Reform Debate Drives Question of Minimum Benefits

Reform Debate Drives Question of Minimum Benefits

Cost has played a central role in the debate over health care reform, but much less has been made of fundamental questions over what level of benefits should be available. Is it better to provide a more generous benefits package, even if it means more people will be left without coverage?

Because the money available for health care in the United States is not boundless, decisions must be made. 

Who should be eligible for subsidies for health insurance from the federal government? 

If there’s a minimum level of benefits people can agree U.S. residents should have access to, what is it?

As members of Congress, White House negotiators and other stakeholders work through their differences on health care overhaul proposals, they’re going head to head over these very questions, just as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) is asking California lawmakers to tackle some of the same questions in the state budget.

California stands as an example of a state that used boom-time revenue to expand access to a number of health care programs and cover more and more services under Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program.  But now that the boom has ended, lawmakers have had to return to more modest levels of coverage, and even deeper cuts are looming on the horizon. 

A New England Journal of Medicine perspective tackles this issue head on, using a scenario that envisions a fixed health care budget of $180 billion annually to force the question: Is it better to provide more generous benefits to a smaller number of people? 

Under a scenario laid out by a team of Harvard researchers, policymakers could use that $180 billion to provide a policy with $6,000 in annual premiums to 30 million people, or they could dial back the benefits and provide a $3,500 policy to 50 million people.

The perspective’s authors assert that members of Congress are going to have to answer this question in the not-too-distant future, explaining, “There is only 100% of gross domestic product to go around.”

The authors write, “Some might call this rationing, but the reality is that millions of Americans now have no access to lifesaving medical technologies at the same time that the public resources are being devoted to covering less-effective therapies for less-serious conditions,” concluding, “We find that sort of rationing hard to justify.”

In 2003, President George W. Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress to some extent tried to shift the decision-making power from legislators and policymakers to individuals.  The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 created health care savings accounts, which let individuals contribute as much as $2,600 and families up to $5,150 for HSAs each year free of federal income tax.  In conjunction with a high-deductible health plan, supporters said that HSAs would help control rising health care costs and increase efficiency in the health care system by giving consumers a more direct connection to the cost of health care services.

Critics of HSAs asserted that they let healthy, higher-income people opt out of the traditional insurance market, removing a key element of the risk pool.

President Bush’s push to expand HSAs didn’t gain traction in 2006, and now current health care reform proposals aim to dial back the federal tax benefits for HSAs.  Under both the Senate and House bills, spending on over-the-counter medications would no longer be considered a qualified expense for HSAs and other consumer-driven health care services, a move the Congressional Budget Office projects would generate $5 billion from 2011 to 2019 to help cover the cost of the proposed coverage expansion. In addition, CBO projects that increased penalties for nonqualified distributions from HSAs would yield another $1.3 billion over the same period.

More news on the Obama administration’s efforts to rally support for health care reform proposals and details on Republican efforts against the legislation appear below.

Administration News

What’s in the Bill

Cost Estimates

Timeline

Republican Opposition

Shaping the Debate

 

 

 

 

 

Exit mobile version