Below, a Kaiser Health News column by John E McDonough, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health and a former staff member at the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. I agree with McDonough: health care reform is happening, and it is “energizing the U.S. heealth care system–driving the most vibrant reform atmosphere ever.”
As reform becomes a reality, it becomes harder to repeal. This makes the debate in Washington become less and less relevant. The only major threat to reform: the possibility that a anti-reform president will be elected in 2012. But by then, so many pieces of reform will be in place that it will be very difficult to eliminate benefits that are helping American families.
I disagree only one point: #7. I’m afraid we’re in the middle of a double-dip recession. On the other hand, a weak economy makes it all the more apparent that we need health care reform.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
10 Reasons To Feel Good About Health Reform
By John E. McDonough
Supporters of the Affordable Care Act tend to get gloomy about the threats haunting every step along its path to implementation, seeing the negatives more clearly than they perceive the positives. As an antidote, I offer 10 reasons to be optimistic about health reform’s progress and prospects.
1. A lot of Americans are being helped by reform every day. Who? Four and a half million early retirees, 3.2 million seniors protected from the doughnut hole and 2 million more kids in Medicaid and CHIP; plus the uncounted millions who now have coverage of clinical preventive services, the many families that can keep adult children up to age 26 on their health plans, the consumers now protected by the prohibition of rescissions and many, many more. If these benefits are not recognized adequately by those receiving them, just wait until there is a genuine threat to eliminate them.
2. Because of the health law, a wave of innovation is now energizing the U.S. health system–driving the most vibrant reform atmosphere ever. Affordable care organizations; medical homes; disease prevention and wellness initiatives; anti-fraud and abuse efforts, insurance exchanges–these are all part of the series of dynamic change processes triggered by the overhaul. Even in terms of health care workforce reform, despite a congressional stalemate that is stalling the launch of the new Workforce Commission, the field is exploding with activity, according to George Thibault, president of the Josiah Macy Foundation, which focuses on workforce innovation. Contrast this dynamism with the funk following the 1994 collapse of the Clinton Health Plan.
3. The Obama administration has managed successfully the development of a lengthy list of complex and politically charged regulations to implement the law. Each process faced a chorus of critics predicting negative outcomes. Instead, skilled professionals at the Departments of Health and Human Services, Treasury and Labor, as well as the White House, mastered each controversy, worked through the minefields and established the parameters of a new health care marketplace that puts consumers and patients first.
4. The administration has demonstrated how flexibility can show strength, not weakness. Waiver approvals involving medical loss ratios and annual limits have been dissed by critics. Yet one can easily imagine their opposite complaints of rigidity had the administration denied any waivers. The key date is 2014, not 2011, and the Obama team has kept its eyes on that goal. President Barack Obama's embrace of state experimentation is another welcome sign that strengthens rather than undermines the measure's future.
5. As the dust settles, the constitutional challenges seem a lot less scary. The scorecard of major decisions is 3-2 in favor of the individual mandate. Charles Fried, Ronald Reagan's solicitor general, told a Senate panel: "The health care law's enemies have no ally in the Constitution." Increasingly it is clear that a decision based on the law will uphold the ACA's most controversial provision, and a ruling based on politics will go the other way. And if the mandate goes down, there are other approaches at hand.
6. All key stakeholders are all sticking with the law. No observable erosion in support has occurred among hospitals, physicians, pharmaceutical/biotech/medical device companies, labor groups or consumers. In January, House Republicans predicted substantial desertions by House Democrats, and wound up with only three Democratic votes for their repeal effort. The only visible chink is on the other side of the debate – the business community's evident non-interest in hyping repeal. In state after state, the hard work of implementation is moving forward.
7. An improving economy will help. In 1988, Massachusetts passed a major health reform law, which preceded a major economic downturn by months. The ensuing collapse destroyed any chance for implementation. Conversely, had the Clinton health reform plan passed in 1994 while the national economy was still crawling out of a downturn, implementation in the mid-to late-1990s would have been much easier than that early Massachusetts experience because the nation was experiencing an economic boom. The best time to pass major health reform legislation is near the bottom of an economic downturn, with implementation happening when the economy is back on track. And that is how it will play out this time around for the health law.
8. The federal deficit is a growing advantage. When the overhaul was signed in 2010, the Congressional Budget Office estimated$143 billion in 10-year deficit reduction — from 2010 to 2019 — because of the law. In February, the CBO updated its 10-year deficit reduction estimate — spanning 2012 to 2021 — to $210 billion. That number will grow year by year as the measure's savings and revenues take full effect, making repeal harder and harder.
9. Public opinion is sharply against total repeal, with only 21 percent support according to the March Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll. (Kaiser Health News is a program of the Foundation.) Overall numbers in public support are still sharply divided–46 percent unfavorable to 42 percent favorable. Yet on all key elements of reform, except for the mandate, the public supports the law and opposes repeal.
10. The single most devastating blow for implementation would be election of a president who supports the health law's repeal. Though it is a long way to November 2012, the odds-on favorite now (see Intrade at 64.0 percent–3/21/11) is the one candidate who supports full and effective implementation of the reform measure.
Can we get through the most challenging implementation of a federal law since the civil rights laws of the 1960s? Yes we can.
I take issue with #3. Though the group I come from is small, it is vital and largely supportive of the law. But when we bring our problems to HHS we get a virtual back of the hand. We have multiple employers which will pose W2 reporting problems among other things. And I’m getting worried about making sure we are covered until 2014 because it is getting so hard to administer our plan. To say nothing of the fact that many employers will dump our folks onto the exchanges.
Today on MSNBC Kevin Spacey was speaking out against cutting arts funding. He said Broadway was the most profitable of all US tourist industries. We are a small but significant piece of the economy.
And I take issue with #8 – How again can the federal deficit be an advantage?
Martha–
First, I never did get your e-mail. (I’m afraid it may have been spammed)
But I’m completely sympathetic to your concerns.
At the sae time, keep in mind that the roll-out date for universal coverage is 2014. For reasons I have explained in the past, it would have been impossible to make all of this happen, nationwide, for everyone, any sooner.
Between now and 2014, I would be pretty sure that your group will get a waiver. That still may well not give you the full ocverage you need. But will you really be worse off that you were two years ago?
I realize that it’s very frustrating that it will take until 2014 before the gov’t will be in a position to offer the subsidies that people in your group need to buy good insurance.
But we have made progress. Two years ago, people in your group had relatively little hope of ever being able to afford good, comprehensive coverage.
I also heard Spacey–and was very pleased that he stood up. He is right. The theatre (and Broadway) is, as you say, a small but significant piece of the economy.
The ACA will cover you– just not as soon as you and I would like.
Maggie: I agree, in the long run we will all be better off, I’m just worried that the main enforcer, HHS, has been very unsympathetic to us, basically treating us the same as an insurance company that may be trying to dodge regulations. I wish they would understand that we are not the enemy. That is why I take issue with the original post here which said all the regulation writing was “going well.”
Should I resend the email?
#8
I can reduce the deficit by $100 million. This is how: have a tax increase of $200 million, give me half and apply the rest to the deficit. Success! (Thanks to Mankiw)
This is the kind of thinking I disagree with, and it is basically why many people don’t like the PPACA. We cannot afford it. Also what you point out, once entitlements are enacted they are extremely difficult to repeal, even when facing a budget crisis.
There are many good parts of the PPACA, but many legislators don’t adequately recognize the costs. I would point you to public choice theory to find out why.
Joshua–
The only tax increase under the ACA is a fairly modest tax on individuals earning more than $200,000 (couples earning more than $250,000).
The ACA more than pays for itself (including this tax, which represents far less than the heatlh care industry is voluntarily contributing to reform.
Every other developed country in the world can afford equal, comprehensive health care for all of its citizens. We can too.Buy we will have to cut back on over-treatment in the form of unnecessary tests, treatments and surgeries. We have tons of reserach in peer-reviewed medical journals showing how so many of the tests and treatments we undergo provide little or no benefit while exposing patients to unncessary risks.