Cassidy: Here’s How A Viable Health Care Reform Plan Might Work

<b></b>Copyright 2009 San Jose Mercury NewsAll Rights Reserved <span id="x_hitDiv1"> <b>San</b> <span id="x_hitDiv1"><b>Jose</b> <span id="x_hitDiv1"><b>Mercury</b> News (California) <br> <br> <b></b><span id="x_hitDiv2"><b>March</b> 23, 2009 Monday <br> <br> <b>SECTION: </b>NEWS; Local; Columnists; Business; Columnists <br> <br> <b>LENGTH: </b>638 words <br> <br> <br> <b>HEADLINE: </b>Cassidy: Here's how a viable health care reform plan might work<br> <br> <b>BYLINE: </b>By Mike Cassidy Mercury News Columnist <br> <br> <p></p> Now that I've gone out on a limb and predicted that our health care system will be different and better two years from now, I thought I'd exhibit further optimism by trying to envision just how the system might be different. <p></p> It's a tricky business, given the heavyweight interests involved in the health care debate insurers, big pharma, unions, consumer groups, business interests. But there are signs that the current system's economic pain has become so widespread that even mortal enemies are willing to give up some things in order to stop the agony. <p></p> I've given up hope that we'll replace our current chaotic and inadequate system with a universal, national health plan. The political will is too weak and the fear of so-called socialism is too strong. <p></p> I'm still hopeful that we'll be able to cobble together a number of changes that will mark an improvement. As I wrote last week, my optimism lies in the fact that all the self-interested parties seem to have concluded that the cost of doing nothing is not sustainable. <p></p> Admittedly, my vision is influenced by what I hope will be, as well as what I think can be, but it's a start. And I am not exactly cooking up programs that haven't been touted by others along the way. <p></p> First, our new system will have to be universal and mandatory. Universal, because it's wrong that sick people can't afford to get better. And mandatory, because emergency care and unreimbursed treatment for the uninsured is too big a cost for all of us in the current system. <p></p> The federal government must get involved in an even bigger way. If all Americans are going to be required to buy health coverage, then at the very least we must provide subsidies on a sliding scale for the poor and unemployed. I'd also like to see the feds set up an <span id="x_hitDiv3"><b>insurance</b> program that would compete with private companies on price and quality. <p></p> And if the government, through its mandate, is going to deliver 46 million potential customers the currently uninsured to <span id="x_hitDiv4"><b>insurance</b> companies, we must negotiate lower rates for premiums and prescription drugs, as well as a bigger say in service levels. <p></p> Coverage needs to be portable, meaning you won't lose your health <span id="x_hitDiv5"> <b>insurance</b> when you lose or change your job. <p></p> Of course, health care is not cheap. It's not cheap now and it won't be under any new plan. Health care costs need to be tamed. If nothing is done to curb costs, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services predicts annual health care spending in the United States will increase from nearly $2.4 trillion now to more than $4.4 trillion in 10 years. <p></p> We need tort reform that protects patients from reckless doctors and drug companies while protecting responsible doctors and hospitals from frivolous and ruinous lawsuits. <p></p> Our new plan should include a healthy dose of personal responsibility. Premium-payers should receive incentives for living healthy lives. Think of the savings just from reducing obesity and the number of smokers in the country. <p></p> We'll need to understand that cutting costs will mean sacrifice for everyone. We need to face the fact that some may have to wait for non-vital treatment. Others may need to accept that sometimes it makes sense to hold off on expensive tests when cheaper alternatives are available. <p></p> Electronic medical records will need to be a part of standard care. Giving doctors instantaneous access to accurate patient records will mean an end to different doctors ordering the same test for the same patient two or three times. E-records could streamline <span id="x_hitDiv6"><b>insurance</b> claims and billing, reducing administrative costs. <p></p> None of this will be easy. The reinvention work will no doubt be acrimonious at times. But we can all find hope in the notion that it's hard to think of a time when change seemed more likely. <p></p> Contact Mike Cassidy at <a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> or (408) 920-5536. <br> <br> <b>GRAPHIC: </b><br> <br> <b>LOAD-DATE: </b>March 23, 2009 <br> <br> <div> <div class="x_nshr"> <center></center> <center><a href="http://www.lexis-nexis.com/lncc/about/copyrt.html" target="_new" class="x_pagelinks">Copyright © 2009 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved. </a><br> <a href="http://www.lexis-nexis.com/terms/general" target="_new" class="x_pagelinks">Terms and Conditions</a> <a href="http://www.lexis-nexis.com/terms/privacy" target="_new" class="x_pagelinks"> Privacy Policy</a> <br> </center> </div> </div> </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span>