No big decisions or developments in the past 24 hours on MA health reform. But a lot of comments and attention — all focussed on the state’s growing financial pressures in paying for health reform in general and Commonwealth Care in particular. Let’s review — and then add comments of our own in a companion posting.
First, Alice Dembner writes a first-rate analysis in today’s Globe: Healthcare cost increases dominate Mass. budget debate. No attention grabbing revelations, just a good overview of the current dilemma:
… But the state’s top budget official, Leslie Kirwan, last week suggested that the financial pinch might require increases in the contributions from coalition partners as well as “revisiting some of the original assumptions of healthcare reform.” Through a spokesman this week, she declined to elaborate, saying only that “the administration remains fully committed to healthcare reform.”
Murray also suggested the state should review the health law’s provisions as part of a “look at everything.” But House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi said he believed it was too soon to significantly modify the blueprint. The Patrick administration has asked coalition members for suggestions on how to raise money and cut costs, and dozens of proposals have been submitted.
Advocates are pressing the administration to expand the number of companies subject to a penalty for not insuring their workers, a step the administration could take without legislative approval but which would probably draw strong opposition from businesses. The penalty raised only about $6 million this year, far less than originally expected. DiMasi said he thinks the administration should consider this option.
Second, last night on Jim Braude’s NECN show, State Treasurer Timothy Cahill:
…floated the prospect that the state may not be able to meet the commitments it made under the 2006 health coverage expansion. “We might not be able to cover everyone,” Cahill said, adding, “The situation we’re in means that we’re not going to be able to do everything for everyone, and new programs or additional spending has to be under control, and that means we’re going to have to say no to some people.” Asked if he would consider cutting back on the reform if he were governor, Cahill replied, “I would certainly look at it.”
Third, at today’s session of the Legislature’s Health Care Financing Committee, co-chairs Sen. Dick Moore and Rep. Pat Walrath said:
…policymakers were not considering scaling back the state’s increasingly bank-breaking health care reform law. “Never crossed my mind,” said Rep. Patricia Walrath, co-chair of the powerful Committee on Health Care Financing.
A day after Treasurer Tim Cahill suggested the mandatory coverage law might have to be scaled back in the face of sharply rising costs, Walrath and her co-chair Sen. Richard Moore said lawmakers and the Patrick administration were not entertaining the idea of reducing the scope or ambition of the state’s health care law, Chapter 58.
“The leadership is committed,” Moore said. “And as far as I can tell, the governor is committed to the goal of full access to insurance and full access to care that they can pay for with that insurance.” Moore and Walrath told the News Service proceeds from a proposed cigarette tax and increasing corporate tax collections would help fund Commonwealth Care, the state’s subsidized insurance for low-income residents.
An important conversation on paying for health reform is now moving front and center.
