Monday, February 28, 2011 - The National Conference of State Legislatures
Massachusetts tackles health care costs
By Christine Vestal, Stateline Staff
Writer
One of the most familiar
criticisms of the new national health care law is that it doesnft do
much to contain costs. And thatfs true: The primary goal is to
provide universal access to health insurance. Cost controls are
supposed to come later.
gLaterh has arrived now
for Massachusettsf statewide plan, enacted in 2006 and similar in
many ways to the federal one. Some 98 percent of all adults and
nearly 100 percent of all children are covered, but costs have
spiraled out of control. Massachusetts spends 40 percent of its
budget on health care and median-income families are expected to
spend one-third of their paychecks on health care by 2016.
Now, after five years,
Massachusetts is getting very serious about the cost problem.
Democratic Governor Deval Patrick has proposed a sweeping
bill designed to rein in health
care expenses that are among the highest in the country.
gMassachusetts led the nation on health care reform,h Patrick
boasted the day he unveiled the bill, gand is poised to lead again
on health care cost containment.h Patrick said he understands why
his predecessors gdecided to put cost control off to another day —
because if you think access was hard, wait until you take on cost
control.h
Patrickfs bill encourages voluntary
adoption of medical pricing practices that stress quality of care
over the number of procedures performed. But at its heart are strict
price restrictions on hospitals and other medical providers. The
health industry does not like those. Although it has pledged
cooperation with the governor on the cost-control problem, passage
of the legislation is far from assured.
Market
clout
Any meaningful reform would have to do two
things at once, says health care policy expert Robert Berenson, of
the Urban Institute. Itfs important to move to a more cost-effective
payment model, he says, but the savings wonft get passed along to
consumers unless the state restrains the fees doctors and hospitals
are able to negotiate. gEveryone has a big stake in making this
work,h Berenson adds. gIf it doesnft, the whole thing could fall
apart.h
In addition to cost increases
because of new technologies and disease treatments, a major cause of
what experts call gmarket failureh in the Massachusetts and U.S.
health care industries is the ability of prestigious hospitals and
large medical practices to command just about any price they want
from insurers. The same is true for hospitals in some monopoly
markets in rural areas.
gItfs very hard to
sell an insurance policy in the Boston area, for example, if your
network doesnft include Mass General, Childrenfs Hospital and
Brigham and Womenfs,h says David Shore, an independent insurance
broker. gPrice reforms wonft work unless we address the issue of
market clout.h
Last year, Massachusetts Attorney
General Martha Coakley used her officefs subpoena power to do just
that. An investigation of otherwise confidential contracts between
medical providers and insurers found wide disparities in price among
providers working in the same geographic areas and offering the same
types of services. According to Coakleyfs
report, price variations correlated to gmarket leverage,h not
quality of care or the nature of the population served. The U.S.
Department of Justice also
investigated
possible antitrust violations by Partners HealthCare, the parent
of Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Womenfs
Hospital.
Health care
politics
Meanwhile, Patrick raised the ire of the
health care industry — the largest component of the statefs economy
— when he directed insurance regulators to reject 235 out of 274
proposed increases in health insurance premiums, which averaged 8
percent to 32 percent more than the previous year. Insurance
companies sued the state because they said they had binding
contracts with medical providers that required them to raise rates.
The case was settled out of court with insurers agreeing to accept
lower rates temporarily.
All this happened in a year when
health care dominated a close gubernatorial contest. Patrickfs chief
opponent for reelection in 2010 was Republican Charles D. Baker Jr.,
a former top executive of major insurer Harvard Pilgrim Health Care.
Baker vowed to be tougher than Patrick and demand that hospitals and
doctors disclose their prices. A third candidate, Timothy P. Cahill,
who was state treasurer, claimed health care reform was bankrupting
the state.
This time, Patrick is taking a
more collaborative approach. Applauding the health care industryfs
voluntary efforts to keep rates down over the past year, he pointed
to a new Blue Cross Blue Shield payment plan based on quality of
care, not quantity, and a cost-cutting pilot program at
Massachusetts General Hospital that provides intensive care
coordination for its sickest patients. Still, he said, gItfs time to
scale these efforts up.h
If enacted, Patrickfs current plan
would give the state more authority to reject insurance increases
based on existing medical contracts and would provide incentives for
doctors and hospitals to base their fees on quality of care. The
state could reject rates if they exceed the increase in the statefs
gross domestic product or total medical expenses in the region.
Medical providers that move from a fee-for-service system to an
alternative payment structure aimed at improved efficiency and
patient care would be given favorable consideration.
Partners HealthCare, owner of
Massachusetts General, issued a short statement agreeing to work
with the governor to gcraft real solutions when it comes to health
care affordability.h Dr. Alice Coombs, president of the
Massachusetts Medical Society, also agreed to work with the Patrick
administration, but cautioned that a gone-size-fits all solution
would be a mistake right now, when the landscape of health care is
changing so rapidly.h
Consumer advocate Amy Whitcomb
Slemmer, executive director of Health Care for All, is confident
that significant cost controls will be enacted. gPolitical
interests,h she says, ghave really aligned in deciding that the
status quo is not sustainable.h
(c) 2009. The Pew Charitable Trusts.
All rights reserved.