Affordability is key for health care reform

In drafting a national plan, Washington should follow Maine's lead. 

 In the health care debate, most agree that costs will not be controlled until everyone is covered and able to access the right care, including preventive care and management of chronic illnesses, at the right time and in the right health care setting.Otherwise, costs for expensive emergency and catastrophic care for the uninsured and under-insured will continue to be passed to those who are paying private health insurance premiums.

Affordability is the key to providing everyone coverage. Health reform must include guaranteed Medicaid (known as MaineCare in Maine) coverage for more low-income households and robust subsidies for moderate income households so they can purchase insurance.

Maine has been successful in preventing high rates of uninsurance among low-income families with minor children by providing MaineCare to those with income below 200 percent of the federal poverty level ($36,620 for a family of three). Medicaid is the most efficient way of providing coverage to all low-income people. The infrastructure is in place; it costs less than private insurance and it provides for the unique needs of people with disabilities, children and the elderly, who tend to be disproportionately represented among low-income populations.

National health reform should follow Maine's lead. It should extend Medicaid to all low-income people with income below 150 percent of the poverty level and should give states, such as Maine, the option to continue to serve people up to 200 percent of the poverty level so as to assure their care is not disrupted. In financing this coverage, there must be equitable distribution of funds among the states. States like Maine, which have already taken these steps, should not be disadvantaged as the nation looks toward helping lagging states extend their coverage.

Moderate income people who are ineligible for Medicaid need affordable options for comprehensive health care too. Families are currently at the breaking point when it comes to purchasing coverage — unable to afford the premiums and out-of-pocket costs for care. Today's average employer-based insurance coverage would cost a family of three that earns $55,000 a year, if they could purchase this same plan on the individual market, approximately 23 percent of their income. Coupled with the costs of other basic household necessities, such as food, housing, heat, transportation and child care, this expense is utterly unaffordable.

Subsidies tied to income that assist families in purchasing health coverage in the insurance market are essential. Affordability also means that people with low to moderate incomes are protected from high cost-sharing, such as deductibles and co-payments. Finally, health care reform must ensure access to comprehensive benefits so that people don't go without the care they need. Health coverage is not affordable to low or moderate income households if they find themselves with $10,000 of debt because of deductibles, co-payments, or the costs of uncovered care.

What is affordable? This depends on household income. Those with low income have trouble affording seemingly modest health care costs because all their income is already going toward other basic necessities. When Oregon, Maryland, Vermont and Rhode Island imposed modest premium increases for low-income groups, considerable numbers dropped coverage.

A study by the Center for Studying Health System Change found that about one-third of U.S. families with income below 200 percent of the poverty level had trouble paying their medical bills, even when those bills amounted to less than 2.5 percent of their income. Further, for those with income between 200 percent and 400 percent of the poverty level, 20 percent of those with insurance still had trouble paying their medical bills.

Maine's Sen. Olympia Snowe is a key player in making decisions about national health care reform as a member of the Senate Finance Committee. In the past, as she has worked on Medicaid and children's health insurance issues, she has demonstrated a true understanding of the needs of ordinary people who are working hard and struggling just to get by. Now, at this critical crossroads in health reform, this experience and her skills at navigating complex issues and building consensus for what is best for Maine people and the nation is more important than ever.

Sara Gagné-Holmes is the executive director of Maine Equal Justice Partners, which performs legislative advocacy on behalf of low-income people in the areas of health care, food assistance, income supports,
employment, and education. E-mail: sgh@mejp.org.

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...

In order to make comments, you must verify your account.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your profile. A member of our staff will call you to verify this information. To join in, fill out your user profile completely and check the box "please verify my status." We'll get back to you within one business day to verify your account.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned.

Advertisement

Displaying comments, from newest to oldest

RpsNoMore's picture

Vtg64, Fox "Republican"

Vtg64,

Fox "Republican" News isn't even credible, it's just the propaganda wing of the Republi-CON party. That you prefer that numbing brain candy for right wingnuts says you're one of the sheeple who prefer your brave Republi-CON fantasies to reality.

Maybe one day you will be happy, singing in the fields. If Republicans win at any level that's more likely than not. Wingnut.

RpsNoMore's picture

Vtg64, ... and under

Vtg64,

... and under the "guise" that American needed to immediately attack Iraq, we got that war. Given the choice between health care reform and an unnecessary war pushed through on lies and Republican deceit, I'll take what Democrats have to offer.

Those with a clue know that Republicans are bad for America and actually enabled the very companies that are destroying the current health care system.

RpsNoMore's picture

Republicans are offering

Republicans are offering nothing. They are in the pockets of big insurers who are bleeding the American people dry, same as big oil, same as big business that ships jobs overseas.

If you want to turn America around, look beyond the same Republican do nothing negativity that always makes problems worse and erodes America's standard of living.

If you think America's health care system can't flourish without big HMO's, then you're a perfect little pawn of the anti-middle class Republican party

Vtags64's picture

Thank you "Mad Dad" for

Thank you "Mad Dad" for stating the truth. Under the guise that "something" had to be done right away, we got the stimulus bill. Please read the attached report from Foxnews annotated from the wall street Journal. The same case, "something must be done now" is being made for health reform

The stimulus bill "includes help for those hardest hit by our economic crisis," President Obama promised when he signed the bill into law on Feb. 17. "As a whole, this plan will help poor and working Americans."

But FOXNews.com has analyzed data tracking how the stimulus money is being given out across the 50 states and the District of Columbia, and it has found a perverse pattern: the states hardest hit by the recession received the least money. States with higher bankruptcy, foreclosure and unemployment rates got less money. And higher income states received more.

The transfers to the states having the least problems are large. Even after accounting for other factors, each $1,000 in a state's per capita income means that the state got $21 more per capita in stimulus funds. With a spread of almost $38,000 in per-person income between the top and bottom states, this has a sizable impact. High-income states get considerably more stimulus money.

States with higher bankruptcy rates got a lot less, not more, money — roughly $86 less per person for each percentage point increase in the state's bankruptcy rate. States with higher foreclosure rates were treated very similarly, losing $82 per person for each one percentage point more of the people suffering foreclosures.

The spending data come from two reliable sources: the Wall Street Journal and the Federal government's Recovery.gov. On June 30, the Wall Street Journal published data on stimulus spending by state for seven categories of social spending (education, HUD, health, crime fighting, job training, arts, and food and farming) and eight categories of infrastructure spending (transportation, water, energy, military, veterans, government, outdoors, and emergency shelters). The Journal's data allow a comparison by each category of government spending. Their total accounts for $195 billion out of the $787 billion that will be spent on the stimulus. Out of this money, the amounts vary a lot across the nation, with the very lowest, a mere $504 per capita in Florida, to the highest, at $3,712 per capita in D.C.

If one relies on the Recovery.gov accounts instead, which, as of July 8, reported $218 billion of spending but without the detailed breakdown provided by the Journal, the bottom line is the same: the money is not going to the states hardest hit by the recession or to the poorest states.

The four accompanying charts show how stimulus dollars per capita from the Journal vary with the unemployment, bankruptcy and foreclosure rates as well as per capita income for the 50 states. A trend line is also included to make comparisons easier. The data for economic conditions were taken from when the stimulus bill was being passed. In each figure, the trend clearly shows that the states in the worst economic shape got the least federal government money.

Two comments should be raised about the figures. Alaska has by far the highest stimulus spending per capita of any state, more than twice the second highest state, Arizona ($808). But its higher amount may at least partially reflect the state's much higher cost of living. In any case, given that it is such an outlier, the charts were redone excluding Alaska. Doing that, the results for bankruptcies, foreclosures, and unemployment indicate that the states with the worst problems got even less money than shown in the charts provided here. While states with higher incomes also still got more money, the relationship was no longer statistically significant. Finally, the charts were redone with the most recent data available for these measures of economic hardship, and the results were very similar.

Obviously all these measures of economic conditions as well as some other factors could simultaneously play a role in how much money different states received from the federal government. To account for political considerations in how the money was distributed, Obama's share of the two-person vote in a state was also included. Concerns about the stimulus being used to reward supporters has already been noted in the press.

Politico reported on June 5 that the “Stimulus tour” — visits by Mr. Obama and other administration officials “across the country to tout the massive spending program or hand out stimulus cash to grateful local officials” — overwhelmingly took place in states that voted for Obama: “52 of the 66 events were in states that backed Obama.” The other 14 events were in states that Obama lost only narrowly. A new study released by USA Today also finds that counties that voted for Obama received about twice as much stimulus money per capita as those that voted for McCain.

In our results, Obama's share of the vote accounted for only a small percentage of the variation in how the stimulus money is being allocated. A one percentage point increase in Obama's vote share means an additional $13.52 in per capita spending, but even then the relationship rests on the large amount of money given to D.C.

Breaking down the data by type of spending shows that money for infrastructure was much more likely than social spending to go to high-income states with low bankruptcy and foreclosure rates. Federal spending on construction and repairs to federal buildings as well as repairs to highways and public transit projects drives much of this perverse relationship between economic distress and infrastructure stimulus spending.

The chairmen of the Senate and House Appropriation Committees, Senator Dan Inouye, D-Hawaii, and Congressman David Obey, D-Wis., have already opened the door for a second stimulus plan this year. Obey and Inouye have both indicated that a second bill might be needed if the economy didn't improve fast enough, and Obey is on record saying that more money should have been included in the bill. Neither politician's office was willing to provide any on the record comments.

"The stimulus bill is designed to help those who have been hurt by the economic downturn.... Do you see disparity out there in where the money is going? Certainly," a Democratic congressional staffer knowledgeable about the process told FOXNews.com. "The people to talk to are in the administration.... The administration is deciding where [the money] flows."

An Obama administration official told FOXNews.com that "it is not as simple as looking where the money goes. You could have someone who lives in Maryland and works in Virginia and they are benefited from money given to the Virginia firm even though they live in Maryland." She also noted that it didn't really matter who got the money because "giving out money is good for everyone. If you give the money to an old person, they will spend it and that will create more jobs."

She also said that Congress was responsible for deciding where the money would go. "We didn't write the bill. We let Congress write the bill," she said.

Lee Ohanian, an economics professor at UCLA who has extensively studied New Deal policies and depressions, told FOXNews.com that the spending patterns our study found "certainly don't fit what you would think that they would be from the standpoint of government spending as a social safety net.... The pattern does seem quite odd. It is certainly not the way the program was

mad dad's picture

Maine and California have

Maine and California have health plans that are budget breakers and you want the Feds to go the same route? Hello, this country is in a financial crisis and can't afford the health plan that is currently proposed. I hope someone at the federal level wakes up to this fact. The President is trying to rush though this health care package the same way, and with the same result, his bailout packages have worked.

Advertisement