This is interesting. The National Journal, the most serious of policy journals, asked 11 national health policy experts to answer this question:

What elements of a Massachusetts-style health program, if any, could Congress embrace as part of health care reform next year?

The commenters include some of the biggest health policy gurus around, from all sides of the spectrum. Almost all of them acknowledge the remarkable success of chapter 58; the disagreements are over the national applicability.

The posts, by the way, are in reverse chrono order. They start off with Senator Kennedy’s response, at the bottom of the page.

Jonathan Gruber’s post has an interesting cost comparison that probably deserves its own post. Here it is:

The state expects in FY ‘09 to spend about $1 billion to cover at least 450,000 individuals - and likely many more as coverage continues to grow. That is a cost of slightly more than $2000 per newly insured person. There is no other proposal with which I am familiar which would even approach this low cost per newly insured. Could we have spent somewhat less through a few different decisions? No doubt. But this is a historically low level of costs for covering uninsured individuals.

One contrast I find helpful is with Medicare Part D. That program is spending about $40 billion a year to increase drug coverage by 10 to 12 million elders in the U.S. So Medicare Part D is spending twice as much per elder to provide drug coverage alone as Massachusetts is spending to provide complete insurance coverage.

We know that folks around the country, and in Congress, continue to see Mass health reform as a model for national reform. Soon we will have additional data points on employer responses and other areas. As we get closer to getting past the election, and onto the governing, the fun is just beginning.
Brian Rosman