Just an update to that letter on Friday from Raul Grijalva’s office to Nancy Pelosi, asking her for various elements to be added to the manager’s amendment of the House health care bill. One of those pieces is that Grijalva wants to add a ceiling for the negotiated rates that the Secretary of Health and Human Services would have to negotiate with providers on the public option. There is already a ceiling on negotiated rates in the House bill: the average of all reimbursement rates of private plans in the exchanges. But Grijalva basically wants the growth of those rates to be capped, making sure that they don’t get tied to the same rates of health inflation that we see in the private market. Grijalva’s office released the following comment:
We want the cap tied more firmly to Medicare rates so that it doesn’t keep rising forever alongside private insurance rates. If we make the “cap” the average of all payments made by qualified health benefit providers, as the bill currently does, there’s a real risk of the public option having to pay more and more every year as medical inflation marches forward. If the public option chases skyrocketing medical costs indefinitely, it won’t work.
As Suzy Khimm notes, this is essentially a back-door way to ensure that provider rates are lower in the public option than in private plans over time, which would presumably have an impact on prices.
But there are additional ways to bring about the same effect, particularly by strengthening the risk-adjustment mechanisms in the exchange. As I noted on Friday, the reason that public option premiums may skew higher than private plans seems to be entirely because of patient dumping in the private market, and a sicker pool of customers for the public option. Risk adjustment, where payments are made to those who take potentially sicker customers to smooth risk among the total pool, is among the best ways to fix this.
4 Comments
Spotlight



Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Advanced search
unless the public option can deliver a large customer base (as medicare does), why would providers accept the lower medicare rates?
Even 6 million subscribers, the CBO estimate (which I think is low), is as big as all large insurers. Plus, I don’t think it’s deniable that the government purchaser will be seen by providers as parts of a whole.
1. there will be 0 to begin with, not 6 million.
2. not spread over the whole country. what will matter is the number of subscribers that can be realistically delivered locally to each provider (or provider network). if i’m a provider in vt, it doesn’t matter to me that the po has a million subscribers in ca. what matters is how many there are in my area.
good point. i will have to give this some thought. thanks.
Good points all around.