We focus on a number of topic areas identified by state health policy leaders as important to population health.
Keep up with news and updates from the Milbank Memorial Fund. Get the latest from thought leaders, including Christopher F. Koller, president of the Fund.
We publish The Milbank Quarterly, as well as reports, issues briefs, and case studies on topics important to population health.
The Center for Evidence-based Policy at Oregon Health & Science University is a national leader in evidence-based decision making and policy design.
The Milbank Memorial Fund is an endowed operating foundation that publishes The Milbank Quarterly, commissions projects, and convenes state health policy decision makers on issues they identify as important to population health.
October 14, 2015
October 2015 | Noam N. Levey | Online Exclusive
The advent of the 2016 presidential primary season has brought renewed calls from Republicans for complete repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). As has been the case in the last 3 election cycles, full-throated attacks on “Obamacare” are de rigueur with the GOP base.
But the talk of ripping out the law, rolling it back, and rescuing Americans from government mandates has obscured a quiet evolution that has transformed the political landscape around health policy and presented an opportunity to move past the Obamacare wars.
As the law’s program for expanding coverage has taken hold, delivering health protections to millions of Americans, most Republican leaders have tacitly accepted that scrapping the law is unrealistic, even politically reckless. The most serious GOP alternatives—most notably the Patient CARE Act proposed by Senator Richard Burr (R-NC), Senate Finance Committee chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and House Energy and Commerce chairman Fred Upton (R-MI)—now feature many of the same protections as the current law.1
Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton, meanwhile, has outlined a set of “fixes” for the ACA that she would make as president. This platform may provide a path for Democrats to reopen the health care debate without undercutting the law’s core architecture.
While these developments are unlikely to end the long political fight over health care between Democrats and Republicans, there may be an opportunity to negotiate a truce when a new president takes office, whatever his or her party.
Negotiators could build on a set of health policy principles that Democrats and Republicans share yet have often overlooked in the din of political battle. Here are just a few:
To be sure, important differences in the details of these shared health policy principles remain. Whether federal insurance subsidies are tied to income or to age, for example, affects not only the cost of the program but also the nature of the safety net. Disagreements over whether the federal government should mandate a basic set of insurance protections (as the ACA does) and over whether states should be able to limit Medicaid assistance (as many Republicans are calling for) will also be difficult to resolve.
Moreover, fundamental philosophical differences regarding the role of government almost certainly will continue to shadow the health care debate. Many opponents of the ACA maintain that any reconciliation with the law is impossible because it is built on the premise that more government regulation can best address the health care system’s problems. Conservatives, by contrast, believe the system’s ills stem from too much government intrusion.
These philosophical disagreements are real and deeply felt. But the notion that opposing worldviews preclude legislative compromise is belied by history. President Ronald Reagan, who took office famously proclaiming that “government is the problem,” and Tip O’Neill, the Democratic House Speaker who carried the torch of New Deal liberalism through the 1970s and 1980s, compromised on a series of tax reforms, even though the two men never agreed on the role that the federal government should play in Americans’ daily lives. More recently, in 1997 Democratic President Bill Clinton hammered out a compromise with congressional Republicans that created the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, a dramatic expansion of the government safety net that also gave states substantial flexibility and provided opportunities for the use of commercial health plans.
These kinds of deals did not require the two sides to come to any deep philosophical agreement, only to recognize that each of their policy agendas could be advanced with compromise.
Negotiators reviewing federal health policy in the future might start with a set of adjustments to the ACA that both parties could agree to relatively easily. For example, few lawmakers or policy experts on either side of the political aisle now see the employer mandate in the law as necessary. There are also few defenders of the current tax on health insurance plans, which was included in the ACA to help offset the cost of expanding health coverage. This tax, not to be confused with the even more unpopular Cadillac tax, clearly inflates premiums. Strategies favored by conservatives, such as expanding the use of tax-free accounts to offset consumers’ out-of-pocket medical costs or reforming medical malpractice, might become part of the negotiation.
Tougher topics such as the individual mandate might be tackled by revisiting alternative methods for encouraging consumers to get coverage, such as Medicare’s system of charging high premiums for late enrollees. The law’s federally mandated Essential Health Benefits, a frequent target of conservative ire, might be examined to see if states could be given more flexibility to set these standards, as they have done historically. Even Medicaid, a program that has deeply divided the parties over the years, may provide opportunities for compromise as Republican-led states pursue alternative coverage models like Arkansas’s “private option.”
Making any changes to the ACA will not be easy. The length and intensity of the fight over “Obamacare” are unprecedented in modern times. Feelings on both sides remain raw, and trust is low.
That said, there is plenty of incentive for both sides to come to the table. Diffusing the health care debate would allow a new Republican president to focus on other priorities and avoid a protracted battle over repeal of the ACA. Such a fight would alienate huge parts of the country and likely sap the new administration of political capital, just as it did the Obama administration.
If a Democrat captures the White House, a negotiated compromise could pave the way to fulfilling the law’s fundamental promise of guaranteed coverage for all Americans. That protection is now denied to millions of low-income residents in those states in which Republican leaders have resisted the expansion of Medicaid benefits.
The public, meanwhile, is clearly ready for another kind of national health care discussion. Polls show that Americans want the next president and Congress to focus most on pocketbook concerns such as rising drug costs, surprise medical bills, and inadequate insurance networks.
These are issues that demand pragmatic, bipartisan leadership—and compromises. Whether Washington’s next crop of elected leaders is up to the task is, of course, an open question.
Noam N. Levey is national health care reporter for the Los Angeles Times and Tribune Washington Bureau. He covered the debate on Capitol Hill over the crafting of the Affordable Care Act in 2009 and 2010, and he has written extensively about the implementation of the law across the country, reporting from Maine to Hawaii. Noam’s stories about health care policy and politics appear regularly in newspapers nationwide, including the Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune. He has also been published in Health Affairs and the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Wash Your Hands!
Revisiting Health Care’s Value Equation
Get the Latest from the Milbank Memorial Fund