Funny if you ask doctors, instead of sold out Newspaper "journalists" eager to service the status quo you get a different picture of the Masscare experiment
Massachusetts' Plan: A Failed Model for Health Care Reform
http://www.pnhp.org/mass_report/mass_report_Final.pdfExecutive Summary
The Massachusetts Health Reform Law of 2006 expanded Medicaid coverage for the poor and
made available subsidized, Medicaid-like coverage for additional poor and near-poor residents of
the state. It also mandated that middle-income uninsured people either purchase private health
insurance or pay a substantial fine ($1,068 in 2009). Smaller fines (up to $295 per employee)
were also levied on employers who fail to offer insurance benefits.
The reform law has not achieved universal health insurance coverage, although half or more of
the previously uninsured now have some type of insurance policy.
The reform has been more expensive than expected, costing $1.1 billion in fiscal 2008 and $1.3
billion in fiscal 2009. In the face of a state budget crisis in fall 2008, Gov. Deval Patrick
announced that he will keep the reform afloat by draining money from safety-net providers such
as public hospitals and community clinics.
While the number of people lacking health insurance in Massachusetts has been reduced, several
recent surveys demonstrate that
substantial problems in access to care remain in the state. While
the new health insurance improved access to care for some residents,
many low-income patients
who previously received completely free care under the state’s old free care program now face
co-payments, premiums and deductibles that stop them from getting needed care. In addition, cuts to safety-net providers have reduced health resources available to the state’s
remaining uninsured, as well as to others who rely on safety-net providers for services in short
supply in the private sector. These safety-net services include emergency room care, chronic
mental health care, and primary care. The net effect of this expensive reform on access to care is
at best modest, and for some patients, negative.
By mandating that uninsured residents purchase private health insurance,
the law reinforced the
economic and political power of health insurance firms. Thus, the reform
augments the already
high administrative costs of health care. Moreover, the agency that administers the new law (the
“Connector”)
adds an extra 4 to 5 percentage points to the already high overhead of private
health insurance policies. The reform
failed to reduce overreliance on expensive, high-technology services. Indeed, some
of its provisions such as changes in Medicaid rates and cuts to safety-net providers (who do more
primary care) have further
tilted health spending toward expensive, high-technology care. A single-payer system of non-profit national health insurance could save about $8-$10 billion
annually in the state through reduced administrative costs. This money could be used to cover
all of the state’s uninsured residents and to improve coverage for those who now have insurance,
without any increase in total health care costs.
The Massachusetts reform law is not providing universal access to care, even in a state with
highly favorable circumstances, including previously high levels of spending on health care for
the poor, high personal incomes, and low rates of uninsurance. It is not a model for the nation. TELL ME -- WHO IS MASSCARE WORKING FOR? EXACTLY WHO IT WAS MEANT TO WORK FOR -- BIG INSURERS, DRUG COMPANIES, FOR PROFIT HOSPITALS.
THE PEOPLE, PATIENTS and TAXPAYERS? NOT SO MUCH!
JUST SAY NO TO CORPORATIST HEALTHCARE REFORM. SAY YES TO SINGLE PAYER.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
