America's Health Insurance Plans engaged PricewaterhouseCoopers to examine the impact of four components of the health reform bill being proposed by the Senate Finance Committee. The report, on behalf of the insurers, will assert that under four of the provisions of the senate finance bill, health premiums will rise faster than they would under the current system.
According to the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, there are four provisions included in the Senate Finance Committee proposal that could increase private health insurance premiums above the levels projected under current law:
o Insurance market reforms coupled with a weak coverage requirement,
o A new tax on high-cost health care plans,
o Cost-shifting as a result of cuts to Medicare, and
o New taxes on several health care sectors.
The flaw in this analysis results from the failure to consider the impact of each of the four provisions independently. For example, the 'weak coverage requirement' of the senate bill alone is identified as promoting adverse selection for the health plans. This is the basis of much of the bill's impact upon premium. The report fails to project the impact upon premium should this 'weakness' be eliminated.
Additionally, the report is limited in that it examined just the four provisions considered likely to increase costs. No consideration is given to the beneficial effect on premiums of other provisions of the bill such as health exchanges or the public option (not contained in the senate bill) that would likely result in premium reduction.
A senate finance committee spokesman said, "This report is untrue, disingenuous and bought and paid for by the same health insurance companies that have been gouging too many consumers for too long ... these health insurers are breaking out the same, tired playbook of deception"
ReplyDeleteMichael Barone: Conceptual language hides health care's true cost.
ReplyDeleteFirst law of thermodynamics ... You can't get more than what you pay for. Second law ... You won't get your money's worth.
PS Contrary to popular belief, there is NO Baucus Bill.
Joe Lieberman (I-CT) opposes Baucus plan.
ReplyDeleteHe flat-out tells Don Imus this morning that he won’t support the bill (when it actually becomes a bill) because it will raise premium prices on the 87% of Americans who have coverage to insure about a third of those with no coverage. Lieberman also says that “you don’t have to be an economist” to understand that taxes and fees on producers get paid by consumers...
Tell lieberman, this is the health care debate, not the tax debate.
ReplyDeletelieberman's politics (hawk, tax cuts, deficit spending) is always wrong
he became an independent because his own party wouldn;'t support him and he lacks the conviction to change parties.
Well, perhaps Lieberman understands that Baucus' "Concept" reads like a Tax Bill.
ReplyDeleteFrom the NYTimes:
ReplyDelete(Carper) 'proposed leaving the decision on whether to establish a public plan up to the states ...
... Senator Charles E. Schumer, ... and Mr. Carper are talking about how to create a national government insurance plan that would let states opt in or out. “All the naysayers weren’t looking at what is happening on the ground,” Mr. Schumer said, “which is that moderate members are open to a public option.”'
This is a matter which rightfully should be left up to the states. While I would quibble with Schumer over his use of the term "moderate" (Schumer often feels that anyone to the right of Trotsky is far right), this would be a fair compromise while IMHO passing constitutional muster (Tenth Amendment.)
ReplyDeleteNow, amplifying my comment above, Douglas Holtz-Eakin in a WSJ Op-Ed agrees: The Baucus Bill is a Tax Bill.