Update: Mayo's own Health Policy Blog lays out the Mayo Position. See link at the end of this post.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Searching for video of Senators talking about the markup of the Baucus bill today, I blundered into this, and don't have another source yet, but...
Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon at about 11:30 in the video: "...The Mayo Clinic, for example, said it was okay if you did the Public Option with an approach like members of Congress want...."
Now, I've always considered the "Public Option" (as normally meant, a competing, federally-run insurance plan as an option for insurance shoppers) to be a way to accelerate reform. When a big insurer, federal or private, has more incentive to find ways to innovate such as incrementally beginning a pay-for-outcome-over-time system, then needed change will happen sooner. Note that a public plan (aka public option) should be on a level playing field with private plans, and Senators say such a plan would be -- that is, it gets no subsidy at all and therefore must support itself only from premiums. The low-income subsidies to people to help them purchase insurance can be used to purchase either the public plan or a private plan. So the playing field really would be level.
But...it is not perfectly clear whether the "public option" Mayo is said to support is actually a government-run insurance plan (aka "public plan") or is instead simply a government-run exchange with private plans alone where plan evaluation tools help policy buyers choose between clear options, and none of the plans are tricky plans with clever loopholes and traps meant to fool policyholders. This kind of friendly exchange with reliable plans would be like the
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (explained here by NPR.)
Senator Wyden (who by the way is also offering a great amendment to open the new exchanges to everyone) appears at 10 minutes into the video:
----------------------------------------------
Here's an NPR interview with Dr. Cortese on 9/22. He likes the idea of a "public plan" being like the government-run Federal Employees Health Benefit Program (FEHBP).
Mayo has said it does not want a "Medicare-like" public option, because Medicare now does not pay for quality (or "value") but rather for quantity. Medicare is also is currently paying below cost on a national basis, but payment is lowest in the midwest.
ReplyDeleteMayo is also working with Senators Baucus, klobuchar, Rockefeller and Cantwell to make changes to Medicare to begin to pay for value.
Mayo also wants to see everyone covered.
That doesn't answer the question about a public option per se, but hopefully it helps explain their position. For additional detail, you can check the Mayo Clinic Health Policy blog.
Thanks, Auriandra. I gradually developed a detailed general system of how an insurer (public or private) can set up pay-for-value, or pay-for-outcome-over-time here on this blog (link below.)
ReplyDeleteOne interesting thought I had a few days ago is that a pay-for-outcome system of the type I advocate can be implemented incrementally. I've updated the post on pay-for-outcome (value) with a specific way to incrementally begin to implement pay-for-outcome. This method of implementation is so modest and reasonable that even the most cautious could embrace it.
http://findingourdream.blogspot.com/2009/06/new-way-to-hold-down-health-care-costs.html