The largest hospital operators in the country say providing health insurance for all Americans can be achieved by expanding government coverage, and by giving lower-income Americans vouchers to pay for the private plan of their choice.
The strategy presented by the Federation for American Hospitals differs somewhat from other recent proposals — including one from Wal-Mart and the largest U.S. Union — by detailing how the public and private sectors should collaborate to provide coverage for the nation’s 47 million uninsured.
The federation’s members include Universal Health Services Inc., Tenet Healthcare Corp. and Health South Corp.
Government economists said U.S. health care spending will outpace overall economic growth in the coming decade, accounting for one out of every five dollars spent in the U.S. by 2017.
Expanding health coverage is particularly in the self-interest of hospitals, experts say, as many have become saddled with debt problems as a result of treating those who cannot afford to pay for treatment.
“Their objective is very clear: they want more of their potential patients to have coverage,” said Paul Ginsburg, president of Center for Studying Health System Change, a nonpartisan policy research organization.
The Federation’s plan would incorporate new government spending alongside the existing private insurance programs offered by companies like WellPoint Inc. and Aetna Inc. to insure about 98 percent of Americans.
Specifically, the plan would also expand federal and state programs like Medicaid by automatically enrolling low-income individuals and families based on government data, such as income tax reporting and eligibility for food stamps. Those who are not eligible for public health programs but still cannot afford health care would receive subsidies in the form of a “health coverage passport,” which would allow them to select their own private health care plan. Taking a cue from recent proposals outlined in Massachusetts and California, the plan would require all adults who can afford insurance to buy it for themselves and their children.
While complementing the plan on its use of the private sector to expand coverage, Sarah Berk, executive director of Health Care America, said it is also “a little vague on funding.” Berk’s group advocates free market approaches to health coverage.
“There is enough money in our health care system, so it’s a matter of how we spend it, where we spend and why we spend it, and this proposal is not yet clear in answering those questions,” Berk said.
The question of how to pay for an expansion in health care is being increasingly asked as more interest groups weigh in on the subject.
Last month, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and the Service Employees International Union came together in Washington to call for universal health coverage for every American by 2012. While the unusual pairing of the world’s largest retailer and the country’s largest union attracted media attention, the pair’s proposal offered few specifics.
But according to Ginsburg, the recent string of universal health care proposals are more aimed at pressuring policy makers to begin addressing the problem than actually laying out detailed solutions.
“These proposals are very oriented toward influencing the 2008 presidential campaign,” Ginsburg said. “Their strategy is to get all the presidential candidates talking about these ideas and to get health care as high on the campaign agenda as possible.”
Once health care coverage is at the center of public discussion, Ginsburg says, politicians will be forced to hammer out specific solutions.
The Federation of American Hospitals’ political action group contributed more than $300,000 to political candidates in 2006, according to figures from the Center for Responsive Politics.