Archive for December, 2009

$900 Billion is $900 Billion–or is it?

Monday, December 28th, 2009

In his speech on September 9th, President Obama surprised listeners by declaring that health reform would not cost more than $900 billion. The President also committed to ensuring that the reform was fully paid for and would not add to the deficit. Prior to this speech, many independent analysts estimated the cost of reform at $1.2 trillion or higher. It was not clear then, nor is it clear now, how the administration arrived at the $900 billion figure. Nonetheless, it quickly became the spending ceiling for both the House and Senate as they worked to craft legislation.

Now as passage of Senate legislation approaches, differences in how the House and Senate calculate that $900 billion loom large and could have a dramatic affect on how much financial protection a final bill provides to low- and moderate-income families. The House calculated $900 billion as the “net cost” of the coverage provisions, while the Senate calculated $900 billion as the “gross cost.” The gross cost is the total cost of Medicaid and CHIP expansions, subsidies for individuals, and small business tax credits. Subtracting revenue inherent in reform (i.e. the revenue generated by the employer and individual responsibility payments) produces the net cost.

To illustrate the difference between net and gross, imagine that you are shopping for a jacket and you have decided it cannot cost more than $100. You go to the store and see a jacket that has a price tag of $120 (gross cost). There is also an in-store coupon for $20 off. According to the Senate, you could not buy the jacket because its price exceeds your $100 limit. According to the House, you could buy the jacket because with the coupon you would not spend more than $100 (net cost).

Why does it matter?
Bringing it back to health reform, according to the Congressional Budget Office, measured on a net basis the House bill provides $891 billion in coverage expansion while the Senate bill provides only $614 billion. On a gross basis the House bill costs $1,052 billion while the Senate bill costs $871 billion. In more human terms, the House bill provides greater premium assistance, especially for low-wage workers who make up the bulk of the uninsured; better benefits for nearly everyone who is eligible for a subsidy; and starts expanding coverage a full year earlier than the Senate bill. If it is agreed that $900 billion refers to the net cost of the bill, there is plenty of room under the $900 billion ceiling to improve the affordability provisions offered in the Senate (see table). But, if $900 billion refers to the gross cost as in the Senate version, then there is very little room for additional improvements even though many in the Senate agree that improvements are needed.

Gross and Net Spending: House vs Senate

Gross Spending
(in billions)

Room for improvement under $900 billion cap

Net Spending (in billions)

Room for improvement under $900 billion cap
House

$1,052

-$152 billion

$891

$9 billion
Senate

$871

$29 billion

$614

$286 billion

Who can resolve the difference?
Only President Obama knows for sure what he meant when he laid out the number $900 billion. His endorsement of the House legislation appears to suggest that he finds the House approach acceptable, but whether that approach prevails in conference remains to be seen. Low- and moderate-income families have a lot riding on the outcome.

p.s. The Health Reform Insider is taking a much-needed break this week. We’ll be back next Monday with post-Senate passage/House-Senate merger news and analysis. Happy New Year!

- Michael Miller, director of strategic policy

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Health Reform Insider, Uncategorized, national health reform | No Comments »

The dam breaks, PLUS the votes are in! The Insider’s Naughty and Nice pol(e)

Monday, December 21st, 2009

By reaching a compromise with Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) (we’ll talk about how below), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has cleared the last major obstacle to historic passage of health reform in the U.S. Senate.

If all goes according to plan, the Senate will vote for passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) on Christmas Eve, putting the United States on the verge of enacting a major historic overhaul of health care financing and delivery and setting the stage of an intense round of negotiations between the House and the Senate over the shape of a final package.  (We’ll focus on those House-Senate negotiations next week).  The expected schedule of votes is as follows:

•    Monday 1 AM: add the “Manager’s amendment” to the underlying PPACA proposal (passed 60-40). See Community Catalyst’s reaction to the vote here.
•    Tuesday 7 AM: replace the underlying “shell bill” with the PPACA (60 votes needed)
•    Wednesday 1 PM: agree to stop talking and take a final vote (60 votes needed)
•    Thursday 7 PM: Vote on final passage (51 votes needed)

The Manager’s Amendment

The Manager’s Amendment includes a number of other improvements to the underlying bill including stronger accountability and transparency provisions for health insurers, a new approach to national plans overseen by the Office of Personnel Management (the same office that oversees the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan) stronger cost containment provisions and improved coverage for children.  Click here for CC summary of the key changes.

An agreement was also struck with physicians to do a two month patch on Medicare physician payment rates (as an amendment to the Defense appropriations bill) that would otherwise be cut Jan. 1 with the understanding that after the recess Congress would come back and work on a longer term solution.

The key to locking down the 60th vote for heath reform in the Senate was finding language that would be acceptable to both anti-choice Sen. Ben Nelson and pro-choice Senators represented by Senators Boxer and Murray. (Sen. Casey from Pennsylvania was the other main party to the negotiation).  The main elements of the proposed abortion compromise include giving states the right to determine whether abortion coverage will be available in their state exchanges, strict segregation of federal funds, and additional support for adoption and for pregnant teens.

The agreement was struck despite the opposition of virtually all outside advocacy groups on both sides of the abortion debate.  Setting the stage for conflict down the road, both Congressman Stupak (who authored the abortion restriction in the House) and Congresswoman DeGette (who leads the House pro-choice caucus) have voiced concerns about the Senate language.

Naughty and Niceelf-list
The results of the Insider’s holiday naughty and nice poll are in.

In the naughty category, Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut won by a landslide, easily eclipsing interest group leaders and other political figures. While Lieberman was not unique in his opposition to the inclusion of a public insurance option as part of reform, he angered proponents with his inability to articulate any consistent or fact-based basis for his opposition and perhaps equally for his flip-flop on a proposed Medicare buy-in that was advanced as a possible compromise.  Historically, Lieberman has been a supporter of the Medicare buy-in and appeared unable to give a coherent reason for his last-minute switch.  There was a late surge for Sen. Ben Nelson, but there’s no doubt who Insider readers regard as health reform Public Enemy Number One.

In the nice category, the winner was Hill staffers.  The vote reflects the experience of Insider readers who are mostly health reform advocates and activists.  While Senators and Congressmen get the headlines, a small group of Congressional staffers have worked countless hours to make reform happen.  They are truly the unsung heroes of health reform, and the Insider is happy to give them a shout out for their incredible dedication.

The other leader in the nice category was the late Senator Kennedy.  Though illness and untimely death kept him from exerting as much leadership in the debate as we’d come to expect from him over the years, Insider readers agreed that Kennedy remained the guiding spirit throughout the debate.  Final passage of reform will be an enduring monument to his tireless work over the decades to secure health security for all.

Jon Stewart also polled strongly in the nice category.  There have been many times when we desperately needed laughter at the inanity of the debate, and Stewart has probably done more than anyone else to highlight the frequent absurdities. (His panel discussion on death panels—should they be public or private and available to all or only through the exchange—is one of my personal favorites).  The Insider editor also gives an honorable mention in the nice category to Ezra Klein and Jonathan Cohn, two journalists whose blog coverage of the debate has been consistently excellent.  Hope Hanukah Harry was good to you guys.

The Great “Is it Worth it?” Debate or Two Cheers for Health Reform

A Health Reform Quiz:

Is the PPACA
a)    a great bill
b)    a terrible bill that is little more than a giveaway to private insurers
c)    a terrible bill that is a government takeover of the health care system that will explode the federal debt
d)    a flawed bill that nonetheless does a lot of good and must be passed

Depending on which health care “team” you play for, you’re likely to pick your answer from a-c. Senate Democratic leaders and their loyal supporters among some advocacy groups pick “a” (some of them really think the answer is “d” but aren’t allowed to say so), disappointed activists on the left pick “b”, and the (mostly Republican) opposition and certain special interest groups pick “c”.   But the truth—as best as I can determine it and as honestly as I can answer the question—is “d.”

Why isn’t the right answer “a”?  First and foremost, although the Senate bill does a lot to make coverage and care more affordable, it doesn’t do enough.  A person can drown in six feet of water or 60, and many low- and moderate-income families will still find the premiums and cost-sharing requirements in the Senate bill to be a significant financial burden that could limit their ability to access health care or threaten their ability to afford other necessities. Legislation passed in the House does a much better job of making coverage and care affordable for those most likely to need help.  And while there are many improvements in insurance oversight, there are still some troubling loopholes that could undermine the effectiveness of the new insurance exchanges as a tool for driving down costs and holding insurers accountable.

Finally, due to their inability to agree on adequate financing, the Senate bill takes too leisurely approach to reducing the number of uninsured.  It’s worth noting that when Medicare passed in 1965, benefits started the next year.  When Massachusetts enacted their groundbreaking reform in 2006, a major expansion of coverage was underway within six months.  In the Senate bill, it takes four years for the major coverage provisions to kick in.

Both Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have spoken eloquently about the toll of preventable death, not to mention the financial damage and anxiety caused by our current system.  Yet these problems will continue essentially unchecked for four long years because Senators could not agree on a more robust financing package.  In fairness, some of the responsibility for this slow motion reform must also be laid on the President’s doorstep—a result of his mysterious insistence that the “cost” of reform not exceed $900 billion over 10 years even if fully or more than fully offset with new revenue and savings. Keeping under the $900 billion threshold is part of the reason why it takes reform so long to get going.

Certain corners of  the left claim that the bill is nothing more than a giveaway to insurers or that that the proposed excise tax on high cost health insurance plans is unfair. The first criticism is an exaggeration triggered largely by the disappointment around the public plan. While removal of the public plan is a real loss, basing support for reform on this single issue ignores the substantial good the bill would do (see below). The second criticism also has some merit, but the objection should not be enough to scuttle the bill. Though there’s every reason to think that there are better ways to control health care costs than taxing benefits as an incentive for people to have less comprehensive coverage, the reform proposal is hands down fairer than the status quo, even including the benefit tax.

What about the criticism from the right?  For the most part, it has no more reality to it than the death panels of summer did.

Health care is complicated, health reform is complicated and forecasting the future is far from an exact science.  So it’s possible the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) made mistakes in assessing the impact of the bill on the federal deficit, but it is just as likely that they have underestimated as overestimated the effect.  Despite its limitations, the CBO is the best umpire we have available.  Critics who were all too happy to cite earlier CBO analyses that supported their case look hypocritical now as they reject CBO findings that show that the Senate bill will substantially reduce the federal deficit over time.

And if prohibiting insurers from rejecting people because they have a pre-existing condition or keeping them from ratcheting up premiums to force people who file claims to drop coverage, or creating some transparency and accountability in the industry constitutes a government takeover, then bring it on, I say.  Defense of the status quo is unconscionable.

Why pass reform despite its flaws?  First, as I’ve said, because the bill is simply no where near as bad as its critics on the left and right would have it.  It is imperfect but it does a lot of good, such as elimination of pre-existing condition exclusions, a prohibition on charging people more based on gender or occupation, limits on how much more they can be charged based on age and much more. Here’s our short list of the good stuff.

Not only that, but there will be time and opportunity, as well as the necessity, to correct flaws as we go along.  Consider Medicare Part D.  The program as passed was considered with substantial justification, to be a giveaway to the insurers and drug industry.  It is also overly confusing and inefficient.  Nonetheless it provides important help accessing prescription drugs for millions of Medicare beneficiaries.  Moreover, substantial improvements in the program are being contemplated now as part of reform, and there is no reason to suppose that additional improvements to PPACA cannot be made in the future.  So has it been with Medicare and Medicaid, and so will it be with PPACA.

Like we wrote last week, every victory is partial and impermanent. It must be both defended constantly and built upon.  If the history of health reform teaches us anything, it’s that while incremental progress is possible often, the chances for big change are rare, and we should take them.   If we wait for the perfect, we will wait forever.

Those who want to provide health security for all but who counsel starting over not only undervalue the improvements that reform will make, but also underestimate the difficulty of starting over and the damage that would be done to millions of people in the meantime.  As a rallying cry, “Pass this legislation despite its flaws” may not be that inspiring, but it fits the imperfect world we live in, and captures the imperative before us.

Let’s get this bill passed and then get to work making it better.

–Michael Miller, director of strategic policy

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Health Reform Insider, national health reform | 1 Comment »

The New Nattering Nabobs of Negativity

Thursday, December 17th, 2009

So Howard Dean has joined the ranks of liberals piling on health reform and encouraging lawmakers to toss in the towel. (See Kos and Firedoglake for more reform-flogging from the left.)

Health reform does not succeed or fail by the public option, despite what Dean and others seem to suggest. This is not to say that the public option wasn’t important—at least as it was originally imagined (see Michael’s post here.) But we and others like Jonathan Cohn have pointed out the success of reform ultimately depends on strong subsidies, insurance reform and improvements in care delivery—things that are still in the bill.

Perhaps it’s because they hitched their wagons so closely to the Obama’s Technicolor campaign and the ’08 election that Dean, Kos and Co. feel such betrayal in the real-world policy give and take happening in the final stretch of health care reform.  And I’ll admit, it’s easy to see how eight years under the Bush administration could lead one to believe that everything is a black-white issue.

But that kind of thinking—a rugby-like mentality in which health reform is a game with a scoreboard—fails both the spirit of reform and the work that’s been done.  By dismissing health reform with such invective, Dean, Kos and the choir of liberals singing their tune haven fallen to the very same faulty syllogistic thinking they shun the “teabaggers” for: Giving any ground is akin to surrender and defeat, and the yield of such defeat must therefore be waste.

But it’s not.  It’s important to see how far health reform has come, within a year of an administration for whom reform was nearly always a dirty word. If, under the Bush Administration, we could have gotten any one of the things that are in the reform packages now – federal matching funds for all low-income people, say, or a ban on pre-existing conditions exclusions – the champagne would have flowed on the Left bank.  But now, the public option is out and folks are headed for the hills.

Far from the “so-called reform” Kos rolls his eyes at, the improvements this bill will make are real: Expanded coverage to hundreds of thousands of people who now go uninsured, critical insurance reforms that will protect American families from losing coverage and medical debt, subsidies to help people buy coverage who can’t afford to now, and innovations in the way the systems delivers and assesses care. Yes, it’s flawed. It doesn’t give low-wage workers help and health security fast enough, for instance. But it gets people help, and binning the whole thing and starting over leaves those people stranded.

Health care reform may have been a presidential campaign promise of Obama’s, but it wasn’t by bashing insurers that the candidates won support for health reform – it was because they were offering to help people who desperately need it.  Health care, despite what some of the news networks insist, is not a Democratic or Republican issue. It’s about helping people. It is about starting to mend a really broken system, and beginning to re-imagine how a country takes care of it’s sick and frail. To try things out and see what works. And it’s sure not a panacea. But when was it ever going to be?

All victories are partial. The Voting Rights Act was a victory by any standard, but it didn’t stop racial discrimination in the U.S. – it made way for a succession of other, smaller victories that helped turn back systemic racism. Passing Medicare was a victory – but not all at once. Coverage for the disabled, and the drug benefit, came later, and this bill continues those efforts to make the program work better. Despite the suggestions of these critics, it’s near impossible to get a project as complex and all-encompassing as reform right on the first try. But we need to make a first try, and the Congress recognizes that.

The flaws and compromises in the health reform proposals are not reason to dismiss them but to instead commit to the process of reform and the act of helping people. We should enact the best bill possible, then start working to make it better. Those bent on merely measuring the gap between Perfect Health Reform and what the Congress is working on now are selling their country short.

–Kate Petersen, Health Policy Hub

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in national health reform, prescription drugs | 1 Comment »

Public Option Post-Mortem

Monday, December 14th, 2009

public optionThe Huffington Post declared the public option’s time of death as 11:12 on 12/10/09–the time of a press conference in which Nancy Pelosi signaled her willingness to entertain a bill without the provision.   If that was the technical time of death, what was the cause?

Basically, the fate of the public option has always been bound up with the rules of the Senate and the willingness of the Senate to pursue a path that did not require 60 votes.  While there are 60 votes in the Democratic caucus, several members have staked unalterable opposition to a bill that includes a government-run insurance plan—in any form.

That means that to pass a bill with a public option Democrats had to either go the route of “budget reconciliation,” which requires only a simple majority, or take the “nuclear option” and change the rules of the Senate to bypass a filibuster. (You may remember that Republicans threatened the “nuclear option” when they controlled the Senate and Democrats were blocking a number of Bush nominees to the federal court, but there’s been no real discussion of amending Senate rules to make it possible to pass health care reform.)

While reconciliation remains a technical possibility, and has all along, the clock really ran out on it during health reform’s slow walk through the Senate.  When a bill finally cleared Finance, Majority Leader Reid had, in theory, a last chance to combine the HELP and Finance bills in a way that would move via budget reconciliation.

But major technical challenges, a lengthy process, and the perceived political liabilities to doing reform with a narrower base of political support closed the door on reconciliation, and with it, any real chance that the public option would make it through the process in any recognizable form (notwithstanding the compromise version included in the bill Reid brought to the Senate floor.)

Well before a group of conservative and liberal Democrats started meeting to discuss alternatives, and a bevy of liberal bloggers began to toll its death knells, the public option had been significantly compromised from the original vision.  That vision contained two key elements: Universal availability, and Medicare-based networks, pricing and administration.

Universal availability went first, with the public option restricted to those who would purchase coverage through the exchange.  Medicare-based pricing fell in the House when many members from rural districts opposed using Medicare as basis for payment.

What survived would have had, in the short run, a modest impact on health insurance, an impact that  with potential to grow over time. Without 60 votes in the Senate or an alternative path, the question has always been more when than if it would get removed.

What’s the alternative?
With the public option out, the question remains: What will take its place?  The Senate is remaining very close-mouthed about the details of the negotiated alternative pending a CBO score later this week.

Elements of the alternative appear to include creating a national network of not-for-profit health plans overseen by the Office of Personnel Management (The same office that oversees the federal employee health plan), funding for CHIP through 2015 (instead of the current 2013), stricter regulation of private insurance, e.g. requiring 90 cents of every dollar to be spent on health benefits, and reducing the Medicare eligibility age to allow younger people to buy in, perhaps starting at age 55.  A proposal to also expand Medicaid to 150 percent FPL, as the House bill does, was discussed but rejected.

Several House progressives signaled that they would be prepared to entertain a Medicare expansion as an alternative to the public option, where the idea has long been popular.

But even before the deal has become available for public inspection it has taken fire from hospitals and doctors.  One Dem and an increasingly infamous Independent who negotiated the deal have started backing away from it, leaving its fate very much in doubt.  (Ironically, the only thing that could possibly resurrect the public option is if the conservative Democrats become too intransigent, forcing Senate leadership to reconsider budget reconciliation despite its difficulties.)

The Road, and November baseball
Little time remains to close a deal if the Senate intends, as it says, to complete their work before Santa’s circumnavigation.  Senate rules require a certain amount of time to elapse before the motion to halt debate can be acted on, so unless we see both the public option compromise and the Senate “Manager’s amendment” this week, it’s likely that the Christmas deadline will slip.  Once the Senate does act, there will be enormous pressure to seal a deal with the House, and fast.

There has been a lot of speculation this past week over whether Congress will bypass the conference committee process altogether, instead having the two chambers informally negotiate a small number of amendments that the House would pass and send back to the Senate for concurrence.  Failing that, leadership is seeking a very compressed conference process—Speaker Pelosi has said she thought they could do it in 48 hours.

While the pressure to wrap up is undeniable, the significant gulf between the House and Senate on financing, affordability, abortion, employer responsibility, and access for immigrants will make reaching a quick conclusion difficult.  (See our rundown of the issue gaps in last week’s Insider.)

President Obama wants health reform done before the State of the Union address and he may push the address into February to make that possible. Kind of like November baseball, but less hats.

–Michael Miller, director of strategic policy

photo courtesy of aflcio2008 on flickr

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Health Reform Insider, national health reform | No Comments »

Consumers back amendment to end pharma sweetheart deals

Thursday, December 10th, 2009

A group of 33 major consumer and labor organizations from 14 states are calling on the Senate to take up a cost-savings measure that would help consumers get access to well-tested, fairly priced drugs by banning anti-competitive legal deals between brand-name and generics companies.

The provisions, which Wisconsin Sen. Herb Kohl introduced as Senate Amendment 2862 to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, would prevent brand-name drug companies from paying off generic drug companies, a practice commonly known as “pay-for-delay settlements. These backroom sweetheart deals, to which consumers have no access or recourse, are rigged to allow brand name drug companies to retain longer patent exclusivity, and thus high, anti-competitive pricing – locking many consumers out of access to well-tested, affordable medications.

Among those joining Community Catalyst to support this amendment [read their letter to Senate leadership] are some big hitters in the consumer protection arena:  Consumers Union, PIRG, Public Citizen, and Medicare Rights Center, among others.

–Georgia Maheras, Prescription Access and Quality

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in national health reform, prescription drugs | No Comments »

Dental care for every community

Tuesday, December 8th, 2009

Last week, the New York Times reported on the dire need to improve health care on Native American Tribal Lands. Unfortunately, one of the major components of overall health and the health care system was overlooked as part of the article – oral health and access to dental care.

Today, Native American Indian children and adults are suffering disproportionally because of lack of access to dental care. Untreated dental decay is two to three times higher among Native Americans than in the general population.

For example, at the Pine Ridge Clinic in South Dakota, children ages three and four attending a Head Start program were recently given screening exams by a dentist near the village of Wounded Knee.  Of twenty kids who were screened, 18 of them were found to have severe dental problems that could only be treated in an operating room due to the extent of their dental problems. That means the children had severe decay deep into their teeth that was causing pain, multiple infections and made eating difficult. More than half of each of these children’s teeth were severely decayed because of lack of access to dental professionals and services.

The Indian Health Service dental clinic in Pine Ridge is understaffed, making it impossible to provide care to all the children on the reservation suffering from tooth decay.  In short, if children are able to get to the clinic, which is 17 miles away, dentists are so overwhelmed by the demand to provide more serious treatment that they are unable to provide preventive care or treat cavities or decay.

While a shortage of dental professionals is a major problem throughout the country, it is worse on tribal lands. The Indian Health Service (IHS) has a 34 percent vacancy rate for clinical dentists; in some areas, the vacancy rate is 50 percent. In fact, there is only one dentist per 4000 Indians, compared to one dentist per 1700 in the general population.

Fortunately, Alaska has found a solution to this critical need for dental professionals to serve Native American Indians and the general population, who lack access to quality, affordable dental care. There, the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) has added a dental therapist to the dental team to increase access to care.

Dental therapists are home-grown health professionals who serve their own communities. They fill a critical role in the dental partnership by providing complementary services to those dental hygienists and supporting the work of dentists. For nearly 100 years, dental therapists have been providing cleanings, sealants, fillings, and simple extractions to underserved urban and rural populations in countries with advanced dental care systems similar to the U.S., such as Canada, England, and New Zealand.

Before the program was implemented, some residents had access to dentists who only visited once a year. With the support of philanthropic organizations, dental therapists were trained, first in New Zealand and now by the University of Washington’s Medical School, and have returned to provide critical care to Alaskan natives.  Now, 11 dental therapists are providing care in nine dental shortage areas to more than 7,000 previously underserved Alaska Natives.  By 2012, there will be 32 dental therapists living in and providing culturally competent, high, quality dental care in dental professional shortage areas.

The quality of care offered by the dental therapists is well documented. Research and evidence from other countries where dental therapists have been part of the dental team since the 1920s shows that the preventive and basic dental repair services provided by dental therapists are safe, high quality, acceptable to the public and cost-effective.

Despite the successful use of dental therapists as part of the dental team,  the American Dental Association is trying to prevent dental therapists from joining dental teams on tribal lands in the lower 49. Thursday afternoon, ADA President Ron Tankersley testified that Native American Indian people should not receive care from dental therapists.

With 83 million Americans lacking access to dental care, now more than ever, we need to look at ways to improve the system. Dental therapists can benefit everyone, including dentists because they can provide critically important basic treatments to patients and allow dentists to focus on more serious services and surgeries.  We need to work together to provide all residents with access to quality, affordable, dental care – the dental therapist model is a proven solution for bringing care to every community.

–David Jordan, Dental Access Project director

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Health disparities, dental care, national health reform | 2 Comments »

Harry Reid’s Flying Circus

Monday, December 7th, 2009

Oops! Read the Public Option Post-Mortem and Dec. 14 Health Reform Insider here.

And now for something completely different, Senator McCain proclaims himself a defender of Medicare

The first week of Senate debate has seemed, at times, more like Monty Python satire than serious debate. Like when Sen. John McCain took the Senate floor to decry proposed Medicare savings in the bill. Apparently, McCain forgot his own proposal as a presidential candidate to make much deeper cuts. The Medicare debate highlights the extent to which the reform debate has become much less about health care and much more about partisan positioning. The main purpose of the McCain amendment appears to have been to afford Sen. McCain the opportunity to record a “robo-call” message casting Democratic politically vulnerable Senators as opponents of Medicare.

Perhaps as a sign of the significance Politico attaches to the floor proceedings, the Capitol Hill online news rag’s weekend health reform coverage focused more on President Obama’s meeting with the Democratic caucus and whether Sen. Baucus did something inappropriate by recommending his girlfriend for a job as a U.S. Attorney than on anything happening on the Senate floor.

Health Reform Punching Bag
It’s a good thing Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid is a former boxer. He’s going to need everything he learned in the ring to keep health reform from becoming a giant punching bag for opponents while he works to corral 60 votes. The Republican strategy seems to be to throw everything but the kitchen sink up against health reform and hope some of it sticks.

The Democrats’ counterstrategy is to file and debate their own “message amendments” meant to shape the news coverage and allow members, especially those facing difficult reelection fights, to champion popular causes. Examples include an amendment sponsored by Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) to ensure that there would be no cuts to Medicare benefits (passed 100-0), and an amendment by Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) to cap the tax deductibility of pay for insurance company executives (which fell short of passage by four votes, 56-42).

About those 60 votes
We’ll see a short break from these posturing and “message amendments” today as the Senate tackles abortion, one of the two main issues that appears to be hampering its ability to lock down 60 votes for reform (the other being the public option). Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) has said that he would not support reform legislation unless it included language restricting abortion similar to the language inserted in the House by Michigan Congressman Bart Stupak. But the Senate does not seem likely to approve an amendment that mirrors the House provision.

If Reid loses Nelson’s vote, he will need to rely on the pro-choice but anti-public option Republican Senators from Maine in order to get the 60 votes he needs. In the process, he could possibly pick up the vote of Sen. Lieberman, who has said he would support a filibuster if the public option was included in the Senate bill, but Reid risks losing support from progressives who feel that the “state opt-out” provision in the Reid bill is already too weak. A new public option proposal could emerge from negotiations between liberal supporters, conservative opponents and the White House sometime this week.

Two issues that divide the Democratic caucus but are not likely to get resolved in the Manager’s Amendment are: How far to push the drug industry for savings, and how best to structure health coverage for children.

On the drug issue, many Democrats believe that the deal Senate Finance Chair Max Baucus and the White House struck with PhRMA lets the industry off too easily. They want to wring additional savings from the drug companies and use the money to close the Medicare Part D “donut hole.” Other Democrats fear, though, that if they push the drug industry too hard, the major investment the industry has been making in supporting reform will flip to opposition and could sink the bill. Even if the Senate decides to continue the kid-glove treatment for the drug companies, they will have to wrestle with the issue again because the House takes a more aggressive approach.

The children’s issue mirrors the long-running debate on affordability in that it is not so much about principle as about cash. Both Senators Casey and Rockefeller plan to file amendments aimed at making sure that kids don’t lose benefits they have now. While the Senate supports enhancing coverage for children, the amendments have not yet been scored by CBO, and it is unclear if they are budget neutral or will require an additional revenue source.

As soon as Reid gets 60 votes worth of support on these two issues, watch for a rapid increase in the pace of Senate debate, with many of the Senate Democrats’ main concerns getting wrapped into a final Manager’s Amendment.

Assuming all goes according to plan…
The Senate will conclude their debate prior to Christmas, leaving the House, Senate and White House to work through the many differences in the respective versions. Here are the key ones to watch:

Financing
The House relies largely on progressive income taxes to finance health reform, while the Senate proposal taxes health benefits. Interestingly, this chasm may be the hardest one to bridge, though it hasn’t attracted nearly the press coverage of other tough issues.

Affordability
The House does much better for low-income people, while the Senate, at least on premiums, does better for moderate-income folks—though in general, the House provides better benefits. The obvious solution is to take the best of both worlds, but the challenge goes back to the financing debate: Where will the money come from?

Exchanges and Insurance Regulation
In most ways, the House bill establishes tighter oversight and more consumer-friendly regulation of the insurance industry, including less scope for discrimination against older subscribers, or opportunities for the back-door reintroduction of the practice of charging people more when they are sick. The House also gives the exchange more power to negotiate with insurers and exclude plans from the exchange if they do not offer good value.

Abortion
As of this writing, we don’t know the outcome of the Senate debate, but odds are against the Senate adopting the House language. The question for conferees is whether there is anything in the middle that both sides can live with.

Public Option
After the Senate gets through wrangling over the public option, members will have to take the matter up again in the House, where support for a public plan runs much deeper. A number of  progressive members of Congress are on record saying they won’t vote for a bill without a public option, and advocates are working to hold them to their word.

Employer Responsibility
The House includes a “pay or play” provision, while the Senate charges employers penalties only if their employees actually access subsidized coverage.

Undocumented immigrants
Though relatively few undocumented immigrants could actually afford to pay the full cost of an insurance policy, the Senate bill prohibits them from buying insurance through the exchange, even with their own funds. During the House debate, members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus told Speaker Pelosi that they would not vote for a bill that contained such a restriction. If the same holds true for a conference report, the Senate may have to back down.

–Michael Miller, director of strategic policy

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Health Reform Insider, national health reform | 2 Comments »