Private-Sector Partnerships Bode Well for Health Reform

Yesterday's announcement that America's hospitals will contribute $155 billion to the health care reform effort is yet another sign that meaningful health care reform is within our grasp.

The money will come from cuts in government programs, making the hospital industry, after the pharmaceutical sector, the second private health care stakeholder to voluntarily reduce its revenues for the cause of health care reform.

This deal comes on the heels of Wal-Mart's recent endorsement of an employer mandate -- a policy that could be a key component of the final health care package.

With Congress eager to pass a health care bill by the end of the month, this emerging private-sector coalition might be exactly what's necessary to get the job done.

For one, bringing industry leaders into the legislative process diffuses one of the biggest threats to comprehensive health care reform. President Clinton's 1993 push for new health policy died at the feet of a business community that was largely opposed to it.

President Obama preempted this problem by inviting a group of industry and labor representatives to the White House in May to ask for their support on this issue. Although the drug and hospital industries are so far the only participants in that gathering to act on their pledge of support, the meeting made it far less likely that the reform bill will be scorned by business leaders.

Collaborating with industry will also help garner popular support for the legislation. According to a recent Gallup poll, on the issue of health care reform, Americans trust hospitals more than President Obama and congressional leaders of either party. That same poll showed that pharmaceutical companies are also considered more trustworthy on the issue than Congressional Republicans.

In other words, bringing the health care industry into the process will add valuable private-sector bona fides to any resulting reform package.

But forging such a broad alliance brings with it more than just political benefits. It often results in sounder policy. And on the issue of health care reform, that's precisely what's required.

For years, debate over this issue in particular has stagnated, as members of both parties have refused to budge from their party-line positions. The upshot has been steadily rising health care costs, as well as a swelling in the number of uninsured Americans. Not to mention an increase in the incidence of mostly preventable conditions like diabetes and obesity.

Now that we have a diverse group of Republicans, Democrats, and business leaders involved in the policy process, lawmakers are in a position to craft health care reform that's geared toward results, and not philosophy.

As negotiations continue over the next few weeks, it will be important to focus on practical, incremental reforms that address the problems of our health care system, without splintering this delicate coalition. This will be no easy task, but earning the support of three major private-sector health care stakeholders is certainly a promising early sign.

Douglas E. Schoen was a campaign consultant for more than 30 years and is the author of "Declaring Independence: The Beginning of the End of the Two-Party System."

Comments

[ntmessage]

These never work as predicted. At the end of the day the industry has been half-pregnant for decades, a perverse combination of government and private systems with all of the profits on the private side and all of the costs and liabilities pushed off to the government (meaning the taxpayer). At any rate the GOP wants to keep your healthcare the way it is! The more they push that point the more the people will want the public option.

[AxisofReason]

Despite phony protests from Republicans, the U.S. health insurance market exhibits two characteristics of a market failure: 1) certain markets (elderly and poor) are neither profitable opportunities nor well-served and 2) the market lacks sufficient competition.

More evidence of a failed system of incentives is found in Dr. Gawande’s excellent New Yorker article. He concludes that the incentives to overuse medical care explain dramatic costs differences across regions and markets for equivalent care.

http://axisofreason.com/2009/07/13/us-private-health-insurance-classic-market-failure/

[expired]

Health Care: The Public Plan Option

These Democratic Senators have NOT agreed to support it:
Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)

Senator Tom Carper (D-DE)

Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA)

Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL)

Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE)

Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA)

Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND)

Senator Max Baucus (D-MT)

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN)

Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR)

Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT)

These names are reported by The Hill here and here

Update: Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC) says she supports a public option.
Update: Senator Jeff Binghaman (D-NM) says he supports a public option.

You can also contact the White House and voice your opinion
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414

[Leakman]

All healthcare should have profit taken out of it. Local communities and States should have the right to build and staff their own community hospitals. They should also be able to borrow from their own State bank such as (Bank of North Dakota) to fund ththis infrastructure at reduced rates. If we can't find doctors and nurses here in the U.S. to staff them. Cuba and other countries produce excellent medical personnel. Patterned after the VA healthcare system it would let this country focus on revamping our economy

[JuliaRain]

So where are all the CONs now? Why aren't they in this thread? You'd think they'd be flocking here to defend the the "free market" and the "private sector"!

[jhNY]

In other welcome news, foxes have agreed to allow the building of better chicken houses so long as the foxes are left in charge of counting the chickens without farmer oversight. "We had to do it", said one relieved farmer. "It's not perfect, but it's a good beginning. Otherwise, we'd never have gotten anything built so long as the foxes kept biting the carpenters."

[mjtaylor22]

OH SURE LET THE FOR PROFIT INSURERS WRITE THE LEGISLATION, and once again we will have lil or no service, and be forced to miss tretments get dropped after one claim. etc etc etc
oh i forgot die in waiting rooms while docotrs have coffee and security watches.......
yes that is the ticket let the insurance industry write policy for its competitio­n.........­.
get outta here with that garbage
yo just keep waterig down everything. i see the debate and it makes no sense that they pander to voters and then as soon as the election is over go bk to business as usual tot he detriment of the american people.

[Irmanator]

I disagree with this approach. It leads to the health care industry writing the rules and avoiding changing their ways. It is just another example of kowtowing to the moneyed special interests who represent a small percentage of the population.
The public insurance option is the logical means to make the insurance companies compete fairly and reduce the cost of basic insurance. It is what the public overwhelmingly wants.

[WorkingClass]

That same poll showed that pharmaceutical companies are also considered more trustworthy on the issue than Congressional Republicans.

On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being the lowest, my trust in pharmaceutical companies would be Zero. But yes, I trust congressional Republicans even less.

[BBackSoon]

The old joke about the biggest lies used to be ‘I’ll respect you in the morning’ and ‘I’m from the government and I am here to help’.

Now it appears to be ‘Big Healthcare wants to make things better and cheaper for the average person.’

How about if I get to sit in on the deal making? I have some things I would like to discuss with these companies.

[jmpurser]

Thank you! Us chickens should be alarmed when the Coyote is invited to "secret meetings" and comes out grinning and promising to work for chicken health everywhere.

[BBackSoon]

We could not agree more.

[JuliaRain]

Sir, I cannot disagree with you more. Ten years ago the private insurance profiteers said they would change:

H.M.O.'s Shift May Please Patients, but Raise Costs
Published: Wednesday, November 10, 1999
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/10/business/hmo-s-shift-may-please-patients-but-raise-costs.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/P/Prices

Physician Financial Incentives: Another UM Tool Bites the Dust
http://www.managedcaremag.com/archives/0006/0006.incentives.html

United's New Approach: Good PR or Better Patient Care?: 'Mother May I?'
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/408324_2

Did the insurance profiteers fulfill their assertions of change?

Senate Panel Hears of Health Insurers' Wrongs
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/24/AR2009062401636.html

Ex-Hospital CEO Battles Reform Effort
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/10/AR2009051002243.html?hpid=topnews

Health insurers refuse to limit rescission of coverage
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rescind17-2009jun17,0,3508020,full.story

Let's not forget Big Pharma's criminal activities:

Pfizer Reaches Settlement In Nigerian Drug-Trial Case
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/03/AR2009040301877.html?hpid=moreheadlines

These are criminal profiteers who had their chance to reform. Instead they increased the fraud and criminal wrong-doings to further profit in the billions.

So, no, these profiteers are not worthy of public trust. Please do not suggest otherwise. It would be a grave disservice to your fellow Americans.

Thank you.

[RoloTomassi]

"Now that we have a diverse group of Republicans, Democrats, and business leaders involved in the policy process, lawmakers are in a position to craft healthcare reform that's geared toward results, and not philosophy."

The above statement from this article is the perfect example of the WRONG way to approach healthcare reform; it does nothing but perpetuate corporatist profiteering and congressional stupidity.

Each and every business interest involved will break their non-binding promises, and we will be back at square one.

To trust US free market fundie capitalists to stick to an agreement to conduct business in a manner that is beneficial to the consumers at the cost of giving up their gross profits is beyond naive.