Comprehensive Enrollment and Cost Estimates for the Biden Health Plan, the Buttigieg Health Plan, the Warren Health Plan, and the Sanders Health Plan

In this hyper-partisan environment, I can't think of an organization that better fits the definition of bipartisan than the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Their mission is to keep the federal budget process honest and responsible. 

Its current board members include a veritable who's who of Washington, DC adults; Mitch Daniels, Leon Panetta, Tim Penny, Erskine Bowles, Kent Conrad, Vic Fazio, and Bill Gradison.

The Committee has just released a comprehensive evaluation of the leading Democratic candidates' health care plans.

It is required reading for any serious health policy wonk. Disbelieve their work at your own peril.

Greed Outranks Compromise in Congressional Attempts to Fix Surprise Medical Bills

There are few things in our health care system that are more unfair than surprise medical bills. Consumers think they have good coverage and are getting treatment in their health plan network only to get a huge unexpected bill in the mail because it turned out that something like the anesthesiologist at their recent surgery wasn't covered.

How were they to know that? As you're sitting on the gurney about to be rolled into surgery do you need to do a provider roll call asking each to confirm their network status?

The worst of these examples often has to be with air ambulances sending patients bills for tens of thousands of dollars they had no reason to expect. As the patient lays there with burns over 60% of their body and they need to be transferred to the regional burn center, are they supposed to say, "Before you put me on the helicopter, what is this going to cost?

Now, every politician I know of says that all of this needs to end.

But, they are yet to end it.

"If You Like Your Doctor You Will Be Able to Keep Your Doctor. Period"

I think you can guess who said that.

Actually, here is what the President said at the American Medical Association Meeting in July, 2009––and likely lots more times:

"No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, your will keep your health plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what. My view is that health care reform should be guided by a simple principle: fix what's broken and build on what works."

We have all heard this repeated many times before in recent weeks. But with the front-page story in the Washington Post this morning, "Health Insurers Limit Choices to Keep Costs Down," it's as if somebody rang a new bell this time focused on the "you will keep your doctor" part.

"ObamaCare" Small Ball––The Republicans Are Winning the Battle Over the Big Idea

Last week the President waded directly into the national debate over "ObamaCare" by calling a big media event in the East Room of the White House to talk about the $100 rebates a small percentage of potentially eligible people are getting under the new health law.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell countered, "If you’re a family in Covington facing a $2,100 premium increase under ObamaCare, then, really, what would you rather have: a check for $100 or so, or a way to avoid the $2,100 premium increase in the first place?”

NPR's Julie Rovner had a story on Friday––"White House Muddles Obamacare Messaging Again"––that caught my eye.

She drew a distinction between how the administration has been going about unsuccessfully selling the new health law and the way the Republicans have been more successfully attacking it:

Will the Affordable Care Act's Health Insurance Exchanges Be Ready On Time? The Obama Administration's Top Secret Enterprise

Last week, I received my weekly email update from the Maryland health insurance exchange:

The 2012 Elections and 2013––We Face a Daunting To-Do List

The Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") is now settled law.
It will be implemented. It will also have to be changed but not until after it is implemented and the required changes become obvious and unavoidable. We can all debate what those things will be (cost containment is on top of my list) but it doesn't matter what we think will happen––time will tell. 

There are and will be more lawsuits.
I wouldn't waste a lot of time worrying about those. Anyone in the market will do better spending their time getting ready for all of the change coming.

But, when will the Affordable Care Act (ACA) be implemented?
So far, only about 15 states say they want to implement health insurance exchanges. Some of those may not make the October 1, 2013 kick-off date.

Maybe now that it is clear the law will go forward, some of the conservative states who have said they would not build one will get into high gear rather than have the Obama administration do it for them. But they may not have enough time to be ready in less than eleven months.

The Wyden-Ryan Plan Will Be the Foundation for Serious Medicare Reform—and Maybe More

In two companion articles in January’s New England Journal of Medicine, Henry Aaron with Austin Frakt, and Joe Antos critique the Wyden-Ryan Medicare reform proposal.

Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) are proposing a hybrid Medicare reform proposal combing both Republican defined contribution free market principles—a premium support scheme—with Democratic defined benefit principles—a baseline guaranteed plan and premium support.

In, “Now is Not the Time for Premium Support,” Aaron and Frakt argue that there is a market history of Medicare experimentation that hasn’t accomplished much and that a premium support scheme could well leave beneficiaries the victims of cost shifting:

Advocates of premium support claim that Medicare Part D, which has a premium-support structure, shows that competition holds down spending and that beneficiaries make wise choices. Their claims are unjustified. Although Part D drug spending per enrollee is lower than was initially forecast, non-Medicare drug spending is even further below past projections. Furthermore, enrollees have, on average, chosen plans that exposed them to greater financial risk than the best options available to them. Most important, because Part D has no public option, it cannot provide evidence on whether private plans are better or worse than a government plan would be.

So, although it's true that Medicare is a key driver of long-term federal spending, we don't believe that recently proposed premium-support reforms are the solution. They lack safeguards for beneficiaries. They threaten to shift costs to the elderly and disabled and force them to shop for coverage in a confusing insurance market. And the ability to run health exchanges for the Medicare population is currently in doubt.

Even the more pro-market Antos, in an article titled, “The Wyden-Ryan Proposal--A Foundation for Realistic Medicare Reform,” offers only limited praise for the plan:

Ryan and Wyden hint at the need for commonsense reforms to traditional Medicare, including a new structure of deductibles and copayments, a cap on catastrophic costs, and a new physician-payment system. They skirt the central problem: a disorganized fee-for-service system and top-down limits on prices paid for services drive the use of more, and more complicated, services. The program's survival depends on our willingness to make substantial changes over the next few years — before the major reform is implemented — so that traditional Medicare can provide cost-effective care without draining the Treasury.

The current proposal also offers a more politically palatable fiscal target at the cost of achieving fewer “scoreable” savings. Under Ryan's earlier proposal, the federal subsidy would grow only with general inflation (1.5% in 2012, according to the CBO) instead of the more generous target of GDP plus 1% (a rate projected to total 4.8% in 2012). Not coincidentally, that is the same fiscal target established for the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) under the ACA.

A 3.3-percentage-point difference in fiscal targets translates to a 1-year increase in program spending of about $20 billion, or about $300 billion over 10 years. Adopting the weaker target means a substantial loss of budget savings, but only if Congress would actually enforce the stricter limits. That may be unlikely given recent history. Over the past 8 years, Congress has overridden even relatively small reductions in physician payments called for by the sustainable growth rate formula. Clearly, a favorable score from the CBO does not guarantee lower program spending.

But then Antos suggests Wyden-Ryan could be the basis of real reform:

Given the serious fiscal problems facing this country, slowing the growth of Medicare spending is no longer optional. The only question is how to do it. The Wyden–Ryan proposal outlines a strategy for Medicare reform that harnesses market forces to control costs. It provides a real alternative to the top-down controls favored in the ACA. Paul Ryan and Ron Wyden have defined the policy parameters that could be the basis for real Medicare reform in 2013.

I will suggest that the last point is key.

Wyden-Ryan is now little more than a policy outline. It does fall short on real reform because it offers only a bare outline for how it will contain costs—there will be a still undefined fallback mechanism if costs exceed targets.

But what Wyden-Ryan does do is offer a political roadmap for how we could well see Medicare reform addressed after the election—particularly if Republicans gain control of the Congress.

Any successful reform has to achieve two things:

1. It has to be politically feasible in the first place.
2. Then it has to work—in this case it has to control costs and provide quality health care.

What Wyden and Ryan have given us is a very well developed political strategy for reform and only the outline for policy reform.

As I said in an earlier blog post:

What is elegant about the Wyden-Ryan compromise is that they have proposed a hybrid plan—it contains significant elements of both a Republican defined contribution and a Democratic defined benefit approach.

Republicans get an affordable cap on what the federal government would spend on Medicare—that growth would be no more than GDP+1%—and they would get a program built on a free market platform where consumers would have the incentive to maximize their premium support by shopping for the plan that best met their needs.

Democrats would get a plan that still contained the traditional government-run Medicare plan as one of the options and they would have a plan where all seniors were guaranteed a federal premium support level good enough to buy at least the two lowest cost Medicare plans available in their community—albeit maybe not the traditional Medicare option.

If there was ever a place for Republicans and Democrats to compromise on Medicare reform this is it. It is an elegant compromise—a hybrid—of both defined benefit and defined contribution principles.

Sooner or later all of this partisan bickering has to end. A Republican sweep in the November elections would do it. Wyden-Ryan would be on top of the health care agenda if that happened.

Even if we faced a divided government in 2013, the imperative for entitlement reform makes addressing Medicare costs unavoidable. In that case a basis for ideological compromise will be necessary. Wyden-Ryan presents that opportunity.

It will be the next part of the plan that is still too vaguely defined—how costs would be controlled and beneficiaries therefore protected—that Wyden and Ryan must address. Both Antos and Aaron/Frakt are right in pointing that out.

How will we achieve the needed “scoreable” savings a future Congress can’t easily override and do it in a way that will be politically palatable in the first place? That is the big question. Wyden-Ryan is just an empty political box without answering that.

But do not underestimate how important this first bipartisan step is that Ron Wyden and Paul Ryan have taken. Unless the Democrats sweep the November elections, this is what the next debate will revolve around.

In fact, one can foresee this same bipartisan political formula as a means to eventually deal with the under-age-65 health insurance market. Remember Wyden-Bennett? Could there be another under-65 version of Wyden-Ryan?

2012: A Year of Huge Uncertainty in Health Care Policy

2013 may be the most significant year in health care policy ever.

But we have to get through 2012 first.

Once the 2012 election results are in there will be the very real opportunity to address a long list of health care issues.

If Republicans win, the top of the list will include “repealing and replacing” the Affordable Care Act. If Obama is reelected, but Republicans capture both houses of Congress, we can still expect a serious effort to change the law. Then there is the granddaddy of all problems, the federal debt. The 2012 elections could well prepare the way for entitlement reform—particularly for Medicare and Medicaid. Even if Obama is reelected, the 2013 agenda will include a serious debate about Republican ideas to change Medicare into a premium support system and block grant Medicaid to the states.

If the election is a draw with neither side able to unilaterally move their agenda—likely in the form of Obama still in the White House but facing a Republican Congress, the pressure to deal with the growing costs of Medicare and Medicaid as well as nagging concerns about the implementation of the Affordable Care Act will create an imperative for action in 2013.

That first year after a presidential election is the time when things can get done. After a long and drawn out campaign, that is the year that everyone expects action. With 2014 being another election-year and 2015 and 2016 years in the run-up to another four-year presidential election cycle, passing big legislation only becomes more difficult as time goes on.

What does this mean for 2012? Look for most health care action to be out on the campaign trail as both sides try to achieve a mandate to act in 2013.

That doesn’t mean 2012 won’t be short on drama.

The big show will be up at the Supreme Court starting in late March. Will the Supremes uphold the whole Affordable Care Act, tell everyone to come back in 2014 when someone is actually harmed by the individual mandate (citing the Anti-Injunction Act), throw the individual mandate out and send the law back to lower courts for a many months process deciding what else has to go, toss the Medicaid expansion, or some combination of all of the above?

About the only certain judicial path over whether and how the Affordable Care Act would be implemented is for the Court to uphold the whole thing. The alternatives could be any number of combinations that would present the market with a nothing short of an implementation nightmare.

Can you even imagine the run-up to full implementation on January 1, 2014 if President Obama were to be reelected, the Republicans were to capture both houses of Congress, and the Court overturned the individual mandate and any number of related items? The law would have to be fixed. A Republican Congress would want to “fix” it one way and Obama would be determined not to see the Affordable Care Act gutted, with neither side able to unilaterally advance a solution.

Or, we could have a majority of Republicans in the Congress, and a Republican President in the White House, that would certainly kill at least the budget related parts of the bill before Valentine’s Day 2013 no matter what the Court said—it would take 60 votes in the Senate to get rid of all of the law. That would leave a market that had already implemented the first elements of the law and was almost ready to implement the rest of a long list of huge new changes that would have just evaporated but still leaving some of the law's items dangling if the two sides couldn't find a way to work together.

Or, the Court could throw out the individual mandate and the related insurance elements of the new law with a Republican Congress and President eager to throw out the rest of it, needing only 51 Senate votes to get virtually all that was left.

Will the Supreme Court throw a wrench into the Affordable Care Act? I have no idea and I don’t see any evidence anyone else does either. The chances they could throw out the mandate and other key parts of the law look to be about as good as their upholding the whole thing or citing the Anti-Injunction Act in telling everyone to come back in 2014. Don’t underestimate the Court’s interest in not fiddling with the Anti-Injunction Act any more or less than any other part of the law they are going to review.

The first half of 2012 will be the quiet before the potential storm as we await the Supreme Court’s decisions.

If they uphold the law we will need to await the election. With Republicans poised to hold the House and capture the Senate, the real question looks to be whether President Obama will be reelected and therefore able to defend the Affordable Care Act with his veto pen.

If the Court throws out key moving parts in the law, the only way to avoid real market problems will be for the 2013 Congress and President to work together.

If this spring the Court cites the Anti-Injunction Act and tells both sides to come back in 2014, we will just have more uncertainty with nothing decided and the same Constitutional issues still festering.

And, then there are the still growing federal debt and the Medicare and Medicaid entitlement issues to be decided. The 2012 elections are setting up to be a referendum over Republican proposals to limit federal entitlement liabilities by implementing a Medicare premium support system as well as shifting responsibility for Medicaid to the states via block grants versus Democrats who will defend the traditional structure of these entitlements.

What will 2012 give us in 2013?

The Ryan Health Care Proposals—Not Your Congressman’s Health Plan

Update: The New Wyden-Ryan Plan - Paul Ryan and Ron Wyden Blow the Medicare Reform Debate Wide Open!

In a speech at the Hoover Institution today, Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) argued again that his proposal to reform Medicare, and now his tax credit proposal for replacing the Democratic health care law for those under-age 65, would guarantee to citizens “options like the ones members of Congress enjoy.”

His proposals would not give people the guarantees members of Congress, and all other federal employees for that matter, now enjoy.

This is not a small point.

Previously on this blog, I have argued that many of the defined contribution reform proposals, Ryan’s included, should be faulted for putting all of the future risk of health care costs on beneficiaries.

Ryan’s Medicare plan would create a premium support system for seniors. The premium support amount would increase each year by the rate of basic inflation, even though health care costs have historically increased much faster. Seniors would then take this premium support payment to the market and buy their own private health insurance policy. Another recent Medicare reform proposal by the health care industry would increase a similar health care premium support payment each year by the rate of increase in the gross domestic product (GDP) +1%.

In both cases, neither insurers nor health care providers would have any of the risk, and therefore responsibility, for keeping costs under control. The entire burden for the adequacy of these premium support payments would be with the beneficiary. If health care costs rose faster than these premium supports, tied to these indexes that have always trailed health care inflation, too bad for the beneficiary. Any excess cost is borne by the individual.

Ryan and his colleagues would argue that this is just what we need to create—a market so robust we can finally begin to control costs. Beneficiaries struggling to make their health care dollars stretch would seek out those health insurance plans that really did control costs. From his speech at the Hoover Institution today:

“The growth of these [health care] defined contributions should be capped, to reduce the inefficiencies that have led health-care costs to spiral out of control.”

As I have said before, after more than 20 years of defined contribution health insurance experience in the market there is no evidence this will occur. The Ryan school of health care thought argues that, “By putting the power into the hands of individuals, we can let competition work in health care just as it does everywhere else.”

I am continually amazed at those who argue the health care market can work, as Ryan put it today, “as it does everywhere else.” They are right that the health care system is too much driven by third-party pay and its beneficiaries have historically had too little incentive to be prudent buyers. But the health care market is also a one driven by complex science, major and legitimate philosophical differences about treatment choices, and enormous supply-side powers.

In short, grandma, or you or me for that matter, is no match for the American health care system.

That aside, Ryan is wrong when he says his plan is just like the plan members of Congress have. These schemes to cap health care premium support are fundamentally different from the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan (FEHBP) that members of Congress enjoy.

From the federal employee handbook:

“The [federal employee health insurance] premiums for your enrollment are shared by you and your Federal agency or retirement system. The government pays the lesser of: 72% of the average total premium of all plans weighted by the number of enrollees in each, or 75% of the premium for the specific plan you choose.”

So, the federal government guarantees to Congressman Ryan, all of his Congressional colleagues, and all federal employees, that it will pay for at least 72% of the average cost of the health plans offered to and selected by federal workers—no matter how much the cost of the program rises over the years.

Ryan’s proposal would make no such guarantee.

I am not arguing that the federal government must guarantee that everyone should have 72% of his or her health care costs underwritten by the federal government year after year—or by anyone else for that matter. Nor am I arguing that defined contribution health care should not be part of any solution.

What I have consistently argued on this blog is that everyone—individuals, health care providers, and insurers—must all have some skin in the game in order for us to have the systemic change needed to finally reform our health care system.

The problem I have with the Ryan plan, and those plans similar to his, is that they give beneficiaries 100% of the risk and then just tell them to trust the market. If costs grow faster than the inflation indexes that underlie these premium supports, as they always have, tough luck.

For the Ryan plan to really be effective, and fair, he and the others proposing this kind of solution must put the same kind of responsibility on everyone else—particularly the most powerful in the health care system.

More, I will suggest that hospitals, doctors, drug companies, and insurers have the potential to affect the cost of health care far more than your grandmother will ever have.

The Health Leadership Council Medicare Proposal: Too Much Responsibility on Beneficiaries and Not Enough on Providers

The Health Leadership Council (HLC), a coalition of CEOs from many of the leading health care companies, has created a list of Medicare reform recommendations for the Super Committee tasked with finding at least $1.2 trillion in budget savings.

As we begin the national debate over what to do about Medicare's unsustainable costs, I will suggest that the HLC proposal gives us one, of what will have to be many, outlines for discussion.

Their recommendations include:

• Creating a new Medicare Exchange, beginning in 2018, where beneficiaries would have the choice of private Medicare plans as well as the traditional Medicare plan. The HLC proposal would be a defined contribution program much like the Republican Ryan plan but would differ from Paul Ryan’s in a couple of key ways. First, in the HLC proposal traditional Medicare would continue to be one of the options. Second, the annual increase in the beneficiary support premium would be more generous—the HLC is proposing an annual premium support increase equal to GDP plus 1%.
• Gradually increasing the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67—starting in 2014.
• Reforming Medicare’s cost sharing structure by increasing deductibles and co-pays as well as requiring high-income beneficiaries to pay the full cost of Medicare Part B.
• Implementing medical liability reform including a cap on non-economic damages, a one-year statute of limitations, and a “fair share” provision that would limit damages commensurate with responsibility for the injury.

The HLC estimates that its recommendations would generate savings of $410 billion over ten years—about a third of what the Super Committee is charged with finding.

The HLC’s suggestions have merit but, I will suggest, make the same fundamental mistake the Republican adopted Paul Ryan proposal made: They put all the onus for Medicare savings on the beneficiary—not the providers and not the insurance companies.

No Medicare reform proposal can be enacted if it does not protect Medicare beneficiaries by assuring them that it can achieve affordable costs.

The HLC would create a Medicare premium support based upon the average cost of a Medicare plan—and then increase that by GDP+1% in each subsequent year. That makes sense—the beneficiary support starts where costs are at inception and then increases by a factor (GDP+1%), which is reasonable for beneficiaries and providers and sustainable for the country.

In fact, I will suggest, that any final Medicare reform proposal will likely contain a cap of GDP+1% both because it gives the country an affordable objective and because it preserves spending at current levels plus a reasonable rate of growth.

But the problem with the HLC proposal is just what risk and responsibility does it transfer to health care providers and insurers? If the government premium support isn’t enough, providers can just demand more from insurers, and insurers in turn can just make up the difference by increasing premiums for seniors. There is certainly some upward limit on what people can pay, but the tension will always be to shift costs to the beneficiary as costs escalated.

More, the system would almost certainly become even more tiered than it is today. The Medicare option could easily look more and more like Medicaid as those able to afford better coverage fled to the more expensive private plans and those unable to pay the free market increases would have no alternative but the Medicare fee-for-service plan that stayed viable by paying providers less—and as a result looked more and more like Medicaid.

The HLC’s suggestion to increase the eligibility age for Medicare beginning in 2014 is a non-starter. The Congress might end up increasing the Medicare eligibility age at some point. But it won’t be done for people nearing retirement age—who have done their retirement planning presuming an age-65 eligibility. The Super Committee must come up with savings in the 10-year budget window—and that is too soon for any Medicare eligibility age change.

There is also growing evidence that pushing back the retirement age simply shifts costs to the pre-retirement market at an even higher cost than what it costs for Medicare to cover these beneficiaries.

The HLC's means testing recommendations call for more cost sharing as a strategy to focus seniors attention on cost control. As a concept, this makes sense and could well be part of any final Super Committee plan--but it all depends upon the details.

The HLC’s tort reform ideas are far too incremental—they call for capping payments on what is a fundamentally flawed system. Why not fix the system rather than Band-Aid it? Proposals for health courts and no-fault resolution that emphasize data collection and quality improvement would have been more the kind of proposals I would have expected from the HLC.

The Health Leadership Council’s recommendations do create a structure that gives seniors more incentives to purchase the most efficient health plans, put a reasonable limit on what our country can spend on the Medicare entitlement, and recognize that more cost sharing, particularly for higher income beneficiaries, and a later eligibility age, will ultimately be part of the solution.

But just what are all the insurance companies and drug companies that are part of this group willing to do to put some of their “skin” in the game?


For those convinced that just putting the market in charge will control costs and produce affordable premiums, a recent post: Inconvenient Facts for Both Republicans and Democrats—Neither Side’s Health Care Proposals Are Supported By Past Performance

Inconvenient Facts for Both Republicans and Democrats—Neither Side’s Health Care Proposals Are Supported By Past Performance

I call your attention to Ezra Klein’s column in the Washington Post this morning.

In it he cites data that has been out there for a long time but Ezra puts some perspective on it that never occurred to me before.

Examining the Kaiser Family Foundation brief, “Health Care Spending in the United States and Selected OECD Countries” he points out, “Our government spends more [as a percentage of GDP] on health care than the governments of Japan, Australia, Norway, the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Canada, or Switzerland.”

The data would seem to indicate that even our single payer government-run American health care programs, Medicare and Medicaid, cost way more than similar health plans in these nations.

The argument is often made that we should adopt a single payer—or perhaps a “public option”—health plan in the United States in order to control costs and cover everyone. But it would appear that even those programs in America are way too expensive when compared to similar programs in other industrialized nations.

As for the Republican market-based approach, Klein also points out that those programs have been ineffective at cost control. House Republican Paul Ryan often cites the Medicare Part D drug benefit as proof his proposals to privatize Medicare would work better than what we have. But as Klein points out, Part D premiums have risen 57% since 2006 and the program is on track to see nearly 10% growth in annual costs over the next decade.

And, the existing private Medicare Advantage program “ended up costing about 120% of what Medicare costs.” That’s a new data point for me. However, I do know that Medicare Advantage insurers in recent years have been paid at least 13% more than traditional Medicare.

My takeaway from all of this is that neither side has the answer to bringing America’s health care costs under control.

Liberals think that a single payer, or at least a “public option,” is the best hope and point to Europe and Canada as proof of that. But, as a percentage of GDP, the cost of our already government run health care plans rivals many of those nations' entire government spending on health care.

Republicans argue we need to move entirely toward market-based solutions. But with two big market-based Medicare programs already operating, neither Part D nor Medicare Advantage has come close to demonstrating affordable cost growth.

But both Republicans and Democrats do have something in common—each is offering supposedly painless solutions. For the liberals, just put the government in charge and we will magically have affordable health care for everyone. For the conservatives, just put the market in charge and we will have a solution.

Painless solutions might be politically attractive, but the data indicates they will not get the job done.

Recent post: What It Will Take to Bring America’s Health Care Costs Under Control––We Have to Change the Game

There Aren't Enough Rich People To Pay For Medicare And Medicaid!

I hear more and more of my progressive friends arguing, in the context of deficit reduction, that we should be raising taxes before getting aggressive about reducing the cost of Medicare and Medicaid -- as well as Social Security.

To a point, I agree.

This country is in such a hole that it is senseless to deny that at least some new taxes will be needed to pay for all of the nation's bailouts and accumulated debts.

For instance, progressives would like to end the $1 trillion cost over ten years of the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 a year.

I also believe that ending those tax cuts is necessary.

But if you're looking to better understand the budget policy choices we face, I highly recommend the March 2011 Congressional Budget Office study, "Reducing the Deficit: Spending and Revenue Options." The CBO prices out about all of the budget options.

Here's a chart from that study:
















It says that federal revenue, as a percentage of gross domestic product , has averaged 18 percent since the 1970s -- a level that sustained both economic growth and a big government pretty well. At least, until entitlement costs, for which health care is one of the main drivers, started to skyrocket.

If you believe that it is appropriate to pay what we now pay for health care in this country, then yes, we will need lots more taxes. But, on the other hand, why would you raise taxes to pay for something everybody says has a cost that is unnecessarily sky-high? Wouldn't the solution be to fix the cost problem?

Raising taxes is not going to solve the problem of out-of-control entitlement costs. Even huge tax increases on the rich won't get the job done.

After the 1990s combination of the hot economy and President Bill Clinton’s tax increase, federal revenue as a percentage of GDP rose to about 21 percent -- high by historic standards. Then the policies of President George W. Bush came along and dropped that share to about 16 percent -- low by historic standards, and arguably either boosting the economy or helping to create the economic bubble and big deficits. The Great Recession then further pushed federal revenue to a modern-era low -- about 15 percent.

According to the CBO, federal revenue will again rise to the Clinton-era level of about 21 percent of GDP -- but that is when the two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts expires for everybody.

Looks to me like those who argue the Clinton-era taxes were too high are right. Looks to me like those who argue the Bush-era tax cuts are unsustainable are right. Looks to me like those who argue that our current deficit is partly driven by lower revenue because of the recession are right.

To keep federal revenue at the apparently reasonable historic level of about 18 percent of GDP, we probably do have to give back at least some of those Bush tax cuts -- but it should not be necessary to end the Bush reductions that benefitted the middle class. And, we should also expect that some part of this revenue shortfall would be solved when the economy gets back on track.

If all of these steps were taken, it appears that we would be on the way to striking the right balance.

But, for those who think the deficit problem can be solved by just taxing the rich, let me point out another piece of startling information backed up by the CBO's study of policy choices. Replacing the 10-year, $1 trillion Bush tax cut for those people making more than $250,000 a year with a combination of lower income and capital gains taxes would still be worth $1 trillion! As the CBO options paper points out, that works out to an average of about $100 billion a year during each of the next 10 years.

That is a lot of money -- but not compared to the 2011 deficit that is estimated to be $1.6 trillion. Or the many $1 trillion deficits still to come.

Even if we were to raise the top rate to 45 precent for people making at least $1 million a year, and 49 percent on incomes of $1 billion, we would raise only $900 billion over the next decade, according to Citizens for Tax Justice -- again only a small part of the projected deficits.

So, raising taxes on rich people, by itself, hardly makes a dent.

What is making a dent -- really a fiscal train wreck -- is the out-of-control cost of our entitlements, particularly the health care entitlements.

Here is another chart based upon CBO numbers (that appeared in the recent Ryan Budget proposal:























This chart shows the impact the entitlements -- particularly Medicare -- will have on the federal budget if federal revenue were to hold at the historic level of about 18 percent of GDP. Anything above the black line is a deficit.

Now, remember, this is just entitlement spending. The rest of the federal budget -- interest on the debt, defense spending and every other department and agency would have to get loaded on top of this mountain!

Folks, we can't tax our way out of this mess.

There aren't enough rich people to do it.

This column first appeared at Kaiser Health News.

The Budget Fight: It Will Be A Long Hot Summer, and Fall, and Winter…

The good news is that Democrats and Republicans are finally seriously engaged over the country’s fiscal crisis.

And, each side is presenting a starkly different course for the voters to choose from.

When it comes to the health care entitlements, Republicans want to cut the health care entitlement benefits and therefore ease the pressure on federal spending.

Obama wants to largely leave the programs in place and raise taxes--about $1 in tax increases for $2 every dollars in cuts.

Neither touches Social Security. Obama wants to make cuts to the Pentagon's budget—the Republicans don't.

The solution Republican House Budget Chair Paul Ryan (R-WI) has presented for controlling Medicare and Medicaid costs is almost entirely a cost shift strategy. While I would agree that means testing and defined contribution approaches to making health care consumers more cost conscious should be part of the solution, this is about all Ryan is proposing.

I worry that Ryan and the Republicans are just sticking future seniors with the problem—uncontrolled health care costs—without doing anywhere near enough to create a more cost effective health insurance and delivery system for them to have a chance of finding affordable health care.

I worry less about the Republican proposal to block grant Medicaid payments to the states. While this is just another cost shift strategy that limits federal spending at the expense of the states, at least the states have the ability (and then the incentive) to implement Medicaid cost containment policies--state by state--that give them the chance of actually reducing costs and delivering affordable care. States also have to balance their budgets every year--a real incentive the feds don't have!

The President said all of the right things about health care in his budget and debt speech yesterday. But this President has been saying the right things, while telling us we can’t kick the entitlement can down the road any longer, since he took office. And, then he just kicks the entitlement can down the road.

The only promising health care proposal I heard from the President yesterday was his proposal to strengthen the Medicare Cost Board (the IPAB), which the Affordability Act created last year. But even that was far more tepid a proposal than it needs to be. He would only sharpen the trigger—invoking the Board if spending began to exceed GDP growth by one-half a percent rather than the current one percent. What he really needed to do was expand the breadth of its powers, to include things like the benefit structure, and to get it working sooner—it now can’t impact health care spending before 2015—2020 for hospitals.

Neither the Republicans nor the President have done anything near enough in their proposals to counter the chronic unsustainable rise in health care spending that is just going to continue without systemic change to the way providers and insurers are paid.

Republicans pretty much just shift costs to seniors and the states. Obama pretty much just shifts the costs of these unaffordable programs to the “rich” through bigger taxes.

I doubt Ryan's Medicare cost shift strategy has much of a chance politically. The President will have all he can do to keep both Democrats and Republicans, under pressure from the provider special interests, from repealing the Medicare cost board as it now exists.

Whatever the political outlook for either side, we are about to see another budget and deficit showdown/crisis around Memorial Day—this one over raising the debt ceiling.

The two sides couldn’t have more different approaches to the problem—but neither really have solutions.

When the two sides get past what will quickly become the debt ceiling crisis—likely no more smoothly than they did the recent government shut-down crisis over the 2011 budget, then it will be on to the 2012 budget fight and the same stark differences and lack of real health care solutions.

This summer's debt limit, and the fall's 2012 budget confrontations, will be herculean fights.

Too bad these fights won’t be over how to solve the problem.


More on the Republican Health Care Proposal: The “Path to Prosperity”—Where’s the Health Care Cost Containment?

On controlling costs: What It Will Take to Bring America’s Health Care Costs Under Control––We Have to Change the Game

What It Will Take to Bring America’s Health Care Costs Under Control––We Have to Change the Game

Last week, I posted that I was disappointed in Paul Ryan’s health care budget proposal because it lacked cost containment ideas other than the usual conservative reliance upon the market and defined contribution health care.

In my last post, Why ACOs Won’t Work, I argued that the latest health care silver bullet solution, Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), are just a tool in a big tool box of care and cost management tools. But, like all of the other tools over the years like HMOs and IPAs, they won’t be used as they were intended because everybody—providers and insurers—can make more money in the existing so far limitless fee-for-service system.

How do you make the American health care system efficient?

You change the game.

You can’t let the $2.5 trillion health care industrial complex any longer make money just getting bigger. The new game has to be one that only pays out a profit for results—better care for a budget the country can live with. There are lots of tools available to do that. ACOs, capitated HMOs, disease management, enormous data mines, electronic patient data systems, and so on.

How do you change the game?

Generally, it will have to be an unavoidable policy imperative that will have to make the giant and powerful health care industrial complex shift to a more efficient and sustainable platform. They gotta have a reason that is unavoidable.

There must be no other choice for them but to play the game differently with new rules that make profit possible only if they make quality care affordable for America.

And, it has to be a policy change. As I have said here before, the conservative notion that the market can, by itself, accomplish this is every bit as naive as the liberal argument we just need a government payer to make things instantly better. There is no evidence in the under-65 market or in Medicare Advantage that the market can do it by itself. There is also no evidence that the giant single payer system we now have—Medicare—has done it.

I also have no illusions about how hard this will be—that recent history is evidence that accomplishing such a game changing policy is all but impossible. The recent health care debate and the lack of cost containment in the Affordable Care Act (I wouldn’t have called it that), makes that clear. Even as this country faces annual deficits of over a trillion dollars and an accumulated $14 trillion dollar debt there is no appetite for real health care solutions—witness the Ryan plan and the Congress’ inability to tackle the Medicare doc payment mess.

Just look at the one thing in the Affordable Care Act that might at least begin to put us on a path to affordable care—the Medicare Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). It would take policymaking for Medicare payments out of the hands of the Congress starting in 2015—2020 for hospitals—and put those decisions with an independent expert board.

But already one Republican and Democratic “deficit hawk” after another is trying to kill the IPAB before it even starts mostly because the health care industrial complex wants it dead. These politicians argue these are decisions that should be left to elected officials. You might also find it interesting to know that the Republican leading the charge for the repeal of the IPAB, Representative Phil Roe (R-TX), received $91,000 in campaign contributions from providers in the last election cycle—double that of the next category of givers on his list (contractors).

A couple of years ago, I suggested a way to get the attention of the health care industrial complex and change the game was to tie the tax deductibility of health insurance offerings to that network of insurers, doctors, hospitals, drug companies, and other providers’ ability to meet cost targets (the Affordability Model). Either control costs or lose the tax incentives for consumers and employers to buy your services and therefore your ability to compete for business. That would get their attention.

That would change the game.

So, if in the face of all of these recent failures to really tackle costs, is there any hope policymakers will be able to give us a game changer?

I will remind you of a post I did last fall. In it I quoted former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan. When asked if he thought we could ever implement the kind of tough budget medicine called for by the Deficit Commission chairs he replied, “The only question is, is it before or after a bond market crisis.”

This country is headed for a health care budget. The only question is will it be forced on us just before or just after the bond crisis. Just before or just after the rest of the world tells us they aren’t going to subsidize this American fiscal mess—largely driven by our health care costs—any longer.

Then the question will be about whether we have the sense to rationally manage that health care budget with all of these tools we have been developing for 20 years or will the politicians, in the midst of a real crisis, just impose expedient and arbitrary (as in ration care) budget solutions?

I hope the path we will then take is to change the game in a rational way.

So How Are Democrats and Republicans Different?

Just how is the way Wisconsin Republicans have handled the political confrontation over worker rights different than the way Washington, DC Democrats handled last year's health care vote?

With apologies in advance to Ezra for taking some liberties with his column yesterday evening in the Washington Post:

What happened in Wisconsin [Washington DC] tonight [last March]
By Ezra Klein [Bob Laszewski]

Here's what just happened [last March] in Wisconsin [Washington, DC]: The rules of the state's [U.S.] Senate require a quorum [60 votes] for any measures that do [don't] spend money. That's how the absence of the Senate's Democrats [the election loss in Massachusetts] could stymie Gov. Scott Walker's [the Democrat's efforts] to block [pass] the proposed budget law [the new health care bill] -- it spent [parts didn't spend] money, and thus it needed a quorum [60 votes].

But in a surprise move earlier today [after the Massachusetts loss], Wisconsin's [Washington's] Senate Republicans [Democrats] rewrote the bill [using reconciliation rules] and left out all the parts that spent [didn't spend] money. Then they quickly convened and passed the new law, which included the provisions stripping most public-employee unions of their collective bargaining rights [a bill that dramatically impacted 14% of the economy and the delivery of everyone's health care] but excluding everything in the law [by crafting a special a reconciliation bill leaving everything out that] that spent [didn't spend] money.

What happens [happened] next? Expect the protests over the next few days [ensuing months] to be ferocious. But unless a judge [the Supreme Court] rules the move illegal -- and I don't know how to judge the likelihood of that -- Walker's [the Democrat's] proposed [new health] law will go forward. The question is whether Walker and the Republicans [Obama and the Democrats] who voted for it will do the same.

Polls in Wisconsin [across the country] clearly showed that Republicans [Democrats] had failed to persuade the public of their cause. Walker's [Obama's, Reed and Pelosi's] numbers dropped, while Democrats and unions [Republicans and the Tea Party] found themselves suddenly flush with volunteers, money and favorable media coverage. And they plan to [did] take advantage of it: Eight Wisconsin Republicans have served for long enough to be vulnerable to a recall election next year, and Democrats have already begun gathering signatures. Now their efforts will accelerate. "We now put our total focus on recalling the eligible Republican senators who voted for this heinous bill," said Mike Tate, chairman of the Wisconsin Democratic Party. "And we also begin counting the days remaining before Scott Walker is himself eligible for recall." [The Republicans scored the biggest off-year election victory in a lifetime.]

Fixing America's Health Care Reimbursement System

This post is authored by Brian Klepper and first appeared at Kaiser Health News:

A tempest is brewing in physician circles over how doctors are paid. But calming it will require more than just the action of physicians. It will demand the attention and influence of businesses and patient advocates who, outside the health industrial complex, bear the brunt of the nation's skyrocketing health care costs.

Much responsibility for America's inequitable health care payment system and its cost crisis is embedded in the informal but symbiotic relationship between the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the American Medical Association's Relative Value System Update Committee -- also known as the RUC. For two decades, the RUC, a specialist-dominated panel, has encouraged national health care reimbursement policy that financially undervalues the challenges associated with primary care's management of complicated patients, while favoring often unnecessarily complex, costly and excessive medical services. For its part, CMS has provided mostly rubber-stamp acceptance of the RUC's recommendations. If America's primary care societies noisily left the RUC, they would de-legitimize the panel's role in driving the American health system's immense waste and pave the way for a more fair and enlightened approach to reimbursement.

As it is, though, unnecessary health care costs are sucking the life out of the American economy. Over the past 11 years, health care premium inflation has risen nearly four times as fast as the rest of the economy. Health care costs nearly double those in other developed nations have put U.S. corporations at a severe competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace.

Many health care experts believe that half or more of all health care expenditures -- the costs of bloated transactional processes as well as inappropriate procedures, service sites and prescription drug levels -- provide no value. For perspective, this year we'll unnecessarily spend nearly $1.5 trillion on health care, an amount equivalent to the budget deficit. Though we continually have given physicians and the health care industry a pass on this issue, its impact can be understood as the difference between our national prosperity and decline.

The current system's under-valuing of primary care is one of three structural flaws -- the other two are fee-for-service reimbursement and a lack of cost, quality and safety transparency -- that produce excess spending and block the health care sector from working as a true market. Overwhelming evidence shows that allowing physicians to serve as patient advocates and guides throughout the entirety of care results in better outcomes at significantly lower cost. Recently, patient-centered medical homes, super-charged primary care practices, have demonstrated measurable cost and quality successes, also proofs of the approach. These facts are indisputable and are, by the way, the reason why America's corporations are stepping up the use of on-site primary care clinics.

Meanwhile, a spate of recent articles about the RUC have produced swift, strong responses within key circles. They have been passed virally among primary care physicians. Discussions have begun with people who might have influence over the process. And sensible changes in this advisory system seem possible.

Seizing that opportunity would first require mobilizing primary care doctors to demand that their professional societies, such as the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American College of Physicians, abandon the RUC. Then these physicians also would call on CMS to replace it with a more independent advisory panel. That effort would also launch a national discussion about how to more fairly value and pay for America's health care.

But one man's waste is another's income. The current reimbursement system handsomely serves most of the health care industry: health plans; hospitals; specialists; and drug, device and technology firms. Threaten that revenue stream, and those organizations would direct their considerable resources to its protection. In 2009, records show that some members of Congress collected $1.2 billion in health care lobbying contributions - more than it had ever received from an industry on an issue - from health care interests. America's 250,000 primary care physicians are simply no match for the combined power and influence of the rest of the health care industry.

In an influence-driven government like ours, it is the non-health care business sector that has the organization and leverage necessary to drive the health care changes America so desperately needs. The health care industry represents one dollar of every six dollars in the U.S. economy, but industries outside health care represent the other five. If American businesses, led by groups like the National Business Group on Health, the Pacific Business Group on Health, the Business Roundtable, the National Retail Federation, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business were to advocate for the same policies in national health care reimbursement policy that their members are often implementing in their own on-site clinics, it would have a dramatically positive impact on the nation's physical and economic health.

Ironically, health care reform specifically avoided addressing the carnage that has been wrought by the RUC. If America's primary care physicians, backed by the nation's corporations, all working out of enlightened self-interest, were to focus on addressing this one structural defect, the corrective impact on our health system would be greater than all the reform bill's cost-reduction provisions combined.

Brian Klepper is an independent health care analyst, Chief Development Officer for WeCare TLC Onsite Clinics and the editor of Care & Cost. His new site, Replace the RUC, provides extensive background on the issue.

The Republicans Had Better Get Organized on Health Care

If the past week is any indication, the Republicans will have real trouble come 2012 trying to convince voters they have a plan to fix the American health care system.

Last weekend, President Obama endorsed the Wyden-Brown bill that would give the states the opportunity, in 2014, to take their share of the almost $1 trillion the new health law collects and use it to craft an alternative health care plan to their liking.

With Republicans now controlling the “trifecta” in 16 states—the governorships as well as the state legislatures—it is a very interesting offer.

I found an editorial this week in the Wall Street Journal criticizing the offer puzzling.

In an editorial titled, “Obama’s Health Waiver Gambit—the White House offers the mirage of state flexibility," they wrote:

Mr. Obama's new faith in federalism is trailed by his customary rhetorical asterisk. Any state that the Administration decided deserved a waiver would still need to cover the same number of uninsured, and its coverage would still need to include the same comprehensive benefits and be as "affordable" as the Administration says it should be. That is, it must be as heavily subsidized.

So perhaps states could opt out of some consumer or employer mandates, which is a minor release valve. But they would still need to find other mechanisms to achieve the same liberal priorities, which in practice leaves little room to innovate—especially for a straight tax deduction or credit to purchase individual coverage or alternative insurance designs like high-deductible or value-based plans.

Say what? Getting rid of the individual mandate—the thing Conservatives are focusing their Constitutionality challenges on—is only an offer to jettison “a minor release valve?”

It looks to me like the WSJ is saying conservatives would not be able to cover as many people as well as the Democrats are on their way to doing under the Affordability Act.

First, let me remind you that the CBO has estimated that the new law would only cover about two-thirds of the uninsured. And, that the standard of coverage demanded by the new law sets the “Silver Plan” as the standard—essentially a typical comprehensive major medical plan with a $1,000 deductible. And, let’s not forget that the Affordability Act would require a family of four making $65,000 a year to pay $6,175 in out-of-pocket annual premiums net of any federal subsidy—hardly what the WSJ called, “heavily subsidized” premiums.

The WSJ laments that there isn’t enough “room to innovate” with tax credits and high deductible plans.

Why not? Why can’t a Republican tax credit plan be devised using the Democrats money pot? I see no reason an actuarially equal conservative high deductible plan that gave any excess Democratic cash to consumers in the form of deposits to Health Savings Accounts can’t be crafted that is financed with tax credits. And, all of those Republican governors’ complaints about Medicaid? Here is the block grant of all block grant offers!

Could a Democratic HHS Secretary play games and deny a state an actuarially sound conservative alternative? Sure but after the offer the President put on the table this week, suffer lots of political consequences doing it.

Could the Democrats rig the game by demanding things like too rich a definition of the standard benefits? Sure. But a Republican governor could also put a more reasonable plan on the table and dare a Democratic HHS Secretary to reject it.

Just how would a Democratic HHS Secretary deny a state any reasonable health care alternative experiment that had just passed both houses of the state legislature and had been signed by the governor?

It is notable that more liberal states like Vermont and Oregon look like they are ready to take up this challenge by crafting even more liberal health plans for their states. You have to give the liberals credit--at least they walk their talk.

By embracing Wyden-Brown, President Obama has offered the Republicans a put up or shut up political challenge: Show me how you can cover as many people as well as we did.

The Republicans are afraid of this challenge? The Republicans don’t think they know how to cover two-thirds of the uninsured for the same money the Democrats are spending? The don’t think they can craft a consumer-driven plan with a health savings account for the same money it will take to provide the “Silver Plan?” They think telling a family of four making $65,000 a year that still has to pay $6,175 for a plan with a $1,000 deductible that they are still too “heavily subsidized”?

If I had been advising the Republicans this week I would have told them that focusing on criticizing the benefit side of the new health care law, as they all did, was the wrong strategy.

Where they could have been critical of the President’s challenge, and still been consistent with their past arguments and objections to the new law, would have been to point out that the $1 trillion Democratic money pot they would have to use to fund their alternative comes from the new law’s tax increases and Medicare cuts they opposed last year. In essence, they could have pointed out that they still oppose having to fund their version of health care with the “fruit from an objectionable tree.”

I still think it’s tantamount to immoral to raise $500 billion over ten years in taxes to pay for this, and not go after the real problem of cost, when about everyone believes there will be many trillions of dollars of waste in our health care system over those same ten years.

But for one Republican after another to admit that they couldn’t take their state’s share of a trillion dollars and use it to craft a health care system that covered their portion of the 32 million more people, using the new law’s modest “Silver Plan” as the standard of coverage, and still leaving big gaps in premium support for the middle class, that was startling to watch.

They better have a health care plan they believe in come 2012.

They also had better be able to explain it.

Defined Contribution Health Care—The Conservatives' Silver Bullet

Conservatives are in a full court press these days telling us the answer to America’s out-of-control health care costs—and our fiscal crisis—is to move Medicare, Medicaid, and the tax code subsidy for private insurance to a defined contribution system.

Instead of the federal government defining a benefit and then shouldering the cost of whatever that promise leads to (today’s defined benefit plan), many conservatives are suggesting that we gradually move to a system where the government only promises an annual payment (or tax credit) for health care in the form of a voucher and then the consumer uses it (arguably more efficiently) to buy one of many health plans competing for their business.

First, let me tell you that I think defined contribution health care is generally a good idea. For too long the federal tax system and Medicare policy has subsidized careless health care spending.

Many worry that defined contribution health care would lead to poor people getting second-class health care because they would not be able to afford more than the voucher allows them. That is a legitimate concern and while that outcome can be tempered it cannot likely be eliminated. But that also occurs today, as many seniors have nothing more than a combination of Medicare and Medicaid while the wealthier can afford much better supplemental insurance. And, it will occur in the future under the Affordability Act because the new federal health care subsidies are based on the more limited plans available.

But I will also tell you that it is naïve to think the way to control health care costs is to simply move to a more market-oriented defined health care system.

We’ve had forms of defined contribution health care in the health benefits business for at least 20 years. It has long been common for employers to fix their contribution and then offer a cafeteria-like set of health plan choices. Not only has that approach not controlled costs, it has become somewhat passé as many employers have been disappointed with the results and more recently gone back to consolidating their health plan offerings.

Many conservatives cite the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan (FEHBP) as an example of a defined contribution program that has worked. It is very well run. But just where is the full cost of a federal worker’s health benefits under control, sustainable, and affordable or measurably lower than any other large employer?

The argument goes that if consumers have vouchers then health plans will compete with each other to control costs and make health care more affordable. Well, isn’t that what has been going on in all of these defined contribution employer plans over the years? And, just where are the affordable plans?

And, isn’t this what the Medicare Advantage program of private choices has been about? It has been operating in one form or another for more than 20 years. And, once again, where are the private plans that are less costly than Medicare? Hasn’t the recent health care debate been about the extra payments, above the cost of standard Medicare, that these plans have been receiving?

The health care industry actually took a pretty impressive run at offering health plans that worked hard to control costs back in the post-Clinton Health Plan period of the mid and late 1990s. The insurers did such a good job of screwing down the provider costs and limiting “unnecessary” care that we got the “Patient Rights Rebellion” (or maybe it was the “Provider Rights Rebellion”).

When employers and consumers actually had the chance to choose lower cost plans with more limited networks and tighter cost controls they rejected them. When that was all there was available to employees, they rebelled and employers ran from them. The result was a movement away from pure HMO plans in the late 1990s and a return to fee-for-service models.

What makes conservatives think the consumer/voter won’t rebel again when they figure out the voucher doesn’t give them the health care they think they are entitled to? What makes the conservatives think the politicians won’t chicken out and just keep increasing that voucher at unaffordable levels just like they now keep bailing out the less powerful physician lobby?

I think defined contribution health care is a productive tool that has a lot of potential to make consumers more careful purchasers and health plans more cost effective sellers of insurance—when it is part of a more comprehensive approach to unavoidable cost containment and value-based purchasing—when we also say no.

But then I guess I can be criticized for believing in “Death Panels.”

But defined contribution health care as a standalone strategy to fix what ails the American health care system without having to face real limits on what we pay and what we pay for? That is naïve.

But that argument does have some political appeal to the right (albeit not to the left) because it offers a somewhat painless solution—you still have the right to have whatever you want and no one is going to take away or limit anything you have today. Magically, we’ll all be enlightened purchasers happily cognizant of the health plan offering us both the lowest cost and the best brain surgery in town and everyone will have affordable health insurance.

To me, hearing a conservative say the answer to America’s health care (and deficit) problem is a defined contribution health care system that reinvigorates the markets is as naïve as hearing a liberal saying that a single-payer government-run health care system will magically give everyone the health care they need for an affordable price.

Will the Congress Change the Health Care Law During the Next Two Years?

No. But I expect the Patient Protection and Affordability Act to be “relitigated” in 2013, to one degree or another.

I recently posted on the controversy over the individual mandate. I suggested a number of alternatives to the mandate—including my own ideas.

I was asked if I really thought the Congress would change the individual mandate in the short term.

As I have posted before, it will be the Democrats who will be calling for repealing the individual mandate and replacing it with an alternative—particularly the vulnerable Senators up for reelection in 2012.

Ironically, it will be the Republican opponents to the new health law and the individual mandate who will block them. The Republicans are not about to take the Democrats off the political hook the very unpopular individual mandate represents for them. Republicans are also not about to remove the potential ticking Constitutional time bomb the mandate presents—it could take the whole law down.

Until we hear from the Supreme Court and get the results of the 2012 elections we are going to hear a lot of rhetoric from both sides but I don't see any changes to core pieces of the legislation. Yes, the Congress will likely repeal the peripheral revenue raising 1099 provision and there could be some current budget cuts HHS is going to have to work around.

But the early provisions of the bill—things like keeping your kids on your policy until age-26—will continue until we at least here from the Supremes.

But in 2013, I see the potential to revisit the law:

• If the Supreme Court throws it all out—not likely but not impossible—we will have to start over.
• If the Supreme Court overturns only the individual mandate—not likely but very possible—the imperative to fix that will open the entire bill up to changes as part of the bigger deal that will be required for both sides to come to agreement. The conservatives would want more in exchange for their votes than to just fix this one piece.
• Even if the Republicans sweep the elections—the White House and both houses of Congress—I can’t see how they will have 60 Senate seats and compromise will be needed for some critical non-budget changes with or without a Supreme Court ruling.
• If the Republicans only make modest gains or even lose seats (this election shouldn’t be taken for granted by either side), Democrats will still be facing an unpopular individual mandate and at least have some political incentive to do some fixing—most of those polled believe the law at least needs some improvement. Although, a big Democratic victory would likely mean no incentive for them to open the law up again in 2013 to any fundamental change.
  

So, yes, I don't see any changes to the individual mandate or any other core element of the new health care law before 2013.

But it looks to me like we are only two years away from some critical Congressional votes on the new health care law. In that context, the debate has begun and it isn't just a theoretical exercise.

In an earlier post, I outlined a number of areas where I thought Democrats and Republicans could eventually come to an agreement:

Improving The Health Law In 2011: Realistic Ways To Reach Bipartisan Compromise

Things Are About to Get Ugly—-Republicans Plan to Defund the Health Bill Next Week

Word is that House Republicans will attach an amendment to the latest federal spending bill that will cut-off funding for the health care bill.

The last Congress never finalized a budget for the current fiscal year—the feds have been operating under a series of continuing resolutions. The most recent one will expire on March 4th. If another resolution is not agreed to, much of the government has to shutdown.

House Republicans, under heavy pressure from their base, have decided to take the Democrats on over the new health care law by cutting all remaining funding for implementation of the law in the current 2010 fiscal year (October to October).

Democrats, under the same heavy pressure from their base to protect the bill, aren’t about to let them do that. While the Republicans can accomplish this in the House—and will next week—they don’t have the votes in the Senate and they don’t have the President’s pen.

Now, I know the Republicans won the last election and they control the House. But what is their end game here?

Shut the government down until the Democrats agree to suspend the health care law? With Democrats under the same intense pressure from their base to protect the new law at all costs, they aren’t going to agree to do that.

With the polls showing the country evenly split on this law, about the only political outcome either side will accomplish is to show their base just how macho they are.

Just where might a compromise occur? HHS can have half the money it needs? That won’t make the Republican base happy.

Where will this end?

As George W Bush used to say, don’t get into a war unless you have an exit strategy.