The Wrong Reaction To The Right Action
Today, leaders from hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, health insurers, medical device makers, physicians and organized labor met with President Obama and pledged to cut the health spending growth rate by 1.5 percent, an action that will save $2 trillion over the next 10 years.
This is a pivotal moment in the drive toward reforming our healthcare system, with the participating associations giving their commitment to pursue measures that many industry leaders have been espousing adherence to evidence-based practices and therapies, aligning payments with quality and cost-effectiveness, reaping the benefits of health information technology.
It’s disappointing that the sight of industry leaders joining with the President in supporting this important progress would bring cynics out of the woodwork. Already, in Mondays New York Times, columnist Paul Krugman, while generally praising todays events, engaged in some misguided conjecture. (besides making the mistake other pundits have made in mischaracterizing the Medicare prescription drug benefit as having locked in huge overpayments to private insurers, continuing to ignore the fact that the program continues to cost significantly less than government estimates, or that the Congressional Budget Office has stated quite clearly that government could not do a better job of negotiating prices than private plans.)
Mr. Krugman wrote, (Health insurers) will surely try to use the good will created by its stance on cost control to kill an important part of health reform: giving Americans the choice of buying into a public insurance plan as an alternative to private insurers.
That sentence makes it seem as if there is some nefarious scheme at work here. To the contrary, America’s Health Insurance Plans and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (as well as Healthcare Leadership Council members) have been quite open in advocating guaranteed coverage for all Americans with no price discrimination based on pre-existing health conditions, combined with an individual mandate, as a preferable alternative to a government-run health insurance plan.
And, while were on the topic, what is the best environment in which to achieve the savings that were discussed at the White House today? Will those changes occur if tens of millions of Americans are shifted into government health coverage, in which innovative changes are dependent upon legislation or lengthy regulatory processes? Improved practices, technologies and coverage policies have almost always originated in the private sector. That’s an important point to keep in mind as we seek to achieve todays promised $2 trillion in savings.
