Health “Reform” in Massachusetts
In case you missed it, the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation released a report this week claiming that the Commonwealth’s health plan has proved surprisingly affordable. Of particular interest are the reasons why they claim health reform has been fiscally responsible:
1) Half of the budgetary costs (which they estimate at a net $700 million) have been passed on to the federal government through the Medicaid match;
2) Employers have extended coverage valued at a total of $750 million – more than the cost of the expansions of government-run care — due largely to the (unfunded) mandate on employers to provide coverage;
3) The “mandated substantial Medicaid rate increases to hospitals and physicians who had been underpaid for years” were “effectively eliminated” as a result of Fiscal Year 2009 budget cuts, thus preventing further cost overruns.
In other words, less than three years into the reform experiment, physicians are suffering from substantial under-payments, because the Legislature reneged on its 2006 promises due to political and budgetary pressures.
This case study serves as a cautionary tale on health reform, one that you and/or your boss may wish to share with providers in your district over the recess. Likewise, Senator Baucus’ white paper on coverage proposed increasing Medicaid reimbursement rates, but the Massachusetts experiment begs a simple question: How long will those increases really last?