Harold Pollack is a professor at the University of Chicago School of Social Service Administration and Special Correspondent for The Treatment.
At the 11:57th hour, Republicans are set to announce their own health plan, as Jonathan notes below. According to the Wall Street Journal
Mr. Boehner said the Republican bill would also propose grants for states that use "innovative" solutions to expand coverage. He pointed to states that have created special "high-risk pools" to provide insurance to individuals with pre-existing conditions.
He said the bill wouldn't raise taxes, nor mandate that individuals and businesses purchase insurance, as the Democratic legislation does.
Not long ago, I interviewed Kathy Swartz, who noted the very serious problems of state high-risk pools. Back in August, the General Accountability Office issued its own blunt critique of these programs. About 200,000 Americans are now covered in such HRPs. These men and women have an average household income of only $41,000. They pay higher premiums than private insurers typically charge healthy individuals. They face average deductibles exceeding $1,500 and lifetime expenditure caps. People dealing with serious illnesses must endure painful waiting periods before they can enroll.
These programs aren’t cheap, either. HRPs expended about $1.9 billion in claims last year, about $9,400 per person enrolled. The GAO estimates that another four million Americans would be eligible because they are uninsured and experience costly health problems. This is just a nonstarter
Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.
COMMENTS (3)
I think that the Republicans have made a strategic blunder here. By putting forth such a ridiculous and inconsequential they may be setting themselves to be seen for what they really are. Ineffectuall partisan obstructionists. I look foward to the CBO scoring of this bill.
I think that the Republicans have made a strategic blunder here. By putting forth such a ridiculous and inconsequential they may be setting themselves to be seen for what they really are. Ineffectuall partisan obstructionists. I look foward to the CBO scoring of this bill.
I think that the Republicans have made a strategic blunder here. By putting forth such a ridiculous and inconsequential they may be setting themselves to be seen for what they really are. Ineffectuall partisan obstructionists. I look foward to the CBO scoring of this bill.
I think that the Republicans have made a strategic blunder here. By putting forth such a ridiculous and inconsequential they may be setting themselves to be seen for what they really are. Ineffectuall partisan obstructionists. I look foward to the CBO scoring of this bill.
I wanted to comment on the earlier piece on the Republican narrative, but could not access the "comment box" for some reason.
The Republicans want consumers to carry a larger burden of the costs of treatment, to have more "skin in the game." [That expression always makes me imagine a flayed arm.] McConnell, Boehner et al think that higher co-pays, co-insurance and deductibles will make us more economically prudent as we "select" medical treatment. When was the last time anyone shopped around for heart surgery--or for treatment for a child's brain tumor? If there is time, we may "shop" for a physician with a good reputation but not for a cheaper procedure.
I am also very concerned about the " ... view full comment
I wanted to comment on the earlier piece on the Republican narrative, but could not access the "comment box" for some reason.
The Republicans want consumers to carry a larger burden of the costs of treatment, to have more "skin in the game." [That expression always makes me imagine a flayed arm.] McConnell, Boehner et al think that higher co-pays, co-insurance and deductibles will make us more economically prudent as we "select" medical treatment. When was the last time anyone shopped around for heart surgery--or for treatment for a child's brain tumor? If there is time, we may "shop" for a physician with a good reputation but not for a cheaper procedure.
I am also very concerned about the "actuarial" breakdown of cost-sharing as mentioned by the CBO analysts during the Finance Committee markup. We hear of 80/20 going to 65/35 with the insurer covering the higher percentage. I hope Jonathan will give us more on this.
Who, for example, can afford to pay 35 percent of today's treatment costs for major surgery?