September 25, 2009 3:15 PM

House Reviews Cost Savings in Health Care

By
Stephanie Condon
Topics
Health Care
5339106As Democratic leaders in the House prepare to consolidate their various health care plans, they are considering both more moderate and more liberal proposals to pay for reform.

Earlier this week, it was reported House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to include a robust government-run health insurance plan, or "public option," in the House floor bill -- one that would peg the public option's medical reimbursement rates to Medicare rates. Under Pelosi's preferred plan, the public option would pay doctors and medical providers 5 percent more than Medicare rates for their services.

Moderate Democrats would prefer for the public option to negotiate its own payment rates so it remains "on a level playing field" with private insurers. On Thursday, however, House leadership released estimates from the Congressional Budget Office showing that a Medicare-pegged public option would be $85 billion cheaper than the "level playing field" plan.

The more liberal public option that Pelosi prefers would save the government $110 billion over 10 years -- which is actually $20 billion more than earlier estimates, Congress Daily reports.

Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-S.D.), a leader in the moderate Blue Dog Democrat coalition, said the more robust public option would be bad for physicians, according to Congress Daily.

"We can't save costs on the backs of people who represent constituent patients and providers who've been at a competitive disadvantage," she said.

CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care

The latest CBS/ New York Times poll shows that 65 percent of Americans saying they are in favor of a public option, and 26 percent oppose it. In August, 60 percent were in favor of the plan.

Meanwhile, Pelosi said today that the House is also considering methods of paying for reform put forward by the Senate Finance Committee -- the group with the most moderate health care bill. The House could adopt a plan to tax insurers for the more expensive health insurance plans they offer, she said. Other Senate proposals could be added to the House bill, though Pelosi did not say which ones.

The CBO is expected on Tuesday to give an estimate of what the costs of the new provisions would be.

Add a Comment See all 15 Comments
by notmd September 27, 2009 11:27 AM EDT
one major issue that should be addressed to reduce health care costs is requiring those patients who can pay their bill to pay them..a hospital cannot turn off it's emergency room like your cell phone or cable service..If we continue to allow people to ignore their e/r bills we will just make it easier for them to use this service as their primary care..I would recommend that when a patient has the ability to pay their co-pay or deductible for an emergency service that the liability is transferred to a taxing authority in that state for collections and transfer that money to the hospital..patients should not be allowed to hide behind the uninsured when it comes to their hospital bill..
Reply to this comment
by alanrobisch September 26, 2009 12:13 PM EDT
Stuart I don't Know where you get your figures but here is a quote from an ap story "An Associated Press-GfK poll conducted this month showed that while the public in general was opposed to Democrats' health care proposals, seniors were almost twice as likely to be concerned. Opponents of Democrats' plans outnumbered supporters 49 percent to 34 percent. Among seniors, 59 percent were opposed compared with 31 percent in support.
Reply to this comment
by 6591Hou September 26, 2009 6:02 PM EDT
"The latest CBS/ New York Times poll shows that 65 percent of Americans saying they are in favor of a public option, and 26 percent oppose it. In August, 60 percent were in favor of the plan."

It gives the figure in the story.
by jxknowles September 25, 2009 11:49 PM EDT
I would be the first person in line to buy a Government-run public option. It boggles the mind to think people are so dead-set against this.

A lot of our family serves or has served in the military and they all get excellent, low-cost treatment at VA facilities all over the country.

My father is a doctor and my mother a nurse. Three of my sisters are nurses. They all support healthcare reform and support, at minimum, a public option.

Healthcare cost in this country are out of line. If you are interested in lowering the Federal deficit and healthcare costs, you should support reform and a public option.
Reply to this comment
by 6591Hou September 26, 2009 6:00 PM EDT
I'm confused by posts like yours, it implies that everyone who serves or served in a uniform goes and gets all of their medical treatment "all over the country" at a VA facility and that's not the case. Active duty members normally get treated at military clinics and hospitals, not at VA hospitals, and it's free. I don't know anyone who gets their primary routine medical treatment at a VA hospital or clinic as a matter of choice.
I see a lot of posts by people regarding medical care in the military who don't know what the heck they're talking about, i.e. 'it's socialized medicine and it's good' etc. etc.
When you retire from the military you're told your medical options are Tricare Standard, Tricare Extra, or Tricare Prime, for which you pay quarterly premiums and have deductibles and copays and the whole ball of wax. You may be treated at a military medical facility on a space-available basis only, because active duty members have priority over retirees, if the facility agrees to treat retirees (not all do) - space available means you show up at the clinic and wait to see if somebody who had an appointment doesn't show during the day and then you might be able to be seen, that can mean an all day wait sitting in the waiting room only to go home without seeing anyone.
If you served, but did not retire, and have no service related disabilities or injuries - you have no medical care benefits after separation.
Tricare has the rules for authorized providers, preapproval requirements for some treatments, and other things and is run by Humana and not the VA.
by jsd330 September 26, 2009 8:38 PM EDT
6591Hou Actually there are three private insurance companies that administer Tri Care. It's broken down into three areas North, South and West. Humana has Tri Care South I'm not sure which companies have the North and West. As for coverage at the VA, I am not sure how it works anymore since I haven't had to use it since 1969.
by eightsigma September 25, 2009 7:52 PM EDT
To paraphrase Faulkner, the Republican party has become
but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Reply to this comment
by mmvale September 25, 2009 6:45 PM EDT
This bill wants to add over 50 more government agencies and save us money? Does anyone believe this?
Reply to this comment
by eightsigma September 25, 2009 7:48 PM EDT
With 65% for the public option, the consequences should be a continued safe majority.
by stuart-johns September 25, 2009 7:51 PM EDT
Read it Republican extremists. That's 65% of Americans FAVOR the public option. Let me repeat that.

65% OF AMERICANS FAVOR THE PUBLIC OPTION!!

I thought you said the "vast majority" of Americans don't want it?

Nobody believes it? Nobody wants it?

ROTFLMAO at republican trolls.
by Parsifal_tx September 25, 2009 6:01 PM EDT
Instead of a public option health insurance, our government should consider nationalize provider network. Where the government controls only the fee schedules and can force lower fees to all provider.

Allow all insurance companies to use the networks. Restrict providers from not accepting an insurance companies payment based on nationalize rates, unless the provider negotiates a seperate contract with the insurance company.

This will lessen national provider networks bargaining power of demanding more money. This will cut down on cost shifting and a lot of administration cost. And no one will be out of network, and if you switch health plan your doctor is in the same networks.
Reply to this comment
by stuart-johns September 25, 2009 5:45 PM EDT
That should have read "sanctimonious"
Reply to this comment
by stuart-johns September 25, 2009 5:44 PM EDT
The latest CBS/ New York Times poll shows that 65 percent of Americans saying they are in favor of a public option, and 26 percent oppose it. In August, 60 percent were in favor of the plan.
-----------------------


Read it Republican extremists. That's 65% of Americans FAVOR the public option. Let me repeat that.

65% OF AMERICANS FAVOR THE PUBLIC OPTION!!

I thought you said the "vast majority" of Americans don't want it?

All I can do is laugh at you devious, lying, unGodly, evil, smug, santimonious, self-righteous, pathetic excuse for thinking human beings.
Reply to this comment
See all 15 Comments
.

Follow Political Hotsheet

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook