latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/healthcare/la-na-health-compare8-2009sep08,0,6558122.story
latimes.com
House vs. Senate: How healthcare proposals compare
As the political bargaining moves into the final stages, lawmakers will
address the key issues: rising insurance costs, the uninsured, protecting the
insured, quality of care and Medicare.
September 8, 2009
Returning from their summer recess, congressional lawmakers are facing a
climatic showdown to the yearlong struggle over healthcare. At issue are scores
of competing provisions scattered through half a dozen bills. And no final
decisions have been made on any of them.
In the House, Democratic leaders
are synthesizing the proposals of three committees, but floor debate has not
begun. In the Senate, a bill close to the expected House blueprint has been
approved by the health committee formerly headed by the late Sen. Edward M.
Kennedy (D-Mass.). But a less liberal version is being developed by the Senate
Finance Committee, where moderate Democrats are negotiating with a handful of
Republicans.
So far, President Obama has not put forward concrete
proposals of his own -- preferring to outline basic goals and leave the details
to Congress. That's likely to change in the weeks ahead.
Keeping in mind
that significant changes can be expected as the political bargaining moves into
the final stages, here are the major issues in play and how the House and Senate
are likely to approach them:
Rising insurance
costs
House: Create a government-run "public option" plan to
compete with private insurers. Not everyone would be eligible to choose the
government option.
Also, set up state insurance pools or "exchanges"
that would give individuals and small business more leverage to buy coverage --
presumably at lower prices.
Senate: Likely to reject the public
plan in favor of establishing private cooperatives, initially backed by
government funds, to compete with private insurers.
Also create state
insurance pools to help individuals and small business buy more affordable
insurance.
Cost: The Congressional Budget Office estimates the
increased coverage element of the House bill would add $65 billion to the
federal deficit over 10 years.
Argument for: Supporters think the
public option would be the most effective way to push prices down. Advocates of
cooperatives believe they can compete with large insurers because of smaller
administrative costs.
Argument against: Critics worry that
employers will stop providing coverage and push workers into an ever-growing new
bureaucracy with out-of-control costs.
Critics of co-ops say they will
founder unless they are very large.
Insuring the
uninsured
House: Expand eligibility for Medicaid to include
more low-income workers. Make regular medical insurance more affordable to
moderate-income individuals through the exchanges or the public
option.
Senate: Expand Medicaid eligibility. Possibly open
Medicare, which now serves only the elderly, to younger people. Insurance pools
and co-ops could also help make coverage within reach for more
people.
Cost: The CBO estimates that Medicaid expansion could
cost, in a "broad range," $500 billion over 10 years. The option to open
Medicare to younger people is being considered in the Senate Finance Committee;
no cost estimate yet.
Argument for: Costs of treating the
uninsured are often shifted to those with insurance in the form of higher
premiums.
Argument against: Medicaid and Medicare are already
draining the federal coffers, and expanding the programs would only exacerbate
the problem.
Protecting the insured
House: Forbid
insurance companies from refusing coverage on the basis of preexisting
conditions. Outlaw annual or lifetime caps on benefits.
Senate:
Same.
Cost: A ban on preexisting condition exclusions would cost
insurers some, but if coupled with a mandate requiring everyone to buy
insurance, insurers would probably gain financially.
Argument for:
Insurers often use preexisting conditions as a reason to deny coverage,
making the purchase of a plan on the open market difficult.
Argument
against: Without adequate protection for insurers, people would buy coverage
only when they are seriously ill, some fear.
Improving the quality of
care
House: Establish a federal center to study the
effectiveness of healthcare services. Promote the use of electronic medical
records. Offer incentives for more efficient delivery of care. Require the
disclosure of financial ties among doctors, hospitals and other medical
providers.
Senate: Same, except may not require financial
disclosure.
Cost: As part of the stimulus package, Obama set aside
$19 billion for health information technology, mostly to promote electronic
medical record-keeping.
Argument for: Lack of comprehensive,
easily accessed information on patients contributes to higher costs and
lower-quality care.
And knowing what kinds of treatment are most
effective is even more important for making care cheaper and
better.
Argument against: So-called effectiveness research is the
first step toward rationing care and giving the government control over personal
medical decisions, some say.
Changes in Medicare
House:
Expand the prescription drug benefit by eliminating the so-called doughnut
hole coverage gap. Reduce or eliminate geographic variation in reimbursements.
Reduce extra payments to Medicare Advantage to lower overall costs. Use bundled
payments where possible to increase system efficiency.
Senate: To
be determined, largely on the basis of what the finance committee agrees
on.
Cost: The House bill provisions are estimated to reduce
federal spending by $219 billion over 10 years.
Argument for: The
doughnut hole is a financial hardship on many seniors, and the government can
save money without reducing coverage by ending regional disparities and the
extra reimbursements for Advantage plans.
Argument against:
Closing the prescription gap takes money, and Medicare is already heading for
financial trouble.
Many seniors like the Advantage plans, which offer
them free services other Medicare recipients can't get. And regional payments
reflect real cost differences.
The total cost of
legislation
House: An estimated $1.04 trillion over 10 years,
according to the CBO. To be paid for through savings in Medicare and Medicaid
payments and a tax on wealthy individuals and families.
Senate:
Negotiators have pledged to keep the cost of the Senate's plan under $1
trillion, but the final bill has yet to be negotiated.
The finance
committee is still exploring revenue-raising mechanisms, but could tax high-end
health insurance benefit programs that are currently tax-exempt.
Sources:
House and Senate committees, the Congressional Budget Office, the Kaiser Family
Foundation
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times