Massachusetts Reforms Work!

Today, the Boston Globe has an editorial that seeks to rebut many of the claims about Massachusetts and set the facts straight. Instead of it being some parade of horribles, the Globe writes instead that:

The facts - according to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation - are quite different. Its report this spring put the cost to the state taxpayer at about $88 million a year, less than four-tenths of 1 percent of the state budget of $27 billion. Yes, the state recently had to cut benefits for legal immigrants, and safety-net hospital Boston Medical Center has sued for higher state aid. But that is because the recession has cut state revenues, not because universal healthcare is a boondoggle. The main reason costs to the state have been well within expectations? More than half of all the previously uninsured got coverage by buying into their employers’ plans, not by opting for one of the state-subsidized plans.

...

Whether out of ignorance or convenience, all three bashers have it wrong. Unlike the Big Dig, health reform came in on time and under budget. It will be proportionately more expensive nationally to provide coverage for the uninsured than it has been here simply because the state began the task with a much lower rate of uninsured, 7 percent, compared with the US rate of 17 percent. But a national plan that relies, as Massachusetts’ does, on both government-subsidized insurance and a mandate on employers to offer insurance or pay a penalty (in Massachusetts’ case, a very small penalty) should be able to cover nearly everyone without busting the budget.

It is important to note too that the state has started trying to tackle the more complicated matter of cost containment. Now that everyone has a stake in the game, controlling costs may actually have more political power. The QCC has recommended changing how we pay for health care. There are also cost containment hearings run by the Division of Health Care Finance and Policy (DHCFP) where the Attorney General's Office (AGO) plays a role along with other stake holders to identify cost drivers and recommend policy to bend the curve.

Not everything will work, but perhaps now everyone, every citizen in Massachusetts, has a stake in making the system work, and that influences cost.

I just wish Beacon Hill would guide the discussions of health care on Capitol Hill and across the country.

P.S. Ezra Klein makes pretty much the same argument, I discovered after writing this. And, NPR has more coverage on the payment reform proposed by the QCC.