July 2010 Archives
House Democrats reintroduced a "public option" insurance plan last week, tweaked to fit in the 2014 insurance exchanges established in the health care overhaul law, and scored with a lucrative $68 billion in deficit reduction from the Congressional Budget Office. Supporters of the bill, which would peg the government plan at 5 percentage points above Medicare, argue that the plan will bring down the cost of health insurance and increase competition. But the public option also attracted some of the most virulent opposition to any provision in the health care overhaul law debate, with critics decrying it as a government takeover of health care.
While bill sponsor Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., acknowledged the legislation was not likely to pass this Congress, do you think Democrats can pass a public option plan before insurance exchanges start operating in 2014? Would a public option help bring down health care costs by introducing competition into the marketplace? Or will it become another Medicare and Medicaid, and eventually add to the growing deficit?
5 responses: James P. Gelfand, Sally C. Pipes, John C. Goodman, Stuart Butler, Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif.
Will the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' regulations for the "meaningful use" of electronic medical records lead to widespread adoption of the technology? Is the agency's final rule too restrictive, preventing doctors and hospitals from qualifying for government grants? Or is it too permissive, allowing providers to receive federal funds without making significant changes to how they process patient information?
When she introduced the regulations, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the new rule made the goal of widespread electronic record adoption a reality, and CMS said adjustments between the interim and final rules gave providers "greater flexibility" in how they use the technology. But stakeholders were cautious, with the American Medical Association withholding judgment until further review and the American Hospital Association warning that incentives may still be out of reach for many American hospitals.
Was Donald Berwick's recess appointment to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, made two months after his nomination, necessary for the agency to implement the health care overhaul law? Or will the president's decision to circumvent the Senate's vetting process complicate Berwick's relationship with Congress and make a tough job harder, outweighing any benefit of a speedy appointment?
The White House last week issued a statement on its blog announcing Berwick's appointment and said there was "no time to waste with Washington game-playing" due to CMS' new responsibilities to implement the health care law. But the recess appointment drew strong criticism from congressional Republicans, even those who had not initially opposed his nomination.
6 responses: Bruce Lesley, Larry C. McNeely II, James P. Gelfand, Newt Gingrich, John C. Goodman, Gail Wilensky
Should Congress or new authorities created by the law take additional steps to reduce the deficit through policy changes? Should certain provisions be abandoned, even if it means less federal savings?
The Congressional Budget Office last week released its long-term budget outlook, and Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag said: "Slowing the rate of health care cost growth is the single most important action we can take to reduce our long-term fiscal shortfall." He called enactment of the reform law a "key step toward a healthier fiscal future."
3 responses: Kenneth E. Thorpe, James P. Gelfand, John C. Goodman
