“The healthcare reform law flunks the test of real healthcare reform. Real reform would: encourage providers to offer higher-quality care at lower costs; reduce the cost pressures that threaten to bankrupt Medicare and Medicaid; and give every American access to more options for quality insurance. To enact real healthcare reform, and help to restore fiscal balance to the nation’s budget, the next Congress should pursue substantial changes to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). We recommend the following five healthcare objectives for the 112th Congress.”
“The future of health care in America looks grim—but it does not have to be. Representative Paul Ryan (R–WI) has proposed ‘A Roadmap for America’s Future’—the only comprehensive plan in Washington that deals with the looming fiscal and economic crisis, driven by ever-increasing government spending on health care. Ryan’s Roadmap would reduce the deficit, allow Medicare to become truly sustainable, establish equity and efficiency in the federal tax treatment of health insurance, and improve access to health care for middle-class and low-income families. Congressman Ryan’s critics have accused him of trying to destroy the Medicare system and claim that the Roadmap will increase the deficit. While they may have honed the harshness of their rhetoric, they have not offered a comparable alternative. Heritage Foundation health policy experts explain how the Ryan Roadmap would really work, and how it would benefit Americans.”
In light of evidence that cost controls in Medicare result in wide disparities between different regions, a study was conducted to see how private insurance fared on that measure. It turns out that medical providers respond differently to pressures in a private, competitive market and private health plans are better able to control costs than government-run plans.
“While we applaud the Chairs’ initiative and efforts to reduce future federal outlays, we feel their proposals ultimately fail to provide an adequate plan for the fiscal future, especially for the unsustainable rise in federal health care costs. We believe that the proposals can contribute to the ongoing budget debate, but are not a roadmap. To help inform the healthcare budget discussion, we outline below the good, the bad, and the ugly policy prescriptions in the co-chairs proposal.”
“Orszag claims that Obamacare will reduce the federal deficit and Medicare spending. What isn’t mentioned is that, though it’s true that spending on Medicare will be reduced by $575 billion over the next decade, savings are used to offset spending on new programs. So really, there are no savings at all.”
“Is Donald Berwick, the controversial new head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, standing by the Obama administration’s double counting of savings in the new health care law? At a Senate hearing this morning, he declined to engage with official criticism of the administration’s claim that the the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act extends the Medicare Trust Fund.”
“Instead, the co-chairs propose the same ol’ failed strategy of trying to limit Medicare and Medicaid spending using government price-and-exchange controls, which they euphemistically describe as “rebates” and ”payment reforms.” Along the same lines, they propose strengthening IPAB, ObamaCare‘s rationing board. IPAB’s mandate is — you guessed it — to ration care by fiddling with Medicare and Medicaid’s price and exchange controls. It will therefore inevitably fall prey to the same political buzzsaw.”
“The Bowles-Simpson proposal would leave in place the entire trillion-dollar monstrosity. Indeed, many of its supposed cost-cutting recommendations would build on Obamacare’s flawed structure of government-driven cost-cutting through price controls. In particular, they would like to create what amounts to a global budget on health care, with the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) given the unilateral authority to hit budget targets with price cutting. This is exactly the opposite of what’s needed, which is cost discipline through consumer choice in a functioning marketplace.”
“Some Republicans may be willing to take their symbolic victory in the House and call it a day. They shouldn’t. There are many things they can do short of repeal that can begin the step-by-step dismantling of ObamaCare.”
“ObamaCare doesn’t reduce medical costs under even the rosiest of scenarios (that is, projections that take seriously all its creators’ assumptions). What we can be certain of is that this legislation increases the amount of money taxpayers will be forced by law to pay for health insurance to the tune of $420 billion over the next 10 years. Claims about ObamaCare’s deficit-reduction effects depend on new taxes growing even faster than new spending. Despite the persistent claims of Peter Orszag and other defenders of the president’s health care legislation, ObamaCare has nothing to do with cutting costs.”