Government's plans can lower the cost of health care

By Nina Owcharenko

E-Mail

Comments (0)

Text Size:

tool goes here

In today's economic climate, everyone is looking for places to save money. Health care now consumes one-sixth of America's economy. So it only makes sense that leaders of the U.S. health- care sector want to do their part.

But these savings are even more important to the Obama administration. It needs these savings to help pay for its massive health care reform proposal. Estimates of the president's health-care plan put the total cost of the reforms at $1.6 trillion.

That's why earlier this year President Barack Obama called a group of health-care and labor union executives to the White House to discuss the need for sweeping reforms.

From that meeting, the group -- made up of health insurance, pharmaceutical, hospital and physician groups along with a large labor union - told the president they would "offer concrete initiatives that will transform the health-care system" that would "save" $2 trillion in spending and growth over the next 10 years.

The group recently provided the Obama administration with $1.7 trillion in prospective savings based on broad concepts, many of which reflect initiatives put forth by the president himself.

Many of these efforts are focused on squeezing savings through better quality and efficiency.

Ideas such as expanding the use of electronic medical records and health information technology, greater investment in preventive and care management tools, and establishing best practice models are all commonly touted delivery reforms.

Unfortunately, most of these savings proposals are unproven and, ironically, some of them actually require more spending. Even the Congressional Budget Office, the score- keeper for Congress, cautioned against depending too heavily on these types of promised savings.

If the administration and Congress are serious about reforming the health-care system, their policies should be focused on empowering individuals and families.

Insurers and medical professionals have little direct accountability to individuals. Even the existing financial and insurance arrangements compromise the interests of consumers who demand insurance that meets their individual needs and the interests of patients who demand the best and highest value of medical services.

So what would happen if the health providers sector can't make these savings come true? The administration and Congress could raise taxes on an already shrinking number of taxpaying Americans or cut payments to health-care providers - thus jeopardizing the access of all Americans to care and services. Or, federal government could simply ignore the cost altogether and pass the tab on to future generations.

At a time of such economic uncertainly, it would probably be wise for the administration and Congress to take a lesson from family financing - by saving the money before spending it.

Owcharenko is a senior policy analyst for the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation; Web site: www.heritage.org.

McCLATCHY-TRIBUNE