The House released its health care reform bill today and will begin three simultaneous committee markups on different provisions later this week. Video of Waxman’s statement, courtesy of TPM.
You can access House Committee summaries and the actual text at the House Education and Labor Committee site. Help us read through the bill.
First impression from the summaries: it’s an excellent reform package, with lots of very worthwhile features. But we’ll be looking through the details in the next few days.
General Health Care Features:
A. Up to 97 percent of Americans will be covered with federal health care and/or health insurance.
B. Medicaid coverage will be improved and be expanded to allow people up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level. The Feds will pick up the added costs, not states.
C. Uninsured people with incomes above that 133 percent of fed poverty level (FPL) will receive federal credits (subsidies) to help purchase insurance in a new federal insurance Exchange. The feds will build the exchange, but states/regions can take over their regional operations if/when they’re ready.
D. A national health insurance plan ("public option") will be one of the plans available in the exchange to individuals and small businesses that don’t have insurance, with eligibility to others expanded over 3-4 years. It starts with Medicare rates for three years.
E. There will be new federal standards specifying the coverage that all plans, public and private, must include — basic care, mental health, preventive, dental and vision (for kids).
F. A stronger federal advisory (regulatory) group, headed by the Surgeon General, will define the minimum standards. The feds will also promote new payment incentives to providers that will, over time, lower costs of health care.
G. Individual mandate to acquire insurance, with hardship exemptions for low income.
H. Employer mandates, based on "play" (provide insurance at work) or "pay" (8 percent) contribution to fund expanded coverage for the uninsured. Small businsses with payrolls less than $250,000 are exempt, but the contribution is phased in up to 8 percent.
I. Improves Medicare in several ways: It phases out the drug "doughnut hole," eliminates some co-pays, reforms the payment structure, and upgrades coverage.
J. There will be a cap on the total payments you’re required to make yourself — no more than 1.5% of income for those with the lowest income and phasing up to no more
than 11% of income for those at 400% of poverty, which means about $4,000 for them. [This probably needs to be lower.]
K. Objectionable insurance practices will be outlawed: rescission, prior condition exclusion, undue discrimination in premiums. [more details later]
Particularly noteworthy are the descriptions of how the bill will bring costs under control. In addition to using the public plan as a reform model to put competitive pressure on private insurers, the bill addresses the incentive problems described by Gawande and others:
1. Modernization and improvement of Medicare. The bill implements major delivery system reform in Medicare to reward efficient provision of health care, rolling out innovative concepts such as accountable care organizations, medical homes, and bundling of acute and post-acute provider payments. New payment incentives aim to decrease preventable hospital readmissions, expanding this policy over time to recognize that physicians and post-acute providers also play an important role in avoiding readmissions. The bill improves the Medicare Part D program by creating new consumer protections for Medicare Advantage Plans, eliminating the “donut hole” and improving low-income subsidy programs, so that Medicare is affordable for all seniors and other eligible individuals. A centerpiece of the proposal is a complete reform of the flawed physician payment mechanism in Medicare (the so-called sustainable growth rate or “SGR” formula), with an update that wipes away accumulated deficits, provides for a fresh start, and rewards primary care services, care coordination and efficiency.
2. Innovation and delivery reform through the public health insurance option. The public health insurance option will be empowered to implement innovative delivery reform initiatives so that it is a nimble purchaser of health care and gets more value for each health care dollar. It will expand upon the experiments put forth in Medicare and be provided the flexibility to implement value-based purchasing, accountable care organizations, medical homes, and bundled payments. These features will ensure the public option is a leader in efficient delivery of quality care, spurring competition with private plans.
3. Improving payment accuracy and eliminating overpayments. The bill eliminates overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans and improves payment accuracy for numerous other providers, following recommendations by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission and the President. These steps will extend Medicare Trust Fund solvency, and put Medicare on stronger financialfooting for the future.
In other words, the bill seeks significant cost savings not only in the Medicare structure but, by using the Public Plan as a model for reforms, encourages cost efficiencies in the private industry as well.
Additional links to the Bill are here.
Update: The Bill’s features phase in starting next year and continue to 2018. Ways and Means Committee summarizes the schedule.
Per Ezra Klein: here’s the surtax measures:
If I’m reading this correctly, about half is paid for through $500 billion or so in savings from Medicare and Medicaid. The rest comes from a surtax on the richest 1.5 percent. The surtax is 1 percent on income between $350,000 and $500,000; 1.5 percent on income between $500,000 and $1,000,000; and 5.4 percent in income above $1,000,000. The surtax can vary if the bill is less or more expensive than initially anticipated.
Jonathan Cohn, House Bill looks good so far.
Ezra Klein, House releases bill, incomplete CBO Score = $1 trillion over 10 years.
Ryan Grim, summarizes the CBO $1 trillion cost estimate
Scarecrow, Background post on revenue issues and tradeoffs here.



73 Comments




Thanks, scarecrow. Not that photo ops are particularly informative, but can anyone provide a video link to the unveiling?
Some video here: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo…..hp?ref=fpa
Thank you for the post, Scarecrow. Recommended.
thank you Scarecrow. rec.
color me impressed – on first read it does indeed look like an excellent reform effort
Communism, pure and simple.
Fortunately, we have Rahm to save us.
What happens when a good bill (the House’s) meets a shitty bill (the Senate’s)?
The last bullet on the Public Health Insurance Option reads:
“Provider participation is voluntary – Medicare providers are presumed to be participating unless they opt out.”
So the providers (doctors, hospitals) could opt out of the public plan? Why would we want that?
Yesss! Storm the Bastille! Oh, wait. That’s been done.
Scarecrow, re the “up to 97% of Americans” in point A, is the 3% the big income folks?
Well, we’ll see. Ezra has some good analysis of the politics:
They can already opt out of Medicare.
This is actually a change from the draft bill that made it stronger. Doing it this way means there will be a built in provider network for the public option, because if we know human nature, most folks won’t opt out.
If you have not dealt with the donut hole, you cannot imagine anything that makes less sense, is more complicated and so much needs to be eliminated. Worked on this with my brother, David’s mother, and David. Next up: moi. This would be a maaaaaajor victory for citizens!
So F. above ups the ante on the Surgeon General nomination. Lots of goodies in this summary. Thanks so much, Scarecrow!
Such a cute troll.
Oh, tell me please, what VALUE insurance companies provide? Physicians, P.A.’s, nurses, hospitals, Pharamaceuticals, and medical device providers all provide value to the patient.
In reality, the chance for competition to ramp up throughout the supply chain is enhanced by getting rid of the insurance companies.
thank you Jason, was just headed over to Kagro’s place to check on that –
I have been reading posts about the ‘94 effort and I too was struck by the significance of the committee’s unity
Thanks…I hope you’re right.
an ok bill that will put us in a much better place in 2010 than we were in in 2008.
They provide seven-figure salaries to their executives.
Isn’t that the point of capitalism?
Besides, trophy wives are expensive, you know.
We don’t.
AFAIK, older physicians with established practices may want to opt out, if they don’t need revenue from Medicaid and Medicare. With the economic meltdown, fewer and fewer physicians have that luxury/fall into that category.
Also, specialists rely on internists/primary-care/ physicians for referrals. This APPEARS to be a big boost to primary care physicians. If so I think that really helps us. Specialists need those referrals form internists/primary care physicians, so there’s an incentive for them to take on these patients.
I’m very interested to see what selise and Kip think of this, is it “robust” enough?
Jason may have a better answer, but I think that’s a “fall through the cracks” estimate, which is worrisome. If were wealthy people, then can presumably take care of themselves. But I think it’s low income, hardship exemption, but for some reason you fail to get them into Medicaid or other things for which they’re eligible. Massachusetts has the same problem, in addition to not having a public plan or other strong cost-containment features.
Did I miss a snark tag?
If so, my apologies.
Year 1 of operation is 2013. Between enactment and then, the Health Benefit Advisory Council will be thrashing out the benefit and co-pay levels. Followed by 45-day public comment and possibility of DHHS Secretary sending it back for changes.
Folks need to know at passage that it will not change things until 2013. Otherwise there will be some serious GOP attacks along the lines of “Where is it?”
And keep in mind that the debate about Medicare payments not being enough — there’s a mechanisms to review that question by a federal group and resolve it, subject to Congress override (I think). So if they can agree on the correct value for Medicare over time, then linking to Medicare becomes less problematic.
Remember that the payment incentive reforms are supposed to change not just how much we pay providers, but what we pay them to do — not fee for service quantity, but health care results quality — so any hard and fast rules now about linking to Medicare payments being good or bad are premature. This will all change over time, at least that’s what the authors seem to have in mind.
Very helpful, thanks.
Thanks for this, Scarecrow !
EDIT: I too await the comments of Selise & others on this.
They provide seven and eight figure salaries to their executives and profits to their share holders.
I’m not sure exactly where the 3% is coming from, but my guess is that when you’re dealing with the CBO, a statistics-based organization, you’ll never get all the way to 100%. They’ll always leave out a few because that’s what their percentage-based statistics tell them.
Is it clear to you that year 1 applies to all provisions in the bill, or can some of them kick in sooner. e.g., an earlier Reuters story said the revenues from the surtax could begin as soon as 2011 and ramp up.
This is really key and will have to be figured out via specialty.
AFAIK, a lot of surgeons work within a hospital/clinical framework that includes medical device providers. What ever the Medicare reimbursement is, it impacts their ability to adopt new technology.
WRT outpatient psychiatrists, their primary interface is with pharmaceuticals. Lot of kickbacks from Big Pharma to some unscrupulous shrinks.
Some primary care physicians routinely don’t test kids on Medicaid for lead poisoning. They say they lose money on the tests. I have an opinion on this, but just trying to add data to the discussion.
I’m not happy about the 2013 start date.
A link to a timeline for implementation — via Jonathan Cohn
http://issuu.com/thenewrepubli…..layout.xml
Four years to get the program up is ridiculous can be cut in half. Also to put it off until after the 2012 election is a mistake politically.
A possible reason for it, via Jon Cohn:
To look like we are giving choices. In rural areas, the doctors, etc, can’t do that, because too many patients wouldn’t be covered. In a big city, I believe you have choices of doctor groups etc.
SO? It’s great for the drug companies to keep the prices high? What? You aren’t a fan of W?
Sorry, I could not resist since the doughnut hole is totally idiocy. How are you?
Much appreciated.
I’m the furthest thing from a policy wonk on this stuff, so I appreciate your take.
I am a capitalist, which is why I hate the insurance companies. They provide no value, it’s crowneyism.
agree.
even taking Cohn’s point about pace of implementation equals lower costs in to consideration
Social Security was introduced in the House 1/35 – first payment was made in 3/37 and that was without computers
MediCare/MediCaid was signed in to law in 7/65 – 20 million americans were enrolled and receiving benefits by July ‘66
yes, I know this is a first pass and we are talking about a different animal in 09, but 4 years is not going to sound good to at least 20 million uninsured american families who do not qualify for MediCare/MedicAid
Pass Bernie Sanders amendment to allow states to form their own single payer systems and this is decent legislation.
I’d hate to lose you as a commenter/poster, but have you ever thought about running for elected office?
Or working on a Congressional staff?
Social Security is very straight forward but Medicare is a complete puzzle to me. I have to pay for every visit I make to the doctor and then Medicare sends me a check a couple of months later – but never for the full amount.
I have tried to make sense of what they are doing but have given up and just accepted that it’s like any insurance with a deductible. I suppose it is. The rules read as if written in a foreign language.
President Obama announced a few weeks ago along with pharma that Pharma was going to reduce costs during the donut hole, now we are closing the donut hole. How does this work?
Whoa – the part that jumped out at me was the subsidies for folks no more than 133% of federal poverty level.
Just checked the guidelines for 2009 – for one person, like me and many, that would mean no subsidies if your income is above about $14,000.
I made nearly double that last year, but can’t imagine being able to buy individual health insurance on that income. My payroll deductions were less than $100 a month for very good insurance; but I’m no longer working there.
I know, there’s lots of stuff, but that’s been what I’ve been on alert for, so of course I noticed it.
I expect you’re long gone. I just noticed Prairie’s diary, and got routed there. I’m okay. Which really is far better than sometimes in recent history! :-) How’re you doing?
Subsidies go to people earning up to 400% of poverty level, the 133% level is for Medicare coverage.
You may be gone as well…glad to hear “OK”…keep it up. I’m pretty good, too. Tired, with getting ready to take a long weekend with a few days off. Trying hard to get some order in my “homespace” where the disorder has multiplied with the new resident kitty and her many toys. With a little time, maybe I can teach her where her stuff belongs;)) We’ll see…since she is the boss, you know.
I’m proud of Franken….he adds smarts and class, I think. How nice.
The 133% of FPL is the cut off for eligibility for MEDICAID, not Medicare. Medicare is mostly folks 65 years and older.
Medicaid cost have been shared between feds and states, with much state variation. All the increases in eligibility for Medicaid in this bill would be paid for by the feds, so it’s not as dependent on state agreement.
4 years?!?! That is unacceptable and a good reason to go for Medicare for All–the system is already in place. How many die while they’re ramping up?
Actually, the real reason seems to be to keep the 10 year price tag under control, but implementation is definitely a factor too.
Yeah, there’s all that buffing you’ve got to do to keep them shiny and smiling. LOL
Up to 97 % of Americans will be covered and individual mandate to acquire insurance? This is obviously a bill to permit a growing population of leaches to suck blood from the productive.
Who are those more than 3% (9 million) of Americans not covered? Also, it seems we are only talking about Americans. Does that mean the 26 million illegal aliens are exempt and get it for free?
Can someone tell me what an American is? Is it a North American, South American, a Canadian or what?
“Scarecrow’s” article is filled with coded speech intended to conceal rather than reveal facts. He would make a good speechwriter for Obama. Typical say-nothing-catch-phrases: “Delivery system reform”, “reward efficient provision of health care”, rolling out “innovative concepts”, implement “innovative delivery reform initiatives”, so that it is a nimble purchaser of health care and “gets more value for each health care dollar”.
Welcome to the improved health care reform bill. You’ll get what you pay for but you’ll get considerable less if government supplies/manages it.
Can you help me out?
What value do insurance companies provide to patients?
I know what physicians, nurses, hospitals, staff, pharmaceutical companies, and medical device makers provide. They all have to compete. I just don’t know what value the insurance companies provide.
Boo and others, I’ll comment at greater length after I’ve had a chance to read the “public option” section of the House bill. I have had a chance to read the Congresional Budget Office’s letter to Rep. Rangel about the bill. CBO says the PO will be tiny, and it will be caged in.
As you may know, both the House bill and the Senate HELP bill only allow the PO to function within what’s called an “exchange” — a one-stop shopping center for uninsured people and people who are offered insurance at work but can’t afford it. CBO projects that only 30 million Americans will qualify for the exchange (less than 10% of us), and of those only 9-10 million will choose the PO (less then 3 percent of the US population). Moreover, CBO stated it was “highly uncertain” (or something to that effect) about its estimate for the PO enrollment because providers are not required to participate and the level of provider participation will be a significant determinant of the PO’s size.
In short, this is one pathetic little PO. It’s tiny, and won’t be allowed to grow. When Jacob Hacker, the intellectual father of the PO, first proposed this idea in 2001,he said his version of the PO would enroll 130 million people and be truly “Medicare like.” Hacker restated this position in his 2007 paper. Obviously, 9-10 million is tiny compared with Hacker’s original model. A PO with 10 million people spread out over 50 states is going to have virtually no effect on costs (the cost of administering this system may eat up whatever savings it does achieve). But as I pointed out earlier, having no effect would be a wonderful outcome compared to what is likely to happen — the PO won’t be able to get untracked in all or most states, and where it does get started, it will be eaten alive by the insurance industry.
I propose that all of us interested in understanding what we need to do next is to read Jacob Hacker’s original papers. Don’t listen to Jacob Hacker today. Hacker has retreated light years from his original papers as his idea generated predictable resistance from the insurance industry. Read his original papers. More on that, I hope, when I comment on future posts.
Kip Sullivan
The public option doesn’t kick in ’til 2013. Interesting choice of dates.”>public option doesn’t kick in ’til 2013.
An interesting choice of dates, eh?
So, what happened to “on day one”?
Get real – this is a crock of shit. Go to the Philly7 blog “Corrente” for a dose of reality. Obamacare and the spineless democrats can go straight to hell.
Kip, I greatly value your knowledge and insights; look forward to hearing more from you.
You’re very welcome. Thank you for the encouragement. I will keep plugging away.
Kip
my thanks also. i’m so very grateful for your comments and participation in the discussion.
p.s. do you have links to old hacker papers you would especially recommend? thanks again.
Yes, the public option starts very small, so the question is what would we expect to happen over 5-10 years, as the restrictions are eased and more people become eligible? Is the initial structure something that encourages it’s growth or discourages it?
Excuse me, but the terms you find misleading are from the House Committee summaries, which one would expect to be laudatory but which I quoted to make another point.
There is no danger I will ever be asked to write speeches for a President.
Kip, thanks very much.
Scare, as always, thanks so much for your terrific work.
This bill sounds like all we need at the moment (more than we need really). I was glad to see a penalty for those who can afford insurance but will not buy it. That’s long overdue.
What’s affordable? If your premiums are $1,000 a month and you make $1,000 a month it’s affordable.
One problem….it sounds like a lot of my tax dollars are going to be going to fund others health insurance. I guess I need to get on the receiving end of the gravy train.
Now the socialists can go out and party in the streets
Start date of the next presidential term. How convenient. And what do you get by then apart from bugger all, and meanwhile, status quo ante. Brilliant! Does the president know about this?
Perhaps Hacker has grown wiser over time.
It sounds like this will break the bank.
Nuts! I forgot it’s already been broken.
I read somewhere that it excludes illegal immigrants. What percentage of the population is that?
I haven’t read the final version of the bill, but there was nothing in the draft bill that says restrictions will be eased. All the major constraints except possibly one stay in place, and some get worse.
The one restraint that could change is the inability of the public program to enroll employees of large employers. But that can happen only in 2018, and then only at the discretion of the Secretary of DHHS, who will be under great pressure from the well-fed insurance industry (munching away on all the tax dollars funneled to it by the bill)not to open the exchange up to large employers.
One restraint will get worse as time goes by, and that’s the requirement that the PO pay back its start up costs within 10 years.
Again, I haven’t read the final bill. What restraints do you see melting away over time in the new bill?
Kip
Undocumented residents vary about 3-5 percent, I think? Haven’t seen a number recently for the downturn.
Sorry, still trying to find the benefits doc I read. The exchange is the gateway to the public plan. So eligibility to the Exchange determines eligibility to the public plan and entitlement to the subsidies.
The exchange is limited in the first year (2013) to those without insurance, or self-insured, or businesses with 10 employees or less. The following year it expands to those with 20 employees. In subsequent years, the Secretary of HHS has discretion to enlarge eligbility to employees of larger and larger companies. There is also — in the HELP bill, if not the House?? — an exception for those whose employer-provided insurers requires more than a set percentage of your adjust/gross income — 12.5% IIRC. They can go to the exchange sooner.
I’ll see if I can find the “benefits” summary doc where I saw these numbers, but I suspect it’s one of the many summaries on the Committee web page I gave in the post.
This is better then the perfect Marxist legislation, “ …each according to his needs”.
Everyone is forced to pay for health insurance even those who don’t need it and or are willing to pay medical expenses out of their pocket. “Everyone” means those who are US citizens and alien residence and file income tax-returns as is defined in SEC. 301. INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY of this bill).
However, the homeless, the illegal aliens, the ones working under the table and the ones not willing to work (estimated 35 million) get it for free. Communism is just wonderful. Now, finally, I can quit work and get onto the receiving end of the gravy train.
I just love master Obama and his faithful Democrats for creating a new and improved society of slaves.
Here’s the implementation timeline I was referring to. The dates may be a little different from what I remembered:
http://issuu.com/thenewrepubli…..layout.xml
I have a partially-completed file on Hacker’s papers and the Lewin Group’s analysis of them. Here are the titles of Hacker’s major papers and the addresses for the Lewin Group analyses of them. You need to look at the Lewin Group papers as well. Lewin obviously worked closely with Hacker because Lewin’s analyses include details that aren’t in Hacker’s paper that Hacker obviously agreed to, or didn’t object to when the Lewin reports were published.
• “Medicare Plus: Increasing health coverage by expanding Medicare,” in Covering America: Real Remedies for the Uninsured, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 2003;
• “Healthcare for America: A proposal for guaranteed, affordable health care for al Americans building on Medicare and employment-based insurance,” Economic Policy Institute, 2007; and
• “Healthy competition: How to structure public health insurance plan choice to ensure risk-sharing, cost control, and quality improvement,” BerkeleyLaw and Institute for America’s Future, 2009.
(For Lewin’s analysis of Hacker’s 2001 paper, see
http://www.esresearch.org/publ…..acker.pdf.
For Lewin’s analysis of Hacker’s 2007 paper, see
http://www.sharedprosperity.org/hcfa/lewin.pdf.)
Kip
thank you!
although it will probably be a little while before i have the chance to take a look at your references, i am very glad to have them!
I’ve read the sections of the House bill dealing with the public option and the exchanges. This bill definitely does not deserve to be called “excellent reform,” as Scarecrow called it. It’s an insurance industry bailout.
Selise, the critical issue that Jason is overlooking in your discussion with him about to whom the exchange is “open” is who gets subsidies to participate in the exchange. It’s true that the House bill says all Americans may participate in the exchange, but that’s like saying all Americans may shop at Tiffany’s. A few of us can and most of us can’t without help. Individuals who are not subsidized are unlikely to go shopping for a $14,000 health insurance policy. The subsidies are not available to “all Americans.” That’s why the CBO reported that only 30 million Americans will shop through the exchange.
Kip
kip – my apologies for the late reply. thank you very much for the clarification. if you happen to see this could you give me a pointer (sec number is good enough) to the language in the bill? thanks again!