RSS FEEDS
Recent Research
JANUARY 21, 2010 | News Release by COMMONWEALTH FOUNDATION
CF Challenges Gov. Rendell to Explain What's In the Bill
Yesterday, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell told Fox News that voters oppose the current health care reform proposal because "the administration and its supporters, myself included, haven't done a good enough job explaining to people what's in this bill." The Commonwealth Foundation formally welcomes Gov. Rendell to join their efforts to educate the
DECEMBER 16, 2009 | Commentary by KATRINA CURRIE
Five Threats to Pennsylvania's Prosperity
Pennsylvania has long been one of the most economically stagnant states in the nation. For the period 1991-2008, the Commonwealth ranked 45th in job growth, 46th in personal income growth, and 47th in population growth. Pennsylvania has also faired poorly in independent evaluations of states' business climates, i
NOVEMBER 12, 2009 | Commentary by T. PATRICK BURKE
Notes on Health Care Reform
Two slightly important questions are being neglected regarding the Health Care Reform bills in Congress: their constitutionality and their morality. Are the bill just passed in the House and that to be discussed in the Senate in accord with the Constitution, and are they in agreement with the fundamental principles of justice? I would like to
Recent Blog Posts
MARCH 12, 2010
Obama and the Slacker Mandate
In his health care rally in the Philadelphia area earlier this week, President Obama touted a proposed regulation that insurance companies would have to allow children up to age 26 on their parents' plans - i.e. a slacker mandate - designed to appeal to the college crowd.
I wonder however, if President Obama realized the Pennsylvania already has a slacker mandate (in fact, up to age 29); state lawmakers enacted it in 2008.
In testimony to both the state House and Senate Appropriations Committees in February, Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner Joel Ario noted that very few young adults have been enrolled under the new mandate. Ario commented, as summarized by Pennsylvania Legislative Services (subscription), that:
- The cost to insure young adults on their parents' plan was about the same as if they bought their own plan.
- "Low-risk" young adults would buy their own plan (or remain uninsured), leaving only high-risk cases looking to the slacker mandate--and insurers were naturally unwilling to give coverage to high-risk young adults as the same rates as children.
- The failure of the slacker mandate to reduce the number of uninsured is "generally symptomatic of the greater healthcare problem."
That sounds pretty close to what I wrote (in a commentary on the slacker mandate with Benjamen Ober) two years ago:
SB 1453 [the slacker mandate], however, ignores the primary reason why young adults often go without insurance—the high cost of coverage. This is especially true considering that most young adults use very little health care. ...
Instead of more mandates, lawmakers should adopt reforms that allow individuals to purchase low-cost, mandate-lite insurance. Another alternative would be to allow individuals to opt out or waive certain coverage mandates to reduce the cost of their insurance. ... The only way to substantially reduce the cost of health care is to put individuals in charge, not government bureaucrats. This means eliminating many of Pennsylvania's costly health insurance mandates, not adding to them. Eliminating the burden of health care mandates will lower the cost of health care, provide more insurance to more individuals, and restore personal choice to citizens.
posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 00:30 PM | 0 comment
MARCH 10, 2010
Obamacare and Deficits
In campaign-mode fashion, President Obama held a rally at Arcadia University on Monday to sell his plan for health care reform. Filled with the usual rhetoric and emotional, Obama made some many claims about the fiscal implications of the current legislation in Congress.
Probably the most outrageous claim was a bill that will cost over $100 billion dollars a year will be deficit-neutral. As David Brooks from the NY Times points out, this "neutrality" is simply a bait and switch tactic"
One of the reasons the bill appears deficit-neutral in the first decade is that it begins collecting revenue right away but doesn't have to pay for most benefits until 2014. That's 10 years of revenues to pay for 6 years of benefits, something unlikely to happen again unless the country agrees to go without health care for four years every decade.
Combine this new spending with the burdensome regulations like individual mandates to purchase insurance and fines on small-business who don't offer coverage and you have a recipe for a fiscal nightmare.
Instead , President Obama should go back to the drawing board and embrace common-sense alternatives such as allowing the purchase of insurance across state lines, medical malpractice reform and tax code reform.
posted by MICHAEL NEROZZI | 08:28 AM | 0 comment
MARCH 8, 2010
Buying Insurance Across State Lines
John Goodman summarizes the issue of interestate competition for health insurance:
Every state has mandated health insurance benefits. These are laws requiring insurers to cover services ranging from acupuncture to in vitro fertilization and providers ranging from chiropractors to naturopaths — and there are considerable differences among the states. Although often described as “consumer protections” in every legislative hearing I have ever attended, it is the special interest providers (rather than patients) who are pushing for these laws. ...
One thing that would not survive 50 state regulatory regime competition is guaranteed-issue and community rating in the individual market. In the six states that impose such requirements the vast majority of people who are relatively healthy are overcharged so that the small percent who are sick can be undercharged. This form of private sector socialism would quickly dissolve, as the healthy sought cheaper insurance under other regulatory regimes. ...
University of Minnesota economists Steve Parente and Roger Feldman estimate that cross-state purchasing of health insurance would induce 12 million more people to obtain health insurance.
posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 04:34 PM | 0 comment
