HMO REGULATION: FAILURE OF INITIATIVES MAY FORECAST FUTURE
The "decisive defeat" Tuesday of ballot initiatives thatThis is part of the California Healthline Daily Edition, a summary of health policy coverage from major news organizations. Sign up for an email subscription.
would have regulated HMOs in California "is unlikely to quell a
torrent of state and federal legislative reform efforts that are
being fed by growing public anxiety about managed care,"
according to health policy experts. LOS ANGELES TIMES reports,
however, that opponents of California's two patients' rights
measures -- Propositions 214 and 216 -- said the election outcome
"signals the public's satisfaction with managed care and a
rejection of further government intrusion into health care."
Myra Snyder, president of the state's largest HMO trade group,
said, "Californians know that they receive the best health care
in the world." She added that they "do not want government
programs that result in higher costs or additional burdens on
taxpayers."
TEST FAILURE: TIMES reports that the California measures
were "widely seen as a litmus test of public sentiment about
managed care in" the state with the most HMO members -- 13
million -- in the country. Voters in Oregon also "sided with
HMOs" Tuesday, rejecting an initiative that would have banned
capitated payments to providers. But supporters of the two
California measures vow to "be back next year," and health care
experts "said the defeats in California and Oregon will not
curtail efforts by doctors, unions and legislators to seek new
restrictions on HMO practices" (Olmos, 11/7).
IMPRESSIVE DEFEAT?: SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE reports that
those who backed the measures "that would have shaken up
California's powerful HMO industry were counting on a wave of
consumer outrage to sweep them to victory," but "[i]t never
materialized." However, compared to the "crushing defeat" dealt
two years ago to Proposition 186, which would have established a
single-payer health care system in the state, "the performance of
both of these initiatives was impressive," CHRONICLE reports.
Beth Capell, campaign manager for Proposition 214, said, "I'm
damn pleased. I'm not complaining. Frankly, I'm thrilled."
However, CHRONICLE reports, "the cold fact remains that the
attempt to rein in HMOs has joined a growing scrap heap of failed
attempts to change the health care system through the initiative
process."
MORE TO COME: Duane Dauner, president of the California
Healthcare Association, said that while voters rejected
government solutions, they have "legitimate concerns over cost,
quality and access" to health care. "There's work to do in
health reform. We believe that the proper place to do that is in
the Legislature" (Russell, 11/7). Drew Altman, president of the
Kaiser Family Foundation, based in Menlo Park, CA, said, "I think
there is great public angst about managed care and health
insurance, and I don't think the votes on 214 and 216 should be
viewed as a referendum for or against managed care of the health
care delivery system." He added that despite extensive
advertising, polls showed that voters were unfamiliar with the
measures two weeks before the elections (LOS ANGELES TIMES,
11/7).
PRO-BUSINESS NATION: NEW YORK TIMES reports that while the
race for the White House and the battle to control Congress were
paramount in Tuesday's elections, "what stood out for corporate
America was the defeat of a host of state ballot initiatives that
were designed to circumscribe the ability of business to operate
freely." NEW YORK TIMES reports that because of California and
Oregon voters' rejection of the managed care ballot initiatives,
HMOs "emerged from the fray still largely free to set their own
rules." NEW YORK TIMES adds that these moves contribute to the
suggestion that "the on-again, off-again flirtation of Americans
with antibusiness causes is off again" (Passell, 11/7).