Morning Briefing
Summaries of health policy coverage from major news organizations
What Would Abolishing Our Complex, Confusing Private Health Care In Favor Of 'Medicare For All' Really Look Like?
The New York Times: Medicare For All Would Abolish Private Insurance. ‘There’s No Precedent In American History.’
At the heart of the “Medicare for all” proposals championed by Senator Bernie Sanders and many Democrats is a revolutionary idea: Abolish private health insurance. Proponents want to sweep away our complex, confusing, profit-driven mess of a health care system and start fresh with a single government-run insurer that would cover everyone. But doing away with an entire industry would also be profoundly disruptive. (Abelson and Sanger-Katz, 3/23)
CQ: How 'Medicare For All' Would Change Health Care ... And The Economy
A single-payer health care plan would mean significant change to every sector of the health care industry. Hospitals and doctors would need to adjust to a new payment system, the insurance industry would shrink to a fraction of its size, and the government would bring drug companies to the negotiating table to determine prices. The 2010 health care law left in place most of the existing health care infrastructure in the U.S. Still, experts warn that the lessons from that more incremental transition show how dramatic it would be to shift to a single-payer system. (McIntire, 3/25)
The Associated Press: Medicare For All Legislation Has Thorny Issues
The "Medicare for All" legislation that's become a clarion call for progressives has two little-noticed provisions that could make it even more politically perilous for 2020 Democratic presidential candidates. The legislation from White House hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders, along with a similar measure in the House, lifts curbs on government health insurance for people in the country illegally and revokes longstanding restrictions on taxpayer-funded abortions. (3/25)
CQ: Models Abound, But U.S. Single-Payer System Would Be Unique
Supporters of “Medicare for All” often cite systems in other industrialized countries to illustrate how putting health care funding in government hands could work in the United States. Some of the benefits are clear. Besides expanding access to health insurance, the system could eliminate many complexities for patients, doctors and hospitals. (Siddons, 3/25)
CQ: Single-Payer Systems Are No Easier In The States
The hurdles for a government-run, single-payer health care system are amplified at the state level, where universal coverage ambitions are hampered by politics, costs and federal restrictions. These realities ultimately undercut efforts in two of the nation’s most liberal states — Vermont, which ended its attempts to institute a single-payer system in 2014, and California, which is expected to fall short again this year. (Clason, 3/25)
And in related news —
Bloomberg: Pelosi Says Democrats To Unveil `Sweeping' Health Bill March 26
House Democrats plan to unveil health-care legislation on March 26 aimed at lowering costs and protecting people with pre-existing conditions, according to an advisory from the office of Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The bill, broadly timed to coincide with the 9th anniversary this weekend of Obamacare being signed into law, would “reverse the Trump administration’s health-care sabotage, and take new measures to lower health premiums and out-of-pocket costs for families,” according to the statement. (Chipman, 3/23)
