleas to Republican moderates who may give it a second chance), the bill’s failure to gain traction puts the reform debate at the eleventh hour into the wider national spotlight and out of the Gang of Six’s lawmaking closed quarters.
Senate Democrats are now more renewed than ever to the fact that there needs to be some public “plan” at final passage. Interesting how this is referenced on the Senate side, as Speaker Pelosi is still holding fast to a public option provision in the House. Although Baucus may have lost the battle, his ideas may not have lost him the war. In the Senate, the goal now — even for the more liberal cognoscenti — is the search for government involvement at a level that will not invoke cries of socialism, but for alternatives that will benefit insurance coverage purchasing while appeasing insurance companies fretful of government competition. Obama seems to be echoing this, and will continue to tour on its premise.
Is this the new Democratic strategy for health reform in the homestretch? | LINK
UPDATE: In an effort to gain greater leverage among go-it-alone Democrats wary of his plan’s original language, Baucus is reportedly tweaking the bill’s affordability parameters.
The changes could add $28 billion to the 10-year cost of his bill, which was originally estimated at $774 billion by the Congressional Budget Office. The revised bill, though, could still meet President Obama’s stipulation that health care legislation not add to the federal budget deficit.
An interesting move which buys the Finance chair some time and, perhaps, some support. | LINK
Today, Senate Finance Cmte. Chair Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat who has had his share of criticisms regarding Big Insurance cronyism, unveiled his hotly anticipated health reform plan — notable for two things: the lack of a public option (in contrast to Obama’s goals) and the inclusion of provisions for private nonprofit co-ops in the healthcare marketplace. Although the plan is not endorsed or backed in any way by Republicans, it certainly has the imprint of the GOP all over it — specifically calling for the use of tax credits to help low- and middle income consumers purchase insurance.
The Baucus plan in many ways looks like a Republican-lite version of reform measures aimed at minimizing taxpayer cost and maximizing boilerplate issues usually reserved at maintaining GOP star profiles. But Baucus seems to have has own vision in promoting reform. It’s just difficult to distinguish between the plan’s reform goals and his. | LINK
UPDATE: The Baucus bill appears dead in the water, as the effort needs a full 60 votes. The most it can possibly muster is 59. Apparently, good news for the progressive wing of the healthcare reform movement. | LINK
Previously on Doctor Pundit: Obama Delivers Key Reform Speech to a Weary and Wary Nation
The so-called ‘Gang of 6′. Yep, you know who they are. Its most high-profile member, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), has threatened to put forth his own healthcare proposal if Obama’s new definition of healthcare reform does not yield bipartisan momentum to get a more slender bill — one that would take effect more slowly and would probably consider some sort of public insurance plan with the stipulation of lower rates offered by private insurers. This, of course, isn’t sitting well with liberal Democrats (with Speaker Pelosi in tow) who is on the record as saying she wants a “vigorous” public option pursued.
With the act of reconciliation looking more and more likely as a way of passing any bill with a label of health reform, Republicans are making sure to draw lines in the sand to prevent future funding problems that are almost certain with such a mechanism for a bill’s passage (as opposed to simple filibuster). With the president’s speech on the issue of “coming together” and the internal dissention among partisan factions in Congress becoming more of a barrier, the path to a reform bill’s passage will be just about as entertaining as the analysis of the final package itself. | LINK
Is the original Obama healthcare reform plan dead in the water? If you believe the last-minute motives of the Senate in altering the public-option component considerably at the pleasure of private interests, then you can probably form your own opinions at this point. According to the Washington Post today,
As his committee has taken center stage in the battle over health-care reform, Chairman Baucus (D-Mont.) has emerged as a leading recipient of Senate campaign contributions from the hospitals, insurers and other medical interest groups hoping to shape the legislation to their advantage. Health-related companies and their employees gave Baucus’s political committees nearly $1.5 million in 2007 and 2008, when he began holding hearings and making preparations for this year’s reform debate.
Reality comes full circle. Although overwhelming support among Americans in the original Obama plan and its public option provision provided the impetus behind the downplaying of the role of Insurance, Pharma, and Health Plans in drafting the ostensible language of the reform package; acknowledgment of the special intrerest minority by Baucus and other Democrats (and Republicans) seems to be influencing things now. | LINK
It’s almost too serendipitous. Sen. Ted Kennedy, who has always fought for healthcare access and equity from his days as a junior lawmaker, emerges anew with vigor; he’s set to announce formally his specifics on the planned government overhaul of healthcare delivery. All but written off as deceased not even a year ago after being diagnosed with a central nervous system tumor, the veteran senator approaches this new legislation as a watershed in his long and respected career. His alacrity with this matter, one could argue, is giving him the very life and function to see this accomplishment through.
The 77-year-old senator said the proposed law would establish a “gateway” for people without insurance or those who wish to change insurers to compare prices, and he made clear a government-run plan will be one of the options available.
“We’ll negotiate with insurance companies to keep premiums and copays low and help you with your premiums if you can’t afford them,” Kennedy wrote.
“We’re also hearing that some Americans want the choice of enrolling in a health insurance program backed by the government for the public good, not private profit – so that option will be available too,” added Kennedy.
Of course, competing for Obama’s healthcare allegiance is the Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT)-led initiative to bring Republicans into the fold who believe a plan such as Kennedy’s constitutes the road toward socialism in healthcare. The promise of a strict government public health policy 40 years in the making, or a pragmatic bipartisan approach to conservatively rein in healthcare spending? Should be an interesting summer for healthcare policy wonks. | LINK
… [Thirty-nine] percent said they already had experienced discrimination because of their beliefs. For example, one doctor said that during her medical residency, she refused to assist in a late-term abortion of a Down syndrome child and was loudly and thoroughly berated in front of her colleagues by the attending physician.
Originating from Saint Paul, Minnesota, [doctorpundit.com] is a weblog about the policy of healthcare and where it intersects with politics and public opinion; it is edited by Michael Douglas, MD, MBA. Welcome, and please consider my take on what is Healthcare 2.0, complemented by a few of my thoughts on my personal avocations and guilty pleasures: music, prose, and writing. Follow Doctor Pundit via RSS above.
RT @RWJF_PubHealth: What happened in #publichealth and #hcsm today? Check out http://t.co/CU8c6xOo to find out!
Mobile healthcare innovations are the way of the future! #mhealth Check out this article published by Forbes: http://t.co/rqIO0Gj5
Pfizer in News These Stocks are Forming a Rising Wedge (Bearish) on May-17: These Stocks are For... http://t.co/710gScqn #pharma #pfizer
RT @markraganceo: 14 ways social media may change doctors' visits http://t.co/CXpyRFRV #hcsm #physicians
FCC proposes allocation of spectrum for Medical Body Area Networks (for vote on 5/24) http://t.co/bAiyRaRk #mHealth
DOCTOR PUNDIT @ ONE YEAR | An occasional DP series from 2010 highlighting healthcare policy trends over the period from 2009-2010 in a compare/contrast format.
