Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Learn more about ads.

About Us

Frank D. Russo

The California Progress Report is published by Frank D. Russo, a longtime observer of and participant in California politics.

About Frank Russo.
About California Progress Report.

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column? Contact Frank here.

Sponsors

The Reality and the Rhetoric of Governor Schwarzenegger's Health Proposal

kuehl2.gif

By State Senator Sheila Kuehl

This is my second essay for 2007. After my first essay, delineating the four different proposals on health insurance coming to the California Legislature this year, I received several requests to further describe the Governor’s proposal.

This essay sets forth the elements of his proposal, including recent changes described by his staff, which have not been reported in the press. Visit my website to read my previous essays.

Reality vs. Press Releases

The Governor has consistently described his proposal as “universal healthcare", promised it would cover all of California’s children, and indicated that everyone---doctors, hospitals, businesses, insurance companies and consumers---would have “shared responsibility” in paying for the plan. The press has dutifully repeated his phrases, in almost every case without a modicum of analysis. The details of the proposal reveal quite a different picture.

The Bottom Line of the Governor’s Proposal: Individual Mandate

The central basis of the Governor’s plan is simply to mandate that every Californian must, by law, carry health insurance. There is no requirement that it be affordable and no minimum coverage. This means that the requirement can be met by a bare-bones policy covering only catastrophic events, with a $5,000 deductible and up to $7500 in out of pocket expenses for all the things that aren’t covered by the policy.

This is not universal health insurance. Think for a moment about automobile insurance. Even before Prop 103 passed, limiting the amounts by which insurance companies could raise your auto insurance premiums to those approved by the Insurance Commissioner, we all had to have auto insurance. Would you call it Universal Auto Insurance? 25% of Californians don’t comply --- so many that we all have to carry Uninsured Motorist Insurance, in effect paying more for those who are uninsured, just as the Governor has suddenly discovered we do in the area of healthcare.

His proposal would simply continue this problem in the much more complicated and important area of health insurance, with no controls on raises in premiums and no requirement for comprehensive or even adequate coverage, so every Californian could be required to pay high premiums, high deductibles, high co-pays and high out of pocket expenses, for very little coverage.

Employer Mandate only on 20% of California employers

Conservatives in the Legislature have focused fiercely on what they call an employer mandate. But the Governor’s plan requires only those California businesses that employ 10 or more to provide minimal coverage to their employees or to pay 4% of their payroll into a central government fund, which would then subsidize the purchase of private insurance by their employees. Only 20% of California businesses employ more than 10 people. Of these, 80% are already providing some health insurance to their employees, at a cost of 9-11% of payroll. In a way, this is an invitation to businesses to reduce what they pay for health insurance for their employees. 4% of the payrolls of businesses with more than 10 employees would not be sufficient to provide healthcare for their employees. With a limit on what the businesses pay, but no limits on what employees pay under the mandate, even more of the premiums, co-pays and costs would devolve on employees than they do now.

Employees of businesses with fewer than 10 employees would be required, under the individual mandate mentioned above, to buy insurance for themselves and their families. Their employers would not be required to do anything.

Scope of Coverage Minimal

The Governor’s proposal does not establish any minimums for the coverage benefits that must be offered. As a matter of fact, in a recent addition to the presentation of his proposal, the Governor called for more “flexibility in insurance underwriting” and repeal of “excessive government regulation”. This means he would like to roll back even the most minimal requirements now in the law for coverage but still require everyone to buy policies and pay whatever premiums are charged.

This is not “cost-containment” as the Governor has indicated. This is actually allowing the insurance companies to sell inadequate coverage to those who wish to gamble that they won’t need it, but are required to buy something to comply with the law.

Cost Containment Proposals

The Governor’s proposal contains no real cost containment measures. It merely shifts the cost of unlimited premiums onto consumers. The proposal attempts to label the fact that he would allow insurance companies to offer greatly reduced coverage as “cost containment”.

In addition to simply requiring less coverage, the Governor also proposes to limit insurance company overhead to 15%, mirroring a bill I carried last year which died under insurance company lobbying. This means that the companies must pay out 85% of their premiums to providers, which could help provide more adequate reimbursements to providers. It does not, however, affect the cost of healthcare.

Additionally, the Governor puts off seismic retrofit of hospitals again.

Low Income Californians

The Governor has indicated he wants to provide subsidies to help families with incomes below 250% of the federal poverty level ($32,000 for single parent with one child, $50,000 for family of four) fulfill their mandate to buy private insurance. They would pay up to 6% of their income for the coverage by law, which, for some, is significantly higher cost sharing than they might be paying now as Medi-Cal beneficiaries. Families with incomes slightly above the level would be required to buy insurance without subsidies.

Children

The Governor has indicated he would like to see all California’s children covered by insurance. Under his proposal, families would be subsidized as described above, up to a certain level of income. Above that, children would be covered by the requirements on adults to buy insurance.

Guaranteed Issue

Many have praised the Governor’s proposal to require insurance companies to cover all applicants, regardless of pre-existing conditions or prescribed medications. The proposal also indicates there would be limits on how much those with pre-existing conditions could be charged. It does not, however, address the fact that the insurance companies would likely raise their overall premiums to cover the new risks they would be required to assume.

“Community Rating vs. Modified Community Rating

Related to guaranteed issue, in a way, is “community rating” because a strict “community rating” system means that everyone in a geographic area is taken into account in setting premiums and all in that area share the risk. Although it does prevent one person in a pool from shouldering the burden of their own condition, it is still a gentrified form of “redlining,” as area residents in one location would all be in a pool.

The Governor’s most recent explanation of this section of the proposal, however, could potentially exacerbate the problem by adopting a “modified” community rating system that would allow the private insurance companies to differentiate in premiums on the bases of age, gender and regionalized location. A strict “community rating” system would not allow these differentiations, so, at the very least, some clarification is needed.

Medi-Cal Reimbursements raised to Medicare levels

Payments to doctors and hospitals would be higher if the federal government agrees to the raise. For all those not on Medi-Cal (California’s coverage for the poor), however, there would be no requirements concerning the level of payments to healthcare providers made by private insurance companies.

Provider fees (or taxes, according to some)

Hospitals would be required to pay 4% of their gross revenues into the same fund as large employers to help subsidize insurance for the poor. Physicians would be required to pay 2% of gross revenues. Logically, this means that, should doctors and hospitals raise their fees to adjust for these taxes, the sick would be paying a disproportionate share of subsidizing health insurance for the poor.

Hospital Funds Redirected to Insurance Companies

The Governor’s proposal takes most of the money now directed to hospitals to pay the costs of caring for the indigent and uses it to buy insurance for the indigent. Such a shift could actually lessen the money actually spent on indigent care as insurance company overhead is allowed, under the Governor’s proposal, to be as high as 15%. (In most companies, it’s now as high as 30%).

Prevention, Health Promotion and Wellness

The Governor’s proposal requires Medi-Cal, Healthy Families, health plans and insurers to offer a health benefit package that provides incentives for healthy behavior, such as gym memberships or Weight Watchers programs. It also proposes ways to improve health status and reduce risk factors in programs related to diabetes, medical errors, obesity and tobacco use.

What Happens Now?

The Governor’s proposal is seeking a legislative author. When one is found, a bill will be introduced, either in the Senate or the Assembly and will be heard by the Health Committee in that House, the fiscal committee, go for a Floor vote and start all over in the other House. There will be heavy negotiation between the Speaker of the Assembly, the President of the Senate and the Governor as to any legislation to be adopted in this session. At the same time, my single payer bill, SB 840, will be reintroduced and follow a similar, but parallel, track.

Stay tuned and stay informed.

Posted on January 16, 2007

Comments

Great analysis.

Posted by: Bart Fallon at January 17, 2007 02:08 PM

The auto insurance requirement laws have not been enforced. The database that allows verifying current auto insurance status just began operating. Hopefully that will change the status quo. Certainly consequences will be be needed to get people to live up to their obligation to carry health insurance if that requirement, which is the necessary corollary to ending pre-existing condition rejection, is to succeed.

Sen Kuehl is right that the employer mandate should cover all employers and that 4% is too low. With the state's median hourly wage being about $16 hour, a full-time (2080 hours) workers wages would be $33,280, 4% of which comes to $1330. That's not much compared to what coverage is costing and as the median wage, half the population's wages go down from there. There's a risk that many employers will stop providing insurance and pay the 4% instead. Depending on the subsidies provided by the state, they might be able to keep their employees financially whole and still save money. And if that's a money saver for them, it's an added cost to the state. Businesses see this also and have voiced fears that the 4% is a bait and switch number.

Regarding the scope of coverage, the claim that the Governor's proposal means rolling " back even the most minimal requirements" is unsubstantiated. Requiring people to buy policies means what they cost and what they provide in benefits will be important political issues and it is inconceivable that won't put limitations on what is politically possible. So I expect the level of subsidies to increase.

Those same forces will be in effect in dealing with the additional costs of "guarantee issue" to the extent that mandated individual coverage doesn't create an offsetting risk pool cost structure. And I don't expect that it will.

If we go to a community rating system that doesn't use age, it would greatly increase the costs of coverage to the young. Is that what Sen. Kuehl wants? This would be great for me but that doesn't make it the right thing to do. I'm for providing ways that people can pay more now into savings accounts to lessen their insurance costs later as they age.

Raising the reimbursement for Medi-Cal is designed to increase the money that comes from the federal government. The taxes on providers would be offset by these higher payments and less uncompensated and insufficiently compensated care. If this doesn't balance out then perhaps fees will have to rise. But a good part of that cost will be transferred to the insurance and spread over the whole risk pool. Of course whether the feds will absorb (and pay for) this cost is open to question.

The governor's plan redirects indigent care money because it puts most of the indigent in programs where there care is insured.

I want to see the financing plan for Keuhl's single-payer plan. Financing isn't an afterthought concerning healthcare. It is the crucial to considering our options.

Posted by: Jeff at January 17, 2007 02:50 PM

Bravo. Thank God for such wisdom. This plan will wreak havoc on the lower middle class. I have no health insurance, and don't look forward to the day when I am paying 100$ a month for a 40% coinsurance plan with a 5$,000 deductible so that people with six digit incomes can pay lower premiums and have no copays.

Posted by: Leah at January 18, 2007 03:48 PM

I am a retired actuary and live in CT. I am concerned about one aspect of the California Governor's proposal -- that is force people who buy in the individual medical insurance market to buy in the high risk pool -- or equivalently have an open enrollment period.

This may raise individual medical premiums many fold. A better proposal would be to subsidize a high risk pool.

Please check out The New York Times Guide to Getting Affordable [Medical] Coverage by Fred Brock, pages 98-105. Mr. Brock indicates:

"[Individual Medical] Premiums in the five guaranteed-issue states [ NY, VT, NJ, MA, ME] are uniform and high .. if you are healthy and live and work in a guaranteed issue state like New York and New Jersey where individual premiums are high, you could move to a nearby state with less expensive premiums and commute to your job." Mr. Brock gives some premium comparisons:

Male or Female 25 years old PPO
Springfield NJ $374.67
San Jose, CA $36

Married Couple, each 48 years old
Springfield NJ $749.34
San Jose, CA $171

Married Couple each 55 years old
Springfield NJ $749.34
San Jose, CA $329

Mr. Brock thought that premiums for NJ and NY were lower for those in bad health. In fact, NJ premiums are often higher than the premiums from the CT high risk pool.

My suggested subsidy for the high risk pool is the lower of 50% of the premium or $2000. (with $4000 for two adults, and $6000 for a family). It should be financed by general taxes rather than head taxes (such as increased premiums on medical insurance.) There are 2500 policies in the CT high risk pool so a $2000 subsidy is about $5 million or about $1.5 per person in CT.

Tom Kabele, FSA, Ph.D.

Posted by: tom at April 8, 2007 05:28 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Get email updates!

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.



© 2008 California Progress Report Our copyright and fair use policy.
Powered by Mandate Media. Logo design by Jane Norling.

RSS

Stat tracker