The real issue is cost control. Nichols and others are willing to take the
chance on a system with no serious controls, hoping P4P, Medicare Home, HIT,
etc will work. Some on the Hill seem to think that no cost control will
pass, so the idea is to pass something with fake controls and hope it
provides a better platform for cost control later. I'm not sure how a
system without cost controls satisfies either business or budget hawks,
though neither group, ideologically, is comfortable with government
rate-setting. But it's the rate-setting that is at the heart of the debate.
A public plan with Medicare's market power is a platform for rate-setting; a
public plan divorced from Medicare is not.
Best,
Joe White
-----Original Message-----
From: Anglo-American Health Policy Network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Adam Oliver
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:18 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: AAHPN
Hi
David Wilsford forwarded the following article to me from today's WP. David
believe this to be an accurate rendering of the tensions vis-à-vis US health
reform, so it may be of interest to you.
Best,
Adam
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/20/AR2009042003
702.html?wpisrc=newsletter
Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
communications disclaimer:
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/secretariat/legal/disclaimer.htm
|