Public Policy Contributor Brad Flansbaum writes…
No, that is not my quote, but I did hear it from a guy sitting behind me at a recent conference on health reform. There are no revelations in this statement, but in that sentiment, I found a kindred spirit. Me.
The last 12 months of national health care debate have been fascinating. The power plays by the major stakeholders, the expected and unexpected topics of focus by the press corps, the often unpredictable public polling numbers, and the messaging from the Whitehouse—sometimes highbrow, sometimes funny, sometimes disgusting—all better than reality TV in my book. You just don’t know what will come next.
Like the Clinton attempts at health reform, pundits will write books on the events of 2009 and a few images or anecdotes will rise to the surface to capture this moment. Recall, the brilliant Jon Stewart disassembling Betsy McCaughey over her interpretation of the early drafts of legislation, or denials (and subsequent admissions) of Whitehouse deal making with PhRMA to help grease the sausage making, bill producing skids. Another classic was Michael Steele, Republican National Committee chair, rallying with seniors to “prevent” Medicare cuts. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Who would have thunk it? A comedian, and a damn good one, outshining our best mainstream journalists, our “kick the lobbyists out of DC” administration having a smoke in the AM with a professed enemy, and an RNC fox guarding the Boca Raton hen house. Ugh.
Regardless of what the future brings, there are statements, ideas, themes, etc., call them what you will, that pass for gospel and are regurgitated weekly. They won’t die, and as a result of utter mind numbing repetition, I am better able to sort the wheat from the chaff and effectively filter what is really worth reviewing. Here goes:
You know why? We continue to believe the obfuscation and sloganeering from our officials and the front story headlines (we elect what we deserve btw, don’t just blame the pols). When Hu Jintao starts asking for his IOU’s back, we will begin to get the straight dope. Until then, expect to hear the same song and dance. A great quote from Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
If you really want to be honest about it, eight to 10 percent of the members of Congress understand health care. At maximum. I chaired the intelligence committee, and health care makes it look like riding on a tricycle it’s so complicated. So what you have is lobbyists picking on congressmen who don’t know health-care reform, and they say, you know what, you could get a lot more jobs in your state if you only put more money into oxygen or a certain medical device. If you’re going to do Medicare right, understanding that the trust fund is going to go downhill in 2016, you can’t have Congress making these decisions. You need professionals.
Nice, huh? Now get back to work and order more tests, we have an industry to run!
Rob
Thanks for the kind words. You have given me a big task, and my ideas about reform are more pragmatic than ideologically driven. What do I mean?
While I do have some preferences regarding how the system should move, one could envision either a market or regulatory dominant market depending on whether the right safeguards are in place, and here is the key, whether they work!
As far as a market driven system, how confident are open minded reformers that risk-adjustment schemes will succeed? That health exchanges will be firewalled appropriately? That adverse selection won’t overtake the enrollment process? On the latter in fact, I am very cynical, but who is to say.
As far as a public system, unlike the pundits who pounce away, the program is not an entitlement and it will rely on its own premiums and pay back all start up costs. Is this realistic? Can we really create a viable insurance company, which in essence it is (and make no bones, it will need to be a behemoth out of the box), building a qualified infrastructure with talented people in a culture of excellence? Medicare uses third party support for a slew of functions, and one can speculate that the buy or build strategy will be the next hurdle if we get a public option. How this plays, no one knows. Also, I am skeptical at the administrative operating costs proponents often quote (“3%”). More efficient yes, but not the home run people claim. For sure, registry creation, scale, transparency, etc., and “do well” intent is embedded in the mission and on this front I am highly encouraged, but Uncle Sam execution and Congressional hamstringing are the proverbial sticky wickets. Again, there is theory, and there is reality…
I could go on, and these are fleeting thoughts, but the “success or failure” of reform is contingent on whether you believe in the idealized versions of the different plans and the ideologies folks bring to the negotiating table.
As most spectators are, I am highly skeptical, and at best, whether you deem one approach over another superior, we will measure success in inches, not yards—no matter what path we stumble down. The substrate that is our culture is too darn broken and I don’t see it changing—not until things get truly desperate.
Regardless of the final product though, the process will be a lot of round hole, square peg type of dickering, make no mistake. Moreover, it so dependent on the legislation, and at this juncture, the bills seem a helluva lot more descriptive than prescriptive to me. Speculation on whether an MCO can or will do “x,” or the HHS Secretary can or will do “y” just seems like a big black box—and with that, how can anyone be expected to make a real EBM type choice. I can only say it is all gut at this point, and betting on efficient reform (I did not say no reform) is like betting on a hapless ball club—hope springs eternal.
Brad
Brad,
Not only are you a talented writer, you make a great number of points. In the perfect world, tell us what you would write as a way to “reform” our sytem.
Rob