WE HAVE CHANGED SITES

We have changed our blog site!
Please visit the new blog site at: http://hpfhr.wordpress.com/
See you there!!!

Here is a email/post from member Maura Keaney (who works with Jim Himes):

Hi, Gil,
Happy New Year! Hope all is well with you. In case you haven't seen it, I just wanted to forward along to you the exciting proposal that was released today from CT's HealthCare4Every1 Foundation, called SustiNet:http://www.healthcare4every1.org/sustinetproposal
Not waiting for a federal solution, the Universal Health Care Foundation in CT has worked with legislative leaders, health care providers, and other stakeholders to come up with a plan that would be both universal and sustainable AND would focus on prevention, quality of care, and better health outcomes. They have attempted to address the pressing concerns in CT about low reimbursement rates as well.This is different than your EMBRACE proposal, but I think your HPfHR group might be very interested to see what's brewing here in our own backyard, and ideally might want to have input on this proposal as it makes its way through the legislative process.Given that the new speaker of the CT House, Chris Donovan, is very focused on health care reform, and given the makeup of both houses of the CT legislature, this might finally be the year when we make real strides here. I think this group also has a very realistic and pragmatic understanding of both the difficulties and the imperatives of moving forward with universal health care in these economic circumstances -- it's critical that the public understand that universal health care will be GOOD for the economy and ultimately cheaper for both employers and consumers, while creating real jobs in health care delivery.Just wanted to share in case you hadn't seen. And thanks again for all of your input into Jim's understanding of health care from a provider perspective -- I'm down here in VA now and saw Jim sworn in last week! Your insight was invaluable.
All the best,
Maura

I encourage all our members and blog readers to become familiar with this proposal. I think its way better than Charter Oak.
Gil

More about Tom Daschle’s confirmation hearing

In an editorial in the NY times, there is more discussion about the signs that are being given off by the confirmation hearings. One point again was raised:

That seemed to indicate that the Democrats will be pushing for reforms that can command support from large bipartisan majorities in Congress. Yet the seeds of
partisan conflict are already being planted. Mr. Enzi issued a press release warning against expanding insurance coverage through government-run bureaucracies like Medicaid and asserting that any new coverage must come through private health insurance plans.
If he meant that literally, he would have to oppose major elements of the Obama health plans, which envisage expanding existing public programs and probably adding a new public program to compete with private plans. Of course, if the Republicans become too obstinate in blocking major elements they don’t like, Democratic leaders in the Senate could choose to close off debate no matter what Mr. Daschle has recommended.
There were few if any surprises in Mr. Daschle’s broad-brush statements on policy. He wants wider insurance coverage, lower costs, higher quality care, more preventive care, an emphasis on keeping people well, greater use of information technology, more money for community health centers, a stronger Food and Drug Administration and speedier approval of low-cost generic drugs, among other issues.

I think this is clearly the death knell of single payer proposals like HR 676. I also think that the chances for a plan like EMBRACE are better, but nothing is definite at this point...
Gil

Daschle Pledges a Bipartisan Reform of Health Care System

The New York Times has a very long and interesting discussion of Daschle's initial confirmation hearings and then a discussion about the likely proposals that may be coming from the Obama administration.
Of particular interest to this group was the following:

Notwithstanding the friendly atmosphere on Thursday, and assuming that Mr. Daschle is confirmed, heated debates are certain about one of the most contentious aspects of President-elect Obama’s domestic agenda: his call for a new public health insurance plan to compete with private insurers.No other proposal so clearly defines the political and philosophical differences between Mr. Obama and Republicans, or provokes such deep disagreements.Mr. Daschle, the point man for Mr. Obama’s campaign to revamp the health care system, supports the concept of “a government-run insurance program modeled after Medicare.” It would, he says, give consumers, especially the uninsured, an alternative to commercial insurance offered by companies like Aetna, Humana and WellPoint.But the proposal is anathema to many insurers, employers and Republicans. They say the government plan would have unfair advantages, like the ability to impose lower fees, and could eventually attract so many customers that private insurers would be driven from the market.“The public plan option is a terrible idea — one of our top concerns in the health reform debate,” said James P. Gelfand, senior manager of health policy at the United States Chamber of Commerce.

This, I think may be one area where EMBRACE, may be of benefit. As we have noted previously, private and public insurance plans do not do well when they are allowed to compete against each other. If left to the "free market", private insurance usually has an advantage. If there is too many "price controls" it may have the opposite effect (as pointed out by Mr. Gelfand above). EMBRACE establishes publicly funded coverage as the Daschle plan proposes, but it keeps it separate from competition with privately insurance.
Gil