Government-run Healthcare Would Backfire, Making 'Public Option' the Only One

Former DNC chair's government-run insurance program is sure to backfire. Just ask his wife the doctor

May 21, 2009 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (13)

Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has recently inserted himself into the debate on health reform, creating a website and collecting signatures on a petition calling for a "public option" as part of any health reform bill. The action is unsurprising from an individual who previously called President Obama's healthcare reform plan "perfect" and stated that "it's ridiculous to say care would be inferior" in the government-run plan. But even as Governor Dean attempts to attract support for government-run healthcare, it's worth pointing out that the facts—not to mention his own personal experience—don't mesh with his rhetoric.

As Vermont's governor, Dean aggressively pursued expansions of government-run health insurance—and bragged that doing so "was very cheap to do." Unfortunately for beneficiaries on state-run Medicaid and children's health insurance, that "cheap" coverage often came at a very steep price. Low reimbursement rates mean that few doctors actually participate in the government-run plan, so patients can't see their personal physician—and may not be able to see any physician when they need one.

In Vermont, one of those physicians whom Medicaid beneficiaries couldn't visit was Judith Steinberg—Howard Dean's wife. In 1998, low reimbursement rates—coupled with the impact of additional regulations her husband signed into law—prompted Dr. Steinberg to end participation in the state's largest Medicaid-managed care program. As a result, the residents of Shelburne in Vermont's largest Medicaid plan lost access to the only primary care provider in town who would accept their insurance.

I don't fault Dr. Steinberg for her decision—it may well have been the only rational business decision for her to make. But for Governor Dean to claim that a government-run plan won't be "inferior" is to ignore his wife's experience, and that of the many beneficiaries who lost access to their physician due to Medicaid bureaucracy and poor coverage. My fear is that creating a government-run health insurance plan wouldn't guarantee quality care by physicians—in fact, it will not guarantee care at all.

The quality of care in a government-run health plan may seem irrelevant to those individuals who are happy with the coverage they currently have—after all, President Obama promised during his campaign that, "If you like the plan you have, you can keep it." But most individuals don't really have their own health coverage—they get it from their employers. And if the coverage provided in the government-run plan is cheaper than what employers are paying now, logic suggests that employers will drop their current plans and place their workers in the government plan.

Estimates from independent actuaries at the Lewin Group suggest that well over half of all Americans currently with employer-sponsored health coverage—nearly 120 million individuals—would lose their current coverage due to the creation of a government-run health plan. And the change in coverage would not be a "choice"—according to Lewin studies, employers would drop their plan options, dumping employees into the government-run health plan to save money.

So the end result of the "perfect" plan supported by Governor Dean would be most people losing the coverage they have, while ending up on a government-run plan that dominates the healthcare marketplace. Physicians would be forced to accept the government's low reimbursement rates—but my experience, to say nothing of Dr. Steinberg's, strongly suggests that many will not. Some baby boomer doctors may view a move to government-run health insurance as a reason for them to take early retirement. Some physicians may refuse all insurance entirely, relying solely on a "cash-and-carry" approach to treating patients. Other physicians may be forced to lay off staff to compensate for a sharp drop-off in income. And other would-be physicians may decide not to practice at all—forsaking medical school for other careers that could be more rewarding and less bureaucratic than government-dictated medicine.

Republicans believe that a government-run health plan that doesn't guarantee access to care—like the Medicaid program in Governor Dean's hometown—isn't real coverage at all. That's why House Republicans have formed a working group, on which I sit, to develop solutions that will expand access to affordable, quality healthcare. Our working group's proposals will keep doctors and patients, not government bureaucrats, at the center of healthcare.

Governor Dean may claim that a government-run health plan would not provide "inferior" healthcare, but the citizens of his hometown—and even his wife—may disagree. Republicans believe that Americans deserve better. And we look forward to working to achieve that aim.

Check out our political cartoons.

Become a political insider: Subscribe to U.S. News Weekly, our new digital magazine .

U.S. Congressman Phil Gingrey, M.D. represents Georgia's 11th Congressional District and is cochairman of the GOP Doctors Caucus.

Tags:
Howard Dean,
Republican Party,
healthcare,
healthcare reform

Reader Comments Read all comments (13)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

we look forward to working to achieve that aim.

pandora jewellery of HI 10:11PM December 12, 2010

I lived in Vermont when then Governor Dean successfully "expanded" the state coverage. The above article is pretty accurate about access to care, particularly in more remote areas of the state. Doctors either dropped accepting the Medicaid option or refused to accept new patients with this coverage. The real kicker is that then-Governor Dean was actually encouraging employers to drop their healthcare coverage for employees who may have qualified for the Medicaid coverage. The real culprit for Vermont's healthcare woes at the time (and I believe much of the country's as well) was the adoption of community rating and guaranteed issue legislation. Under community rating, all insureds pay the same premium no matter what the age, health, or habits of the insured. In other words, a 22 year old healthy person paid the same premium as a 58 year old lifetime smoker who was 50 pounds overweight. The object of the provision was to lower the rates for older voters. Unfortunately, the real effects (which were predicted by many industry analysts during the public hearings on the policy) was the flight of younger healthy individuals from the voluntary insurance market. The second item was guaranteed issue, which basically removed underwriting standards from the health insurance industry. A person who smoked, was overweight and had never participated in healthcare coverage could not be rejected for coverage by a company licensed in the state, nor could pre-existing conditions be excluded. Again, during hearings, industry analysts predicted a massive flight from the state by insurance companies. At the time of enaction of both pieces of legislation, there were over 25 companies providing health insurance options. Within five years, there were 7. While both pieces of legislation were well meaning, their unintended but predictable consequences have had a tremendous impact on the healthcare coverage within Vermont. At hearings in the Statehouse, I provided recommendations for possible solutions. First and foremost was the "socialization" of the medical schools in the state. By this, I advocated (and continue to advocate) that the state pay the full tuition, fees, room, board and a stipend for all students accepted into the programs. Those students, after completion of both medical schools and their residencies, would be required to work for 5 years for Vermont at a facility to be assigned. After that 5 year commitment was completed, the doctors would be free to pursue their specialties and independent practice. The goal was to provide a base level of care throughout the state and to remove the significant debt that many doctors accumulate pursuing their degree. The second option was a multi-tiered (by age) pricing plan which would encourage the enrollment of younger, healthier adults (18-35) into health insurance programs. This foundation is absolutely necessary for any system to succeed. Unfortunately, neither the Democratic-led legislature nor the governor agreed

Ray Overton of NY 9:19AM June 25, 2009

What a joke. Quit trying to scare people. Healthcare costs so much now, people just want to be covered, and their willing to wait in longer lines if that's what it takes. Ask anyone who has lived in European Countries with Universal Coverage. It works. The horror stories you hear are seriously minority viewpoints, outside the mainstream of the medical community. In the US most of us have to worry everymonth about whether or not we can afford healthcare, I am sure Dr. Philip Gingrey, with his MD salary, doesn't have to worry about such things.

Damon of NV 5:00PM June 10, 2009

advertisement

Latest Videos

Thomas Jefferson Street Blog

Obama Isn't Nixon, but Needs More Friends in Washington

President Barack Obama needs to make more friends in Washington.

Republicans Can't Forget the Economy During Obama Scandals

Scandals provide good fodder for the GOP, but it can't forget about fixing unemployment.

Amidst Obama Scandals, Republicans Prepare a New Debt Ceiling Hostage

Republicans are preparing to take the debt ceiling hostage…again.

Benghazi, IRS and AP Scandals Reveal a Clueless President

The recent slew of scandals reveals an administration either incompetent or malicious.

The IRS Scandal Is About Budget Cuts, Not the Tea Party

Cutting the tax collection budget hurts everyone in the long-run.

Obama 'Going Bulworth' Wouldn't Give Him Power Over Republicans

Both Congress and presidents overestimate the power of the Oval Office.

Bureaucracy Keeps Adopted Children Stuck in International Limbo

The U.S. needs to do more to ease the international adoption process.

The Real Scandal Behind the Benghazi Emails and Attacks

The GOP focuses on talking points while ignoring dangerous security budget cuts.

advertisement