WillardCare Succeeded by Transcending Ideology.

Natty Bumpo · Oct 30, 2013

Pragmatism, freeing oneself from the straitjacket of the various ideological dogmatisms in favour of what actually works, is the approach that achieves solutions in the real world. Irrational rage deriving from extreme political biases is not a sound approach to governance.

The CEO of the largest private insurer in Massachusetts explains why an individually-mandated, universal-coverage approach that accommodates free-market competition has proved to be the best actually achieved by any of the fifty states. Signed into law in 2006 by the GOP's 2012 nominee, its partisan pedigree is irrelevant.

Whether it is the best of all possible plans the imagination can conceive, it has one essential attribute: It works.

Health care lessons from Massachusetts

When President Obama visits Boston on Wednesday to promote the Affordable Care Act (ACA), attention will once again focus on the 2006 Massachusetts law that became the model for much of the legislation that has sparked so much hope and disappointment in recent months.

While our political leaders in Washington appear hopelessly divided about the future of health-care reform, the conflict and mistrust that has beset the ACA remains notably absent in Massachusetts. So, its natural to ask if our experience might offer a ray of hope for the rest of the country. Based on many years of involvement, I believe the answer is yes if the focus remains on the real lessons of what we have accomplished here and how we did it.

The most important lessons from Massachusetts will not be found in the structure or mechanics of the law, or even in the successful performance of our online exchange. Instead, the country should understand better how politicians and the larger community consumers, employers, physicians, labor and health plans set aside ideology to unite around a commitment to shared responsibility in health care.

Although it may be tempting to dismiss Massachusetts as simply a bright blue state advancing a liberal health agenda, the reality is quite different. Our community and political leaders span a broad ideological spectrum when it comes to the most divisive, underlying issue in the health-care debate: Should government regulation or the private market control health care? We have learned that this ideological battle presents a false choice. We need government oversight to provide proper safeguards, and competitive forces to drive innovation.

The evolution of Massachusetts health reform covers the administrations of two Democratic and four Republican governors. In the late 1980s, Democratic Gov. Michael Dukakis fought for a law that required employers to offer health coverage or pay a penalty, but opposition from the business community led to its ultimate repeal. His Republican successor, Bill Weld, championed deregulation and greater dependence on the market. Then, in 2006, Republican Mitt Romney, with support from a broad coalition of business and health-care interests, joined with Democratic legislative leaders, Sen. Ted Kennedy, and Bush administration officials to forge our states groundbreaking law.

The job of implementing Massachusetts health reform started with Governor Romney and continued under his Democratic successor, Deval Patrick. Some provisions of the law went into effect almost immediately, but business groups and consumer advocates were soon at odds over a series of key implementation issues. Within months, however, compromises emerged that all factions accepted.

Despite plenty of bumps along the way, Massachusetts health reform has been remarkably successful. The rate of uninsured residents has been cut to less than 4 percent, by far the lowest in the nation; expanded coverage has improved access to needed care and increased the use of preventive care; and among the public, supporters of the law outnumber opponents by a 3-to-1 margin. Along with welcome gains in care and coverage, however, Massachusetts has continued to experience some of the highest health-care costs in the nation, making affordability the next priority.

The thorny issue of controlling health costs briefly revived our historic debate over the market versus regulatory oversight. Again, we reached a compromise: a new state law that limits annual increases in statewide health spending to the rate of growth in the economy. But the laws success depends most heavily on proven market-based initiatives of Massachusetts health plans, hospitals and physicians to move rapidly from our inflationary fee-for-service payment model to one based on accountable outcomes on quality and cost. More lessons for the country as a whole are likely to follow.

The ACA is a huge commitment of private and public resources that could benefit tens of millions of Americans, so there is every reason to get it right. That which is broken must be fixed, and there should be an open, non-partisan process to monitor and continuously improve the law and its implementation.

Based on what Ive witnessed in Massachusetts and what is beginning to emerge in other states, Im optimistic that over time our political leaders will move beyond the damaging ideological debate that divides Washington and focus on one unifying question: How do we make health care more affordable, effective, and accessible for everyone?

Andrew Dreyfus is president and CEO at Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts.
Click to expand...

Natty Bumpo · Oct 30, 2013

So, the best that Repubs have been able to come up with for healthcare reform is WillardCare.

Not too shabby!

Log in or Sign up

WillardCare Succeeded by Transcending Ideology.

Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

WillardCare Succeeded by Transcending Ideology.

Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches