Advertisement
*
Reproduction permitted for personal use only. For reprints and reprint permission, contact reprints@wistechnology.com.

Controlling costs must be a part of federal health care solution

MADISON - To say small business owners in Wisconsin are nervous about the outcome of the debate over health-care reform is like saying a football quarterback is jittery just before a 300-pound defensive end grinds him into the turf. Both know what's coming - and both can only hope to get back on their feet once it's over.

Representatives of small business have become persuaded that, no matter what version of the health-care bill is adopted by Congress, they will pay more to provide health care to employees. Those same small business owners believe neither the House nor the Senate bill address spiraling costs, the core problem from an employer perspective. They also believe Congress will ratchet up already burdensome costs in two main ways - through expensive new coverage requirements and by forcing the nation's insured to pay more to cover the uninsured.

There's no doubt the federal debate has been about reforming access to health care, rather than controlling costs. Most health-care reformers in Congress want to see the nation's 46 million uninsured - more than 15 percent of the population - protected by a safety net. They contend it costs the United States billions of dollars in lost productivity, social woes, family bankruptcies and more for so many people to go without health insurance.

While access to health-care poses real problems, so does a system that consumes 17 percent of the Gross National Product and which forces employers to choose between hiring another worker or salting away money for the next double-digit increase in health-care premiums.

A recent actuarial analysis by Wellpoint Inc., the parent company to Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Wisconsin, concluded the most likely compromise of the bills pending before the House and Senate would increase premiums by 17 percent for a small business with eight workers of average age and health status. That's on top of increases already coming, with or without reform.
Advertisement
Skeptics might say such estimates are more insurance company “spin control,” but even discounting the self-interest of the insurers it's safe to say Congress and the White House have thought far more about improving health-care access than controlling costs.

Here are some suggestions for addressing the cost side of the equation, and keeping more money in the hands of small businesses that create the bulk of the nation's jobs.
  • Focus on wellness, disease prevention and ways to better manage chronic illnesses, such as diabetes and heart disease. Chronic illnesses account for 75 percent of U.S. health care costs.
  • Provide incentives to hospitals and clinics in crossover markets to collaborate where possible, rather than compete over every service. Cost increases in health care can be slowed when health-care organizations avoid service and facility duplication. Hospitals and clinics may make more money on specialists, but primary care keeps customer costs down because those medical professionals stress wellness, prevention and disease management.
  • Accelerate the movement toward digitizing medical records, which first gained federal support when former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson was secretary of Health and Human Services. President Obama is right about moving this idea ahead. Electronic health records will provide a long-term foundation for higher quality care while reducing errors and giving medical professionals better data. It's a ready example of how technology can help patients.
  • Pass the Comparative Effectiveness Research Act of 2009. The basic idea behind “comparative effectiveness” is to create a national database to share information about how new or different therapies, treatments and diagnostics work for patients. Medical professionals would have near-instant access to that information.
  • Allow small businesses more, not less, leeway in buying coverage plans that fit their employees. Such plans might cover mostly catastrophic cases, preventative care and child medical care, with relatively high employee-paid deductibles for everything else.
Health care reform is inevitable because the current U.S. system has its flaws. In the rush to improve access, however, let's not forget that rising costs will create a new and more serious crisis if small businesses stop creating jobs.

Recent articles by Tom Still

Tom Still is president of the Wisconsin Technology Council. He is the former associate editor of the Wisconsin State Journal in Madison.

The opinions expressed herein or statements made in the above column are solely those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Wisconsin Technology Network, LLC. WTN accepts no legal liability or responsibility for any claims made or opinions expressed herein.


Comments

Jack Lohman responded 3 months ago: #1

Some of these solutions to controlling healthcare costs for the small businessman are critical, but major ideological questions should first be tackled:

1) Should this "captive market" be controlled by the "free market insurers" or should it instead become part of the national infrastructure, as it has in every other industrialized country in the world?

2) Should healthcare be the responsibility of employers, who spend 15% of wages on this benefit and then have to compete with foreign products that do not have the costs of this burden in their prices?

I'd say No to both, but the Chambers of Commerce and WMC would most certainly say Yes. But they have many insurance companies and brokers as paying members who would be negatively affected, so they have an internal conflict between their members that they alone will have to solve.

But that conflict is working against the nation’s business community. Reducing the costs should start by eliminating waste and unnecessary middleman costs, which in this case is the bloated insurance bureaucracy which unnecessarily consumes 31% of our healthcare costs.

That is solved by going to a single-payer Medicare-for-all system, which would eliminate much of the 15% health benefits costs and provide a bailout for 100% of our corporations, not just the bankers.

But damn, that creates two other problems. First, people call that socialized medicine (which it’s not, but so what if it were?), and secondly, other countries have done this and they spend half what we do, and we are predisposed to not copy other countries. Duh!!!

See http://moneyedpoliticians.net/medicare-for-all

-Add Your Comment

Name:
E-mail:

Comment Policy: WTN News accepts comments that are on-topic and do not contain advertisements, profanity or personal attacks. Comments represent the views of the individuals who post them and do not necessarily represent the views of WTN Media or our partners, advertisers, or sources. Comments are moderated and not immediately posted. Your email address will not be posted.

WTN Media cannot accept liability for the content of comments posted here or verify their accuracy. If you believe this comment section is being abused, contact edit@wistechnology.com.

Advertisement
Advertisement
WTN Media Presents