About SB-Cal   |   Issues  |  Legislation  |   Successes  |   Resources  |  Join  |  Contact Us  |   Home

Small Business California
2311 Taraval Street
San Francisco, CA 94116
(415)-680-2188

info@smallbusinesscalifornia.org

NEWS ANALYSIS
Dueling health proposals

How Democrats' new plan differs from governor's

Saturday, June 23, 2007

An agreement by top Democrats in Sacramento this week to put forward a single health care overhaul plan sets the stage for a debate with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is championing a proposal of his own.

Both approaches would make landmark changes in health care policy. Both the Democrats and Schwarzenegger want to reduce the number of uninsured Californians, expand coverage for children and make employers play a larger role in financing health care.

But the two proposals differ in several key respects.

State Senate Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, and Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, D-Los Angeles, agreed Thursday to combine their separate health bills. The resulting legislative plan would not require all individuals to obtain coverage, a key departure from the governor's proposal.

While other health bills remain under consideration, notably a "single payer" plan by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, the crafting of a combined bill gives Democrats a program around which to unite as they bargain with Schwarzenegger, who has not yet formed his ideas into a bill.

"This is the equivalent of the director saying, 'Places everybody! Places everybody!' before show time," said Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access California, a coalition of labor and consumer groups.

Schwarzenegger's proposal, which he introduced in January, rests on what the governor calls "shared responsibility," or a spread-the-pain approach. His plan asks for contributions from a wide array of groups: Doctors would chip in 2 percent and hospitals 4 percent of revenues; employers with 10 or more workers would have to cover their employees or contribute 4 percent of their payroll tax into a state insurance fund; and all Californians would have to obtain coverage, from their employers, from government programs or by purchasing insurance themselves.

Under the new Democratic compromise, Perata lost his bid to require coverage for workers earning more than 400 percent of the federal poverty level in favor of Núñez's no-individual-mandate clause.

Doctors and hospitals are off the hook for contributions under the plan. And the employer fee would be considerably more onerous -- 7.5 percent of payroll costs, with no exemptions for size.

The governor's plan would require insurers to cover all individuals regardless of their health status. The Democratic plan would allow health insurers to exclude those with as-yet-undefined "serious" medical conditions, but it would create a high-risk pool funded by the insurers that would provide coverage to those individuals.

Wright and other health advocates hailed the elimination of an individual mandate as a victory for consumers that doesn't force them to buy into a system that advocates consider broken, lacking proper controls over insurance premiums and other costs.

But the Democratic plan aims to cover fewer people. California has an estimated 6.5 million uninsured residents. The Democrats would extend coverage to roughly 3.4 million people. Schwarzenegger would cover more than 4 million uninsured, according to the California HealthCare Foundation, a health care philanthropy based in Oakland.

Business groups, which have reacted negatively to many aspects of both proposals, found the Democrats' plan particularly objectionable, both for its larger employer contribution and for a provision that would allow the state agency that runs the high-risk pool to raise that contribution at will.

"It really doesn't do a whole lot to help provide health care to folks. It certainly does impose a costly mandate on business that won't be able to afford it," said Vince Sollitto, spokesman for the California Chamber of Commerce, adding that the chamber believes requiring an employer contribution violates the law.

San Francisco small businessman Scott Hauge, president of an advocacy group called Small Business California, questioned the Democrats' plan to require all businesses to contribute, regardless of size.

Health advocates say a major oversight in the two proposals is a lack of serious methods to control medical costs and the price of coverage for consumers.

"All these proposals are really focused right now on is the expansion of coverage for the types of health care services and benefits we have now," said Marian Mulkey, senior program officer for the California HealthCare Foundation.

"It will be important both in the short term and then longer term to think not just about expanding coverage, but how health care is delivered and what makes that so expensive."

The Democrats' bill and the governor's proposal are expected to go through many changes before the legislative session ends in September. The governor and lawmakers both say they intend to add cost-containment methods to their proposals.

Wright of Health Access said the similarities, such as expanded coverage and an employer contribution, outweigh the differences between the plans.

"What's notable here is not the differences between the legislators' and governor's proposals. It's the similarities," he said. "That is what gives us optimism that major steps will be taken this year."


The plans compared

Key differences between the governor's and the Democrats' health proposals:

Requirement: The governor's proposal requires all Californians to obtain health insurance, while the Democrats' plan does not.

Contributions: Under the Democrats' plan, employers would be required to put 7.5 percent of payroll costs toward health care -- nearly twice the 4 percent the governor has proposed.

Impact on insurers: Under the Democrats' plan, insurers would be required to cover all but the very sick, who would receive coverage through a state-run high-risk pool. The governor's plan requires insurers to cover everyone regardless of health status.

E-mail Victoria Colliver at vcolliver@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2007/06/23/MNGLEQKBRE1.DTL

This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle