3 states with a public option

In Colorado, which is enrolling people in its public option for the first time this year, only one insurance company out of eight met all the cost-cutting targets set by lawmakers.

In Nevada, officials face an uphill battle implementing a policy the state’s incoming Republican governor called “bullsh-t” — and the state is already proposing easing targets for insurers to account for higher-than-expected medical inflation.

And in Washington state, which was the first to pass a public option in 2019, enrollment remains paltry, while the cost of the health insurance plans has decreased, state health officials said the policies available are still too expensive…

“I don’t know that any state has hit upon the magical solution that’s going to bring costs down,” said Sabrina Corlette, research professor, founder, and co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy.

DB2

2 Likes

Do you know if in those three states the Covid medical bills for the uninsured were tallied into the pool for the public option? That would include the skyrocketing nursing costs.

In other words how did the private insurers get those general assemblies to shift the costs onto the public option?

I am saying there was nothing innocent in the chosen results.

2 Likes

If it involves private insurance companies, I would not call it a “public option”. A “public option” would be putting everyone on state Medicaid, for instance.

Steve

9 Likes

During the Clinton administration, the state of Washington enacted “Hillarycare.”

It was not the disaster critics expected - it was worse than that. And obviously so sooner than the critics predicted.

After the next legislative election, it was repealed. A new system was put in place, that worked reasonably well until it unfortunate fell afoul of “Obamacare.”

As part of that system, by legal definition 90% of the state’s population was “low risk” and had only age-based variations in premiums - and if you had insurance in the state in a “low risk” pool, you could switch insurers and remain in that pool, no questions asked.

IMO, any state (or regional group of states) is not able to offer a public option for health care. The reason is simple: Other states will move their “high healthcare cost” patients to that state/region and then enroll them in “the public option” healthcare plan.

Thus, ONLY a national program is realistically possible because “gaming the system” is what state govt do (over and over again).

We see this happening today with migrants being bused from TX, FL and other southern states to DC, NYC, and likely other cities. Imagine the same busing system–on a more massive scale–to move “high healthcare cost” individuals to states with public option healthcare.

The only way to prevent such a situation is a national program.

3 Likes

Jerry,

MA governor Mitt Romney did it successfully because no one purposely sabotaged it for the insurance companies.

The public option works better than private insurance unless private insurance can get politicos to sabotage it.

3 Likes

The key phrase is “for the insurance companies”. I couldn’t get any info from their web site about how they “screen out” people who get sent to Mass because of the availability of the public option who otherwise could not get reasonable health insurance. Residence is one obvious way, but the cost of being moved to Mass by another state (to take advantage of healthcare insurance) does not seem to be mentioned anywhere (but it is likely in the “small print”).

1 Like

Jerry the sentence is the heart of it. Not the insurance companies. The public option is far better and less expensive. This is very easy to understand.