We don’t normally think of Senator John McCain as a healthcare leader, and yet he played a significant role over the years in various policy matters. CareCentrix CEO, John Driscoll and I pay tribute in a short edition of #CareTalk.
Category: Policy and politics
In the latest edition of #CareTalk, CareCentrix CEO John Driscoll and I banter about several trending healthcare stories: Google’s investment in Oscar Health, younger physicians’ embrace of single payer, drug pricing, and new approaches to opioids.
Don’t miss the lightning round, where we tackle some Congressional corruption, IBM Watson, home health aides and our summer movie picks.
I mourn with the nation on the loss of Senator John McCain, an American patriot and public servant. Plenty of retrospectives are appearing on McCain just now; naturally I’ll focus mine on healthcare.
Back in 2008 I profiled the major candidates on healthcare policy, comparing Obama to McCain and calling out my favorite on each main area. In three posts, I examined the candidates’ positions on individual and employer mandates, expansion of public programs, premium subsidies and tax law changes.
McCain never really made healthcare a centerpiece of his campaign, and I don’t think he was especially passionate about it. The policies he put forward were fairly mainstream GOP ideas of the day –modest in scope and likely to be modest in impact as well. He opposed an individual or employer mandate to purchase health insurance, and took no position on the expansion or cutback of government healthcare programs like Medicare and Medicaid. He was in favor of allowing veterans to use their VA benefits in the name of obtaining convenient, high quality care outside the VA system.
McCain proposed modest tax credits, and even some extra boost for people with pre-existing conditions. The math never added up on these and the impact would not have been great.
John McCain’s most radical proposal is one I generally agree with: eliminating the tax deductibility of employer-sponsored health insurance. McCain would have taxed these benefits as income, which they are. If implemented as proposed, this provision could have driven down the availability of employer sponsored health insurance without replacing it with anything; that would not have been a great outcome. More likely, a compromise version would have passed, essentially placing a cap on deductibility without scaring employers away from offering coverage.
This policy is not so dissimilar from the so-called Cadillac tax in the Affordable Care Act, which is hated by just about everyone. Nonetheless it’s good policy because it puts the brakes on insurance costs and encourages employees to value their benefits rather than take them for granted.
Looking back on these posts a decade later, it’s also interesting to see how pragmatic Obama’s proposals were. For example, Obama focused his attention on universal coverage for children, encouraging businesses to offer health insurance to their employees. He also called for creation of a public plan modeled on the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan, to help individuals that couldn’t find good plans elsewhere.
Rest in peace, Senator McCain.
It’s time for the Waning days of summer edition of the Health Wonk Review, hosted by Julie Ferguson at Workers’ Comp Insider. Go check it out.
Although I have not had time for a lot of blogging this summer (waning days or otherwise) one of my posts and one videocast that includes me are featured.
A lot of people were surprised that Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey sent a letter last week to the Health Policy Commission, expressing concerns about the merger of Beth Israel Deaconess, Lahey Health, New England Baptist, Mount Auburn and Anna Jacques. Usually the AG would comment later if at all, but the letter throws the whole merger into doubt.
The Boston Business Journal interviewed me about the topic. Here’s what I said:
Health care expert David Williams said the attorney general’s early involvement could speed up the overall review, but may also mean that conditions imposed will have more teeth.
“Whenever the AG is involved it gets pretty legalistic and sometimes confrontational in a way that working with the HPC would not necessarily do,” said Williams, who works with Boston consulting firm Health Business Group. “I think what it means is that any terms and conditions that are agreed to as part of the merger are more likely to be enforceable if the AG is involved because they have more tools at their disposal.”
He said the attorney general’s early involvement reflected the concerns raised by competing hospital Tufts Medical Center and a community group that has ties to Steward Health Care.
“Presumably, the AG has heard from these organizations and decided to take their concerns seriously,” he said. “It’s likely she is trying to influence the terms of the merger in order to mitigate these issues.”
I also told the reporter that there were “eerie” similarities in the arguments made by this group and what Massachusetts General and Brigham and Women’s said way back when they formed Partners, e.g., that healthcare costs would drop as a result.