YourCT.com header image 2

Rell Engages In The Healthcare debate


by turfgrrl


December 28th, 2006 · 10 Comments

Today’s Courant leads with Rell’s health care plan which focuses on insuring the 400,000 or so uninsured residents of Connecticut. From the Courant:

Rell presented in a press release what she is calling the Charter Oak Health Plan, which would lean heavily on private insurers. Any uninsured adult would have the option of paying no more than $250 a month for basic health care, prescription drugs, laboratory services and pre- and post-natal care. Rell said her plan would cost the state nothing more than nominal administrative and marketing support, and would be the product of collaboration with the managed-care industry.

“Good health care cannot be a privilege available only to those with the ability to pay,” Rell said. “The key to keeping the premiums low is keeping the number of enrollees as high as possible and that is why there are no income requirements.”

Yet Anthem basically offers up a similar plan already, at least in a casual review of premiums for single people. But those are the details to be hashed out. Jim Aman takes aim in the same article:

“There’s no way in hell that this plan the governor is putting on the table is going to resolve the problem at no cost,” state House Speaker James Amann, D-Milford, said. “Look at Massachusetts. It’s costing millions of dollars and they have no way of containing costs.”

The truth about the health debate is that healthcare costs are beyond the control of government as long as the present system of private insurance is used to pay for basic health care. There is no debate that serious health issues require the common good of shared costs distributed through some form of insurance. But basic care that includes things like broken bones, colds and flus, sprains and allergies should be delivered in more cost effective formats. To start with, we need only look to the fast food industry to see how it could be done. Immediate medical care facilities that offer fixed price care for a menu of services. Fast, no waiting service and 24 hour service would fill the need to support people who have difficulty fitting in a visit to the doctor. The ability to refer more complicated cases that would invariably come in to other care givers whether hospital or private practice. Sure, there are more details to be sorted through, but the framework exists in other industries and once did for healthcare too. Manufacturing plants were once well aware that providing low cost on premise healthcare to its workers kept the plant productive.

But this scenario will not work as long as the payment for services trickles through the insurance middlemen. There is no incentive for health care providers to reduce costs when they have to play the game of filing paperwork in order to get paid. The insurance industry should be required to pay bills submitted by these facilities immediately. Let them figure out how to account for the usage and payment caps per health plan, but eliminate the administrative costs. Those that are uninsured would still receive care, but that should be subsidized by the employers who don’t provide affordable healthcare insurance to their employees. Much as the state requires companies to pay unemployment insurance, the state should require corporations to pay healthcare insurance taxes based on payroll and claims. This would incent those companies that employ thousands but in shifts that never offer enough hours to qualify for the benefits of full time employment.

To point of my scenario is not to offer a full scale health care solution, typed in the early morning after reading a few news articles, but rather make the point that new thinking and specific problem solving is sorely needed. The vague and ambitious terms of universal health care lead to debates that fail to address the real world issues that affect all of us in Connecticut. Affordable basic care should be available to everyone, and under our health care insurance system its not.

Tags: Economy · healthcare

10 Responses so far “Rell Engages In The Healthcare debate”



  • 1 blueCT // Dec 28, 2006 at 8:05 am

    There are plenty of for profit clinics in the state, why do you think that your “solution” is different? Poor people can’t afford “fast food” prices for healthcare.

  • 2 Anonymous // Dec 28, 2006 at 8:05 am

    There doesn’t seem to be any other solution than to institute a payroll tax to provide “universal” health care coverage. Just like social security or medicare taxes, this tax would provide basic coverage across the board. Middlemen would entice the wealthy to augment their coverage; the dwindling middle class would make use of their section 125 plans; healthcare providers would have some recourse for treating those folks heretofore uninsured.

    Should the tax be only on employers, or shared with workers? I think on both; the expense is indirectly passed on to both at present by private insurance premiums.

  • 3 turfgrrl // Dec 28, 2006 at 9:31 am

    bluect- The obvious answer is that our hospital emergency rooms would not be serving as many patients if these private clinics were in greater abundance. Part of the the problem is that basic healthcare should have commoditized pricing, and that can only be achieved by reducing administrative costs and providing incentives to care facilities to encourage them reduce costs and increase profits. Part of that is having them compete on price. A broken leg set in a cast should have a reasonable cost associated with it.
  • 4 turfgrrl // Dec 28, 2006 at 9:31 am

    anonymous 8:05- Taxing alone does not get us there, reducing costs of care must be tackled as well.
  • 5 Anonymous // Dec 28, 2006 at 9:43 am

    Universal health care will do its part to reduce cost of care - set drup costs aside for one moment but other providers - hospitals, doctors, clinics - will accept lower reimbursements as with negotiated medicare reimbursements. At least they’re getting paid something.

  • 6 Mr X // Dec 30, 2006 at 8:56 am

    Turfgrrl nice to see you back in operation after that “liberal” blog cut you loose.

    I think Governor Rell is making a great effort here for people who can not afford health care or dont have it because their employers chooses not to offer it.

    I think any employer who has 10 employees or more should be required to offer health benefits. This giving them an option shouldn’t be an option it should be a law and required to be done.

  • 7 Connecticut Man1 // Dec 30, 2006 at 11:50 pm

    and that can only be achieved by reducing administrative costs and providing incentives to care facilities to encourage them reduce costs and increase profits.

    The best way to reduce administrative costs is to remove the FOR PROFIT corporations that suck up money out of the healthcare system.

    Rell’s plan amounts to little more than an advertising campaign for the industry that will only offer a second class benefits to the clients at a cost that is still beyond what the people that really need this can afford.

    That is such a bush idea… Throwing money at saying you have a solution instead of providing a real solution.

  • 8 turfgrrl // Dec 31, 2006 at 11:52 am

    Mr X- Thanks for rediscovering me over here. I hope YourCT grows enough to host a healthy discussion of the news and issues of the day. But back to Rell’s plan. I’m not so sure it is a plan, as I pointed out Anthem offers up sub $250 plans for self coverage already. Rell’s plan does not reveal what happens when you hit the higher bands of healthcare costs which start age 55 or so. That aside, in my years as a business owner, I would resent having a mandate. As an employee I would of course support it. This paradox shows, at least to me, why employer based health care benefits make no sense. There is no competitive advantage to a company to provide its workers healthcare insurance. IT would be different if the employer would simply provide healthcare, but our medical system has gown beyond such a simple solution. Healthcare, as opposed to insurance, does have some commoditized services that should be available to all at low costs. Rell is not looking at that aspect.
  • 9 turfgrrl // Dec 31, 2006 at 12:01 pm

    ConnecticutMan1- You said …The best way to reduce administrative costs is to remove the FOR PROFIT corporations that suck up money out of the healthcare system.
    Well I disagree with simply getting rid of the profit factor. I think profit to a degree forces people to do things more efficiently, but, and this is a big but, there is much to be said for regulating profit. The problem with healthcare right now is that the consumers can’t tell what prices they will be charged for procedures and don’t have an opportunity to negotiate.

    So that arbitrage needs to be put in place for them. The dicey area is in critical care, but what I’m suggesting is tackling the easier aspects of healthcare first. Meaning get people to see general practitioners for the routine care, and make it affordable. There’s no need to an insurance system to pay for a chest x-ray, or a foot cast. To get there, you can’t offer services without separating the inefficient costs associated with delivering that basic care. I see administrative costs being the lower hanging fruit.

  • 10 Arnold // Feb 3, 2007 at 3:22 pm

    Whether there are clinics where it is possible to receive free-of-charge health services, whether there are programs on transplantation of bodies for poor? WBR LeoP