Review of the House Health Care Bill, Affordable Health Care for America

My review of the Affordable Health Care for America Act, HR 3962, is based on 2 key aspects. First, it's a health insurance reform bill, not health care bill reform. The prevailing mood around reform has been that if we just get everyone insured, we'll win. Insurance reform is not time for a victory lap but rather a quick pit stop to prepare for the hard work of cost containment. I am making the big assumption that government will address health care costs after addressing coverage. This strategy worked for the creation of Medicare as Lyndon Johson knew that he could never show Medicare would pay for itself initially. Instead he focused on creating the need and for better or worse, let future governments work on the financial viability.

Second, our current health care system is a mostly clogged artery that's waiting to burst. Taking the stairs instead of the elevator would be an improvement. Doing nothing is rapidly disappearing as a choice. That's why I found the Republican's decision to work on their Sudoku or their profiles on the new GOP social networking site to be so counterproductive. Their lack of interest made the narrow House vote less significant.

With those two caveats (and these caveats border on assumptions like Lindsey Lohan has finally gotten herself straightened out), I'll say that the House bill is not bad. Just like NCIS Los Angeles, I first found it to be unwatchable due to the complete lack of chemistry between the main parts. However, some role players have emerged and the writing has improved. While the Senate bill will dictate the final outcome, here's how I see the House bill using my trusted framework of the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly:


The Good:

• The House was somewhat serious about the individual mandate: Everyone is starting to understand that in order for insurance to really be affordable, everyone has to participate. The young, healthy, and good-looking have to pay for the old, sick, and ugly. The House bill has a penalty that is 2.5% of income. Considering there should be available health plans for 8% of income, that penalty should be enough to make most participate. One of the biggest problems with the Massachusetts reform was that the penalty was not significant for people to care given the cost of insurance. While I'm going to congratulate Congress for growing a pair, I'll at least offer a fist bump.


• The fact the Florida seniors get twice as much for Medicare was discussed: According to the >Huffington Post, there is a provision to study the geographic variation in the costs of health care or why it costs twice as much in Florida or McAllen, TX. I think the fact that some seniors receive twice as many health care dollars or that their doctors are paid enough to accept Medicare while others do not and are not is one of the least talked about injustices of our health care system. While I know commissioning a study is like forming a committee to address a problem, at least, it's getting discussed.


• It's an insurance reform bill: There is no great secret to paying for universal health care. It's always been a matter of requiring the Haves to contribute to the Have Not in some way to prevent people from gaming the system. The wealthy, health care companies, and employers will be taxed more. Seniors will receive lower Medicare benefits and individuals will have to pay or play. Whether this is considered to be socialism, communism, or paganism, it's just the basic concept of how you pay for insurance.
  

The Bad:

• There are no cost containment plans: Health insurance for everyone is going to be expensive and the government has had little success reducing costs. Medicare has had little to no success with disease management programs. No one in government has ever negotiated with drug companies or providers. Their only ideas around value-based benefit (value-based involves covering evidence-based services at little to no cost while charging more for services with questionable value) designs involve lower copays for preventive services. Private insurance companies figured that out 10 years ago. The government has had success with requiring providers to manage all care, including complications, for a set price (called DRGs). However, that's it and that's why I really hope that there is still the political fortitude to get serious about cost when the bills come. The bills will be about as pretty as lipstick on a pig.


• Seniors are going to be pissed: This bill will cut funding for Medicare Advantage which includes health plans that have been providing Medicare coverage for decades. This year, we have seen that a 4.5% revenue cut resulted in higher prices for Medicare Advantage by 25%, reduced benefits, and had plans already leave the business. Seniors were told not to worry about benefit cuts and that the doughut hole in the drug plans will be filled with this bill. By the way, the doughnut hole (after a certain level of coverage, seniors whose drug spending is around the 75th percentile will have to pay $1500 on their own, and then only have to pay 5% of drug costs in the catastrophic category. The $1500 they they pay on their own is the doughnut hole), is an example of a value-based design to promote better utilization of drugs. However, the government is running away from it in an effort to show seniors something bright, shiny, and new with Medicare. Taking money away from Medicare to fund the uninsured is probably a good use of the health care dollars, but no one has been that honest with the seniors. No, I did not expect politicians to be upfront with a key voting block about bad news, but this is an impressive bait and switch considering the cuts will wipe out the prescription drug program and its newly filled doughnut hole.
  

The Ugly:

• With this Public Plan Option, the government is going to start a brand new insurance company: A government-run health plan or the Public Plan was included in this bill but it requires that they negotiate with providers for fees and act like a regular insurance plans. I have written ad nauseum about how I think the Public Plan is a bad idea and the majority of the cost savings would come from paying providers lower rates. This Public Plan in the bill does not pay providers a lower fixed rate and the Congressional Budget Office notes that price for the Public Plan will be higher than comparable private plans. I have am image of dominant hospitals telling the Public Plan administrators the astronomical fees that they will have to pay them to make up for the fact that Medicare and Medicaid pay them too little. Next, the dominant hospital would tell them that they don't accept Medicare, don't accept Medicare, and where they can shove the Pubic Plan. The Public Plan has been a bigger distraction from the real issues than abortion or immigration.
  

If you're looking for more information or think I'm an idiot and want to hear other opinions, This American Life did an excellent job of explaining the key issues of the health care system that this bill does not address. Here's the more pessimistic view from an objective (but grumpy) health care insider or a slightly wonkish but accessible view.