Health-care reform: Massachusetts tries to crack the code on rising costs
Massachusetts was first in the US to pass health-care reform that included an individual mandate to buy insurance. Now it aims to be the first to control costs. Will its plan, approved Tuesday, work?
(Page 2 of 2)
In the end, they decided to create a new state commission with the power to audit health-care providers that exceed state targets for cost growth and to refer them to the state attorney general for investigation. In a state that is home to world-renowned hospitals like Massachusetts General, Brigham and Women’s, and Beth Israel Deaconness, this was one of the most controversial provisions. State Attorney General Martha Coakley said in a 2010 report that insurers end up paying some hospitals and doctors twice as much money as others for similar care, in large part because they dominate the market.Skip to next paragraph
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
The legislature’s plan also levies a surcharge on insurers, and that money, combined with future appropriations, will fund preventative-care programs and help support smaller community hospitals that typically have lower costs than the larger institutions but that also have lower revenues. Some funds will bolster reimbursements for Medicaid, the federal-state health program for the poor. The plan also promotes the creation of “accountable care organizations,” which aim to replace the current piecemeal fee-for-service approach for medical procedures with “global” or “bundled” systems of payments for providers.
The Massachusetts Hospital Association appeared to give a lukewarm response to the bill, welcoming the effort but also warning that “the aging population and obesity epidemic” will stress hospital budgets. It also says the state must do more to ensure adequate reimbursement for patients in state-funded programs.
Critics, including the Pioneer Institute, a Boston think tank, say the plan creates more bureaucracy and higher administrative costs. Joshua Archimbault, a health-care analyst at the institute, also says the ambiguity in some of bill means that state regulators would have sizable discretion.
“My concern is that whenever you have government officials, or a commission or a panel or whatever, making arbitrary determinations, you run the risk of picking winners and losers, and you open the door for increased lobbying, which is very problematic,” Mr. Archimbault says.
The Greater Boston Interfaith Organization, an alliance of religious organizations in the region, says the growth targets have the potential to reduce costs and eliminate waste.
“However, to accomplish these aims an enhanced enforcement mechanism will likely be necessary,” the group says. That echoes fears that the lack of specific targets and specific penalties in the legislature’s plan gives providers like big hospitals too much wiggle room.
The wider impact of the Massachusetts plan, however, remains an open question, since the Bay State’s circumstances – a high percentage of insured individuals; an economy dominated by the health-care industry – is unusual in the US.
“We are very optimistic we will have a model for the rest of the country to look at,” Ms. Whitcomb Slemmer says.