California Offers Examples of Public Plans in House Hearings

California Offers Examples of Public Plans in House Hearings

Officials for two different types of Medi-Cal managed care plans appeared before a House committee last week in support of including a public plan in health care reform legislation, while a representative of the Pacific Business Group on Health raised businesses' concerns about such a plan.

One of the central issues in the health care reform debate is whether to include a government-run health plan in overhaul legislation, and a number of officials for California groups weighed in on the question when they testified in House hearings last week.

Speaking before the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee, Robert Freeman — executive director of CenCal Health in Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties and an administrative committee member of the California Association of Health Insuring Organizations — and Howard Kahn, CEO of the public L.A. Care Health Plan, said that California’s experience with public plans offers an example that members of Congress should consider as they work on health care reform legislation.

Kahn, who addressed the committee on Thursday, said that L.A. Care has not required a government bailout or special subsidy in its 12-year history of administering benefits for beneficiaries of Medi-Cal, California’ Medicaid program. 

According to Kahn, L.A. Care competes against Health Net in Los Angeles County and currently has 64% of the Medi-Cal managed care market share in the county. He said that seven other public health plans in nine California counties compete directly with a private plan in the Medi-Cal managed care market and that 2.5 million beneficiaries receive services through public plans in these so-called Two-Plan Model counties.

Another public plan model in California is the county-organized health system.  Testifying a day before Kahn, Freeman said that COHS plans in California administer benefits for more beneficiaries than Medicaid programs in 25 other states.

Both Kahn and Freeman asserted that public plans are more transparent and do more to strengthen the health care safety net than private insurers.  However, Peter Lee of the Pacific Business Group on Health voiced large employers’ concerns that a national public plan could lead to cost-shifting and exacerbate existing gaps in payments to health care providers from public programs and private health care purchasers.

Testifying before the House Ways and Means Committee on Wednesday, Lee, executive director for national health policy at PBGH, said businesses are concerned about a public option because of the possibility that reimbursement rates would be artificially low.  Lee asserted that Medicare and Medicaid payments are so low that they prompt health care providers to raise prices for private purchasers. 

Lee called on lawmakers to use reform legislation to address the payment gap and reduce incentives to provide more health care services that are related to the fee-for service model.

Whether reform legislation includes a public plan will depend largely on the vote tallies.  So far, most Republicans are lined up against a public plan, but Democrats haven’t taken it off the table.  President Obama has spoken in favor of a public plan but hasn’t said whether he’d sign reform legislation that didn’t include one.

Congress is in recess this week and will be back in session on Monday.  In the meantime, here’s a rundown on other House testimony, action in the Senate, efforts to shape the debate and other health care reform news.

House Hearings

Senate Action

Timeline

What It’s Going To Cost

Administration Message

Influencing the Debate

Exit mobile version