EDITORIAL: Don’t dismiss more pragmatic ‘Medicare for All’ plans
The response to the paper, released by the university's Mercatus Center, was entirely predictable. Political conservatives, including
Sanders responded by attacking the Mercatus Center's financial ties to the controversial billionaire Koch family. Single-payer advocates also criticized the report's methodology but put a spotlight on one surprising conclusion. Through efficiencies and the negotiation of better prices, such a shift could reduce total
Health care consumers and voters are not well served by the "all or nothing" reactions to the Mercatus report from both single-payer advocates and critics. The eye-popping cost of a Sanders plan has critics dismissing any type of single-payer approach. Sanders' fans often have this reaction: You're either for this sweeping overhaul or for the status quo.
The reality is that there are other solid, less drastic proposals rooted in a Medicare-for-all approach that merit serious discussion, especially when all options must be considered to control medical costs without compromising quality. Leading proposals are well-developed and already have been introduced in
A theme is that they would allow consumers to buy into existing programs such as Medicare or Medicaid, the nation's two large medical insurance programs serving the elderly and the needy. The "Medicare-X" plan from Sens.
Sen.
These middle-way approaches would build on the existing health care system, including employer-based coverage, rather than disrupting it, and would be potentially much less expensive. Those are major advantages.
Enrollees would also be familiar with these proven, decades-old public programs. At the same time, leveraging the government's vast purchasing power could help lower premiums, improve benefits and widen provider networks. That is enticing when consumers who buy insurance on their own on the individual market often face high premiums, high deductibles and restricted provider access.
Both the Medicare X plan and the Medicaid buy-in need significant scrutiny and fine-tuning, particularly when it comes to provider reimbursement. Still, both hold promise as a practical option to improve coverage while controlling costs. These alternatives to the Sanders plan merit the spotlight, not a write-off, as the debate over the Mercatus Center report continues to simmer.
___
(c)2018 the Star Tribune (Minneapolis)
Visit the Star Tribune (Minneapolis) at www.startribune.com
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute and Georgia Institute of Technology establish Health Economics and Analytics Lab HEAL
Recent Research from University of London Highlight Findings in Healthcare Economics (Choice in the presence of experts: The role of general…
Advisor News
Annuity News
Health/Employee Benefits News
Life Insurance News