When it comes to forming a winning message for health care reform, how should Democrats and Republicans in Congress (and President Obama) talk about it, and what should they absolutely stay away from? What messages will go over well with the public, and what could kill health reform?
Recent news reports note that GOP strategist Frank Luntz is cautioning Republicans to avoid going against Obama's efforts because polls show that Americans support health care reform. However, he also advises that Republicans should make a distinction between being for health reform and putting government bureaucrats in charge of health care.
Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, meanwhile, suggests that Democrats can make a case for the public plan and government in health care, but that they need to emphasize the concept of choice.
-- Marilyn Werber Serafini, NationalJournal.com
8 responses: Kenneth E. Thorpe, Celinda Lake, Drew Altman, Karen Davis, C. Eugene Steuerle, Uwe Reinhardt, John C. Goodman, David B. Kendall
Updated at 4:19 p.m. on May 19.
Are we any closer to consensus on a public health plan after Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., and ranking member Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, presented three options for the committee to consider as part of broader health care reform legislation this year?
The first two options are to have a public plan or not to have one. The third, though, appears to be an attempt at a middle ground. Would it work, and could it win the support of both parties?
Option 1: A Medicare-like option would be administered by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Option 2: Instead of a public insurance option, Congress would expand insurance coverage "through a reformed and better regulated private market."
Option 3: A public option would be administered through multiple regional third-party administrators, and would report to HHS. They would establish networks of doctors and hospitals and negotiate payments.
Baucus and Grassley on Monday released a series of policy options for financing health care reform, including options for changing the tax exclusion for employer-provided health insurance. These options are viewed as viable money savers to pay for reform. Here are their options, from a committee statement this morning. Are any of them politically viable? What is the best and the worst way to do this?
"The policy options explore five changes to make the exclusion more equitable and efficient. These options include capping the exclusion based on the value of health insurance policy or the income level of the employee eligible for the exclusion. A third option would be to cap the exclusion based on both the value of the health insurance policy and income level. Another option would be to convert the employer-provided health insurance exclusion to an individual tax deduction or credit. The options also consider whether to grandfather in existing plans so that benefits provided under existing collective bargaining agreements are not limited."
-- Marilyn Werber Serafini, NationalJournal.com
8 responses: Jason Rosenbaum, Denis Cortese, Stuart Butler, Marian Wright Edelman, Karen Davis, Marilyn Werber Serafini, Uwe Reinhardt, John Sheils
Can the federal government really save much money by cracking down on fraud and abuse in Medicare?
President Obama last week proposed spending $311 million in fiscal 2010 to slow fraud and abuse in Medicare's prescription drug and Medicare Advantage programs. He estimated it would save $2.7 billion. Savings would be reinvested into Medicare trust funds to benefit program participants.
Is this realistic? And is it realistic to think that savings would benefit program participants?
A range of industry groups this week promised to work together voluntarily to lower costs by 1.5 percentage points annually over the next decade. President Obama responded positively but promised it would not affect his health care reform efforts moving forward.
How big a deal is this voluntary commitment? Will it, or should it, change the way that Washington proceeds this year?
Added at 1:25 p.m. on May 13.
-- Marilyn Werber Serafini, NationalJournal.com
16 responses: Dan Danner, Kenneth E. Thorpe, Len Nichols, Denis Cortese, Nancy H. Nielsen, John C. Goodman, Jason Rosenbaum, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., Rep. Eliot Engel, D-NY, Marilyn Werber Serafini, Uwe Reinhardt, Marilyn Werber Serafini, Karen Davis, John C. Goodman, Kerry Weems
Is the U.S. prepared to cope with swine flu, or any other potential pandemic?
How much has the nation's public health care infrastructure (everything from communications to tracking to quarantine procedures to pharmaceuticals and vaccines) improved since the anthrax and bird flu scares? Do local public health departments have sufficient resources to cope with a pandemic?
Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas, is urging Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to spend $1.3 billion in unspent funds to implement the National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza. Congress appropriated the money in 2007, with the intention of developing a bird flu vaccine and buying antiviral medications in the interim. Would that be a wise move?
-- Marilyn Werber Serafini, NationalJournal.com
9 responses: Raymond C. Scheppach, Billy Tauzin, Nancy H. Nielsen, John C. Goodman, Kerry Weems, Darrell G. Kirch, Sec. Mike Leavitt, Jeffrey Levi, Donna Shalala
