- Air Force cadets ‘revolt’ after officials remove biblical verse from whiteboard
- Rep. Lee: Paul Ryan out of touch with urban Americans
- House votes down resolution to force Issa to apologize
- Kremlin blocks opposition websites; Kasparov fears Putin plans ‘something drastic’
- Saving trees? EPA wastes $1.5 million storing unneeded pamphlets in warehouse
- Scott Brown Senate bid in New Hampshire may launch soon
- Jeffrey Corzine, son of ex-N.J. governor, dead at 31
- Australian surfing magazine sorry for calling indigenous surfer ‘apeish’
- Records: Man in Fla. theater shooting also was texting
- The Putin problem: U.S. needs Russian rockets for spy satellites
STERGIOS and ARCHAMBAULT: The way forward post-Obamacare
Four steps can make health care better, more affordable
The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments on the constitutionality of the federal health care law President Obama pushed through Congress two years ago, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The court is expected to issue an opinion by the end of June.
Not since the New Deal legislation of the 1930s has an issue of this magnitude regarding the size and reach of the federal government arrived before the court. If the act is struck down in its entirety or even in part, the next president will need to articulate a new health care vision for the country.
The way forward should include the following four steps:
First, the president would do well to learn from the last major federal entitlement reform: the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. Built on a foundation of dozens of state policy experiments, led by Gov. John Engler of Michigan and Gov. Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin, among others, welfare reform was catalyzed by federal waivers that promoted state innovation.
By 1996, the public was comfortable with key elements of the reform plan because they had seen the ideas at work in their states. The next president should similarly encourage states to experiment and innovate, taking into account their unique market structures, populations and health care and insurance challenges.
Such a process stands in stark contrast to the Obama administration’s myopic focus on Massachusetts’ health care reform law, which was based on the unique needs of a small, high-income state constituting just 2 percent of the U.S. population.
But the federal government must do more than seed and harvest innovation. As a second step, our federal leaders also must offer solutions to key issues, like how to cover the 2 million to 4 million Americans with pre-existing conditions who may be denied affordable coverage when between jobs. By funding state high-risk pools for individuals with pre-existing conditions who are seeking work, the federal government could cover those between jobs at a cost of roughly $150 billion over 10 years. That’s a far cry from the Affordable Care Act’s estimated price tag of $1.75 trillion to $2.5 trillion.
Key to successful implementation of this initiative would be giving states the power to administer the high-risk pools, determining eligibility and penalties for insurers who try to push ineligible individuals, such as smokers and others with unhealthy lifestyles who do not have diagnosed diseases, into the publicly subsidized pools.
Third, a new vision for health care must reject the use of a central bureaucracy to control costs, a strategy that can work only if innovation and the quality of care are diminished. Instead, federal and state policies must encourage individuals to be active health care consumers through incentives to seek high-value plans. That would require insurance that is less tied to employer and government decisions.
Only Congress can make this happen because federal tax law has created the problem by penalizing those who buy insurance individually. But removing the prejudicial tax advantage enjoyed by those with company and government insurance can be accomplished only gradually.
The new president and Congress could move us in this direction by converting the current tax preference for employer-paid premiums into a refundable tax credit that would be available to small-business employees and individuals who are not in stable employer-based insurance plans.
Again, states should administer the refundable tax credits and determine or establish what health benefits, if any, to require in the insurance plans offered to tax-credit-eligible customers.
Finally, Medicaid should be converted into a per-capita block grant. Giving states broader authority over Medicaid would enable them to align regulations on benefits, premium assistance and other features with their refundable tax-credit policies, placing many who are currently eligible for Medicaid into the mainstream market.
Instead of passively receiving Medicaid services, non-elderly and non-disabled enrollees could choose among competing plans and pay extra for additional benefits.
Under this scenario, Medicaid would provide better coverage for the poor and rein in costs.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
TWT Video Picks
By Bob Dole
The industrious island has proved itself worthy of U.S. inclusion
Get Breaking Alerts
- FBI blocked in corruption probe involving Sens. Reid, Lee
- F-35 secrets now showing up in Chinas stealth fighter
- USS Kidd sent to Indian Ocean after 'indication' of Malaysian jet crash
- MILLER: Law enforcement realizes good people with guns deter crime
- Tracy Porter, Jason Hatcher, Darryl Sharpton set to join Redskins
- CURL: Calm down, conservatives: Obama's 'Two Ferns' bit was brilliant
- U.S. pilot scares off Iranians with 'Top Gun'-worthy stunt: 'You really ought to go home'
- Oil rig worker says he saw missing plane go down: report
- Ben Carson: America's now 'very much like Nazi Germany'
- NRA shirt gets N.Y. high school student suspended
Recent Letters to the Editor
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: De Blasio doing disservice to 'underdog' students
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Anti-God humanism will ruin nation
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Issue impeachment, not a toothless bill
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Put proof behind 'Bush lied' assertion
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Wind power less harmful to wildlife