The new (final) House bill, H.R. 3962, has a weak public option, meaning it negotiates rates (proponents call it the "level playing field" public option). What does the CBO say the effect of having negotiated reimbursement rates will be?
That estimate of enrollment reflects CBO’s assessment that a public plan paying negotiated rates would attract a broad network of providers but would typically have premiums that are somewhat higher than the average premiums for the private plans in the exchanges. The rates the public plan pays to providers would, on average, probably be comparable to the rates paid by private insurers participating in the exchanges.
So...too bad. This could've been better.
Excuse the lack of knowledge regarding what is in the health care bill, but if the premiums aren't any cheaper then will there really be anything different other than the fact that everyone has to have insurance?
ReplyDeleteTo me that sounds like setting the system up to fail: how are they going to get an insurance pool if no one in the middle or upper classes has any reason to buy into it?
Well, the original idea behind the public option was that it would be cheaper than private insurance and thus would put pressure on private insurance companies to hold down their rising premiums. Since this weaker version of the public option won't do that, it's sort of a metaphor for the entire reform plan: it's not really that great but it's palatable because it's the first step in a new direction.
ReplyDeleteSo having this public option is better than nothing, if only because one can hope that eventually this will morph into something better. But that's the next battle: reforming these reforms.
There are two blog posts that came out after I posted this that might interest you:
Is a Public Option With Negotiated Rates Worthless? from OpenCongress
and
Will the public plan have higher premiums than private insurance? from Ezra Klein
Of course, there's danger in creating something that ultimately has to be fixed at some later time. The public option could conceivably fail, erasing the first step in the reform process. So it's a gamble. But that's always been the danger in compromising too much on a reform agenda. There's always the chance you end up with something that doesn't ruffle too many feathers but also can't actually work.
Like I said, this is disappointing.