Massachusetts Denying Health Care Choice: A Preview of Federal Reform

This Boston Globe story offers a glimpse of what federal health care reform might look like. It's not pretty.

... a growing number of hospital officials and physician leaders warn that the new payment system proposed by a state commission would not work without restrictions on where patients receive care - an issue some providers say the commission and the Patrick administration have glossed over.

“You can’t reap these savings without limiting patients’ choices in some way,’’ said Paul Levy, chief executive of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

The Massachusetts health care model has been widely cited as a successful precursor to federal reform efforts. It's been plagued by high costs. Now, inevitably, bureaucrats are stepping in to control use.

And Congressional liberals continue the pressure for a public option.

The most robust public plan, favored by liberals and included in two of the House bills, would tie reimbursement rates for health care providers to those paid by Medicare, reducing the nation’s overall health care bill by $110 billion over 10 years, according to estimates the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has provided to lawmakers. The third bill contains an idea being pushed by centrist Democrats to negotiate reimbursement rates with providers, saving roughly $25 billion over 10 years, the budget office estimates say.

As House Democratic leaders try to meld those approaches, liberals like Representative Jan Schakowsky, Democrat of Illinois, said they saw support building for the stronger public option because it saves more money. “It’s the best cost-containment measure we can get,” she said.

Cost-containment ultimately means saying no to patients. No wonder proponents prefer attacking insurers to defending their alternatives.

So much for choice and competition.