The Connector Board is about to make two decisions that are critical to the success of health care reform – the elements of minimum creditable coverage (MCC) and the standards of affordability for enforcing the individual mandate.
There is a tendency on the part of advocates and others to overreach in both areas – setting the MCC requirements too high and establishing affordability standards that are too broad. Doing either, or both, risks dealing a fatal blow to reform.
One of the key elements of health reform was to bring as many of the uninsured as possible into employer-based coverage. Health reform was never about setting a universal standard for all employers which would disrupt the existing insurance market and force a large group of employers to amend coverage that already provides a good benefit package valued by employees. At a minimum, if the Connector decides to mandate drug coverage, there should be a two-year period to allow employers ample opportunity to make this change.
Similarly, the Connector should resist the temptation to adopt a too sweeping standard of affordability which would have the effect of undercutting the individual mandate and discouraging younger, healthier individuals from buying insurance. It is better to back off on the penalties in the early stages of reform than to exempt too large a group from the requirement to purchase insurance. There is little, if any, likelihood that the state will have the money to broaden subsidies in the years ahead.
Michael J. Widmer
President
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation
While I respect your concerns I would argue that limiting analyses and recommendations to only the uninsured ignores the realities of the overall crisis.
Experts across the country including here in MA have observed that practically everyone now fits into one of these three categories:
Uninsured
Underinsured
Anxiously Insured (costs rising/benefits shrink)
Isn’t it irresponsible to focus on one group to the exclusion of the others that are just as real and deserve attention; couldn’t that makes things worse for the other groups. After all, the causes and effective solutions for all 3 are directly interrelated. We must insist on value for our healthcare dollars.
Would you agree?
Unfortunately, I think they’ve “overreached” already. Understandably, implementation of a program of this magnitude is bound to be uneven and full of unanticipated complications. I have been appalled, however, at the horrendous lack of quality customer service at the Connector and the obvious (and apparently successful) efforts to limiting access to management. In my attempts to enroll a relative, I have been
* given mis-information
* told that their own correspondence was incorrect
* insulted (the representative called my question “ridiculous”
Before the program was “rolled out”, all the details should have been defined and a “beta” version should have been tested (possibly in a small county) before it went statewide.