Over the next few days, I’ll be taking a closer look at the provisions on the House health care bill – H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act. As was the case when the original tri-committee bill was released, the House committees have a ton of fact sheets on the bill that are required reading for folks looking to learn more.
Overall, the House bill is a bill that takes on the insurance industry. Here’s how:
A Public Health Insurance Option
First and foremost, the House bill creates a public health insurance option, available in the new health care marketplace called the “Exchange,” that would compete directly with private insurance. The public option won’t have to worry about profits or stockholders, and because it is run by HHS, it will have huge bargaining clout to get good rates from providers. Overall, while the public option in the House bill won’t save taxpayers as much money as a public option based on Medicare rates, it will still save money according to the CBO.
Because of all that savings, and because the public option will have a mandate to provide health care to people, not maximize profit, it will be a strong competitor to private insurance, keeping prices down and attracting customers. Private insurance will be forced to compete or face losing their most profitable customer base – the individuals and small group customers who are in the Exchange from the start.
Insurance Industry Regulations
The House bill puts new regulations on the insurance industry to curb their bad practices.
The practice of rescission – terminating someone’s insurance plan because they get sick – would be outlawed immediately. Similarly, as soon as this bill is signed, lifetime caps on insurance coverage would be outlawed.
After the Exchange is set up in 2013, all insurers, not just the ones in the Exchange, will be barred from denying care for pre-existing conditions, charging more if your are a woman or sick, or employing annual benefits caps. They will have to cap out-of-pocket expenses at a standard level, keep administrative costs down to below 15%, and publicly disclose and justify their rate increases.
Medicare beneficiaries and the unemployed will benefit as well, with overpayment to private companies through Medicare eliminated and COBRA coverage extended until the Exchange is set up.
Finally, the House bill will eliminate the anti-trust exemption on health insurance companies, making it possible to finally prosecute them for their monopolistic practices.
Immediate Relief
The House bill also provides immediate relief for people at the mercy of the insurance industry by setting up an interim high risk pool open to people who have been uninsured for at least a few months or who have been denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions.
Though clearly not a long term solution, the high-risk pool, combined with the COBRA extensions mentioned above, would get people out from the trap the insurance industry has put them in until full reforms kick in.
Taking on Drug Companies
The House bill also gives us significant savings from drug companies, which according to the Washington Post would amount to between $125 and $150 billion in cuts to their profits.
It does this by eliminating the donut hole which forces seniors to pay unaffordable prices for prescription drugs, starting immediately and completely closing the hole by 2019. It also requires the Secretary of HHS to negotiate for better drug prices for Medicare and Medicaid, and makes it easier for Medicare Part D to offer free generic prescription drugs to enrollees.
Of course, some issues, like biologics (new drugs exempted from generic competition), are still unresolved.
————————
There’s a lot to talk about in the House bill – employer responsibility, fair financing, a whole host of other reforms that take effect immediately. Over the next few days I’ll talk about those. However, the overall thrust of the bill is clear – it takes on the insurance industry for consumers, strengthening care for folks without insurance, on the individual market, in small and large businesses, and on Medicare and Medicaid.
(also posted at the NOW! blog)
I’m proud to work for Health Care for America Now



7 Comments







Jason,
Quick question about the bills proposed by Reid and Pelosi this week:
Aren’t they the starting points for debate on the House and Senate floors? In other words, aren’t they not the legislation that will ultimately come out of the House and Senate, and not what will ultimately emerge out of the conference to merge what passes out of the House and Senate, and so not what President Obama will ultimately be signing?
It just seems like, as we analyze the pros and cons of what is being proposed now, we should be aware of the fact that what is being proposed now isn’t necessarily going to be what we’re going to get in the end.
There are still plenty of opportunities to water down what is starting out as watered down versions of real health care reform.
These bills are starting points in general, but especially for the House, things aren’t going to change much. Given how the House works, there are unlikely to be *any* amendments offered on the House floor, so what we saw today is likely to be what we get.
Of course, things can change in conference, but if the House passes what they have now, and the Senate passes what they have now, and we end up with something in the middle, then that middle will be much better than the Senate bill now.
I sincerely hope you’re right. I think they’re already very close to the point of having pulled a defeat out of the jaws of victory.
I obviously have never followed this process as carefully as I have been now. My understanding has been that there will be amendments offered and changes made both before final passage out of the House and Senate and then more changes made after, when the bills are merged in conference. Again, I hope you’re right, though I still think that Pelosi to some extent and Reid to a larger extent have failed us by starting out with a lot less than what real health care reform should be.
I have sent a letter to Rep. Chris Van Hollen, DCCC chairman, to make it clear that the Democratic leadership has a bigger problem than just having angered Progressives.
In other words, I think we need to keep up the pressure.
We’ll have to see how the process plays out in the House, but in general, the prospects of watering down are much greater in the Senate.
Thanks for this preliminary rundown, Jason, and for the link to the fact sheet. I look forward to your upcoming posts.
tweeted.
Thanks Karen, there will be more.
Ryan Grim’s latest at HuffPost , on how the Blue Dogs actually cost BigPharma more money, also has some interesting details about Nancy Pelosi’s negotiations, and that she does not feel bound by WH/Senate deal with BigPharma, as the House was not a party to it.
[Fingers crossed]