After expanding coverage, Mass. looks to cut costs

Dec 11, 2010 By STEVE LeBLANC , Associated Press

(AP) -- Four years after Massachusetts embarked on the nation's most ambitious health care overhaul, Gov. Deval Patrick and legislative leaders are stepping up efforts to rein in spiraling insurance costs.

Those costs are threatening to undermine the 2006 law, which mandated nearly universal health coverage and provided a blueprint for the national health care overhaul pushed by President Obama.

The next big goal, supporters say, is to find a way to slow surging premiums while maintaining or improving the delivery of health care services.

It's a task of mind-boggling complexity requiring cooperation among doctors, hospitals, insurers, regulators, state lawmakers and the administration.

One way to head in that direction, supporters say, is to gradually move away from a system that pays doctors and hospitals for the number and type of tests and procedures they deliver and instead rewards them for maintaining the overall health of their patients.

Getting there may not be easy, given the sometimes competing interests of those involved in the process. Massachusetts already has the highest percentage of insured residents of any state, in large part because of the 2006 law.

"We don't want to break the system we have, but we want to bring the costs down," said Senate President Therese Murray, D-Plymouth, who has championed payment overhaul. "It is complicated. If you move one little piece, something pops up somewhere else."

Murray said lawmakers are keenly aware of not getting in between patients and their doctors. She hopes to file a bill designed in part to rewrite the way health care is paid for in Massachusetts early in the new two-year session that begins in January.

Patrick has also said that slowing the cost of is a top health care priority for his second term.

Monthly premiums for individuals in Massachusetts have increased dramatically in the past decade. From 2001 to 2009, the median monthly premium for individual health plans soared by 76 percent, from $251 to $442.

Health and Human Services Secretary Judyann Bigby said that while premium increases have eased from the earlier part of the decade, they are still climbing too quickly. She said moving away from the fee-for-service model won't be easy, but it's needed to curb costs.

She concedes that making such sweeping changes is a daunting task that requires the participation of all those involved in the delivery of health care.

"The issue is how quickly can you reform such a big system without having mistakes and unintended consequences," Bigby said.

Slowing the growth of health care premiums is also key for state and town governments struggling to pay for health coverage for police, firefighters and teachers.

A report released this week by the Boston Foundation found that from 2000 to 2007, annual health care premium costs in school budgets soared by $1 billion, while state aid for schools grew by only $700 million.

Doctors and insurers are urging caution.

"Whatever the process, it needs to be slow, it needs to be studied," said Dr. Alice Coombs, president of the Massachusetts Medical Society, which represents more than 23,000 doctors and students. "One size does not fit all."

Insurers are also recommending a cautious approach.

Massachusetts Association of Health Plans President Lora Pellegrini said before pushing a "global payment" system that mandates more coordination among a patient's physicians, nurses, hospitals and other care providers, the state needs to even out how much hospitals and doctors can charge.

In the same health care market, costs for similar tests and procedures can vary wildly. The state needs to create a more level playing field, she said.

"Our key goal as a commonwealth needs to be that we are actually going to lower the cost of health care," she said. "I think the jury is still out on the best way to get that."

Some insurers are already moving toward a global payment system.

Just this week, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts and doctors at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston signed a "alternative quality contract" designed to lower costs by paying doctors and hospitals for the quality, not the quantity, of the care they provide, including helping patients control their diabetes and lowering their risk of heart attacks.

Health care activists say lawmakers shouldn't delay too long.

Amy Whitcomb Slemmer, executive director for the Massachusetts advocacy group Health Care for All, said her group has seen a dramatic increase in the number of calls from people struggling to pay health premiums.

The status quo, she said, isn't sustainable.

"In Massachusetts, we have been in the forefront in providing health care for almost everyone," she said. "Now we have the opportunity to address the cost and quality of the care we are receiving."

Some critics of the 2006 law have argued that the soaring costs can be blamed in part on the law itself, which mandates that everyone who can afford insurance must have coverage or face tax penalties.

Glen Shor, executive director of the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, which oversees the law, said finding a better way to deliver care will not only improve outcomes for patients but also lower costs.

Rolling back the 2006 law would be exactly the wrong approach, he said.

"The wrong way is to say that people shouldn't have coverage or to shrink coverage to the extent that it isn't real coverage," he said. "It's a moral commitment on the part of the commonwealth that everyone needs access to coverage and care. There's no escape valve."

Explore further: Room for improvement in elementary school children's lunches and snacks from home

not rated yet
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

From Mass.: Health care reform 'dos and don'ts'

Jul 24, 2009

(AP) -- Three years into its experiment with near-universal health care, Massachusetts has some "dos and don'ts" for the nation as it grapples with the best way to cover tens of millions of uninsured Americans.

Health premiums could rise 17 pct for young adults

Mar 29, 2010

(AP) -- Health insurance premiums for young adults are expected to rise about 17 percent once they're required to buy insurance four years from now. That estimate is from an analysis by Rand Health.

Recommended for you

Worldwide FGM ban sought at 'Girl Summit' (Update)

2 hours ago

British Prime Minister David Cameron called on Tuesday for a worldwide ban on female genital mutilation and child marriage as he launched the first UN-backed "Girl Summit" on issues that affect millions around the globe.

US college pays $190M in exam pix settlement

3 hours ago

A "rogue" gynecologist's secret use of tiny cameras to record hundreds of videos and photos of his patients' sex organs has led to a $190 million settlement with some 8,000 women and girls, lawyers said Monday.

Backscatter body scan redux

3 hours ago

Airline passengers have already said bon voyage to the controversial backscatter x-ray security scanners, pulled from U.S. airports in 2013 over concerns about privacy and potential radiation risks. But the ...

User comments : 4

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

geokstr
1 / 5 (1) Dec 11, 2010
...rewards them for maintaining the overall health of their patients.

Yeah, right. And how exactly do you go about measuring "the overall health of their patients?" And when someone with good "overall health" moves from one town to another and changes doctors, who gets credit for the "overall health" on an going forward basis. And how much credit should the patient himself get for maintaining his own "good overall health? Should a doctor with weak-willed patients who refuse to take his advice get penalized for that? And who gets to judge the performance of the doctor, and how? Maybe we can get the same bureaucrat who is deciding who gets that life saving treatment and who doesn't by rationing health care to make the decision.

This is insane.
Quantum_Conundrum
5 / 5 (1) Dec 11, 2010
Hey wait a minute now.

I thought the liberals swore on their lives these health care plans were supposed to REDUCE costs.

Isn't that how they got "Obama care" to pass in the first place, by pointing to Massachusettes and saying, "It's working there!"

Wow. Are liberals and progressives even capable of telling the truth, or admitting they were lying earlier?
alec123456789
5 / 5 (1) Dec 11, 2010
I have an idea. How about we cut out the middle-man, the insurance companies.

It would be better if I could "join" a hospital (and its peripheral, associated healthcare providers) for a flat monthly fee. They would give me whatever care I may need as I may need it. This would give them a financial interest in my staying healthy; because the healthier I am the less often I would walk through their door requiring service and the lower the cost would be when I do. They would avoid any unnecessary tests and procedures, but also make sure to give me all the care I would need so as to catch problems early and avoid their increased cost (and likely any preventative medicine that made statistical, financial sense).

The best way to fix almost any problem is to arrange What-Should-Be-Done with financial incentive for the involved parties.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 12, 2010
""We don't want to break the system we have, but we want to bring the costs down," "

These are contradictory 'wants'. Which is most important to the state, control or costs?

What the 'progressive' socialists won't comprehend is they must let go and trust that markets will lower costs. But as the statists don't want to give up control, and they hate markets, they will continue their insanity.