|
|
JUNE
25, 2007
BW SMALLBIZ -- FRONT LINE
Altered States
|
California, Illinois, and
Pennsylvania take up the push for universal coverage
|
To learn about
health-care reform, you have to look beyond Washington, D.C.
That's what President George W. Bush said in his State of the
Union address, urging Secretary of Health & Human Services Mike
Leavitt to visit the states and "see what you can learn."
States are far ahead of the federal government in trying to help
small employers priced out of the market for health insurance,
and three states are even taking stabs at universal coverage.
First came Maine's Dirigo Health, in 2005. Massachusetts will
begin Commonwealth Choice in July, and Vermont's Catamount
Health will follow in October. All three use government clout to
try to negotiate better prices for health insurance, and
Massachusetts and Vermont mandate that companies either buy
insurance or pay into a fund that subsidizes those who do.
Now the governors of California, Illinois, and Pennsylvania have
put forth proposals for universal coverage. All three mimic key
features of the New England plans. Two dozen other states are
debating less ambitious reforms.
Few dispute the need. Last year, companies with fewer than 200
workers faced average premium hikes of 8.8%, almost two points
higher than those with more than 200 workers, according to the
Kaiser Family Foundation. With just 60% of small firms providing
coverage—compared with 98% of big ones—a huge swath of the
uninsured works at small companies.
The New England plans are providing blueprints for other states'
proposals. "We studied carefully the three New England states,"
says Christa Donahue, director of policy at the Illinois
Department of Healthcare & Family Services. California,
Illinois, and Pennsylvania will redirect some funds now used for
emergency care to cover the uninsured, as in Maine and
Massachusetts; state governments would negotiate prices; and
those who don't buy insurance would pay to help cover those who
do.
Illinois Covered Choice, which aims to reduce premiums on small
business health plans by about 20%, would charge 3% of payroll
to businesses that don't participate. Pennsylvania Governor
Edward Rendell is also proposing a 3% tax on employers for his
program, designed specifically to provide premium assistance to
low-wage workers in small companies. In California, where 20% of
the population is uninsured, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is
recommending a 4% assessment on employers.
Although most small business advocates remain allergic to any
so-called employer mandate—fearing that a 3% or 4% assessment
could spiral higher if the programs turn out to be more
expensive than expected—some California entrepreneurs are
warming up to the idea. "It's not unreasonable to ask small
businesses to pay 4% because everyone is contributing
something," says Scott Hauge, president of the nonpartisan Small
Business California. He's somewhat comforted by the fact that
Schwarzenegger included an individual mandate, which, like
Massachusetts', would penalize residents who fail to purchase
insurance.
Rosalie Bulach, chief executive officer of Name-Finders Lists, a
15-employee San Francisco direct marketing consultant, has seen
her health-care premiums rise 62% since 2003, to 11% of payroll.
Says Bulach: "Small employers who haven't been doing right by
their workers should really pay more than 4%."
Some policymakers consider these new state programs nothing but
a short-term fix. David Merritt, a policy analyst at the Center
for Health Transformation, a Washington consulting firm,
believes runaway costs are the main villain, and doubts the
effectiveness of cost-containment strategies such as wellness
programs and chronic disease programs. Says Merritt: "These
plans aren't financially sustainable. Although they may increase
coverage for small business employees in the short run, in the
long run they would just mean more taxes and fees." But in the
absence of a complete cure, noninvasive surgery may just have to
do.
By Joshua Kendall
|
 |