Despite their very different political background the two physicians and former politicians agreed on many of the key items of health reform. The biggest difference was whether health reform needs a public option.
- Dean advocated for a public option to be included so that there is a "real choice". He believes that having a modest sized but true public option is important to create change in the market and he felt that health insurance companies would rise to that challenge. He feared that without a real public option of some form that in order to have change in the cost model and incentives we would need a system like Switzerland where private insurers were like a publicly held, highly regulated utility.
- Frist presented a case that a public option would be modeled from Medicare payment system which is flawed and would leave a significant gap for physicians, hospitals and other providers. He also presented concerns that more people would opt into the public plan and a public plan that is too large "is not real choice". Frist predicted that we would probably not see a public plan included in health reform since it is not included in the Senate Finance health reform package.
Both agreed that this really is just the beginning of health reform changes -- not the end and both acknowledged that many of the key issues to truly change the incentives of the systems and the "cost curve" that further change and innovation would be needed.
No comments:
Post a Comment