Related UI Researchers

Publications on Health/Healthcare

This paper makes the argument that a public plan is important to health reform because it will contribute to cost containment, primarily by addressing problems caused by increased concentration in insurance and hospital markets. We describe how the public plan might be structured, how many people might be expected to enroll, and how much money the public plan might save. We discuss the most frequent arguments that are made in opposition to the public plan. We conclude that the private insurance industry would survive at about the same size but be more efficient and more effective in controlling health care spending.

Many have suggested that reducing or eliminating the tax exclusion of employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) could generate significant additional tax revenue to fund expansions in health insurance coverage. In this paper, we focus on two specific policy design elements: (1) a cap, or dollar limit, on the amount of employer-sponsored health insurance premiums excluded from taxable income; and (2) an index that determines how this cap might grow over time. Our analysis shows that limiting the tax exclusion would provide substantial funding for health reform and mitigate the huge inequities built into the current treatment of employer premiums.

The testimony begins by mentioning a large number of positive aspects of the legislation. The role and importance of an individual mandate is then briefly discussed. It argues that the public plan that is proposed in the plan is important for overall cost containment and for budget savings. The plan would address problems in the current market that are caused by increasing concentration in insurance and hospital markets. Further it is argued that it is in fact possible to structure a fair competition between public and private health insurance plans. Finally, the testimony makes recommendations for the financing of the Medicaid expansion and for modifying the employer mandate proposal.

The voluntary nature of the US health system has led to an insurance market centered on segmenting health care risk as opposed to one focused on providing affordable access to necessary and efficiently provided high-quality medical services. This can be corrected through comprehensive health care reform that includes a requirement that all individuals have at least a minimum level of health insurance coverage, a so-called individual mandate. While significant government subsidies would be required to fairly implement an individual mandate, we contend that it is the most politically feasible route to universal coverage in the United States today. Published by The New England Journal of Medicine

As many as 10 million older Americans and younger adults with disabilities require long-term care, either at home or in nursing facilities. The United States spends more than $200 billion annually for such care. However, our system for financing this assistance-principally Medicaid and family assets, with a small share funded through private insurance—may be untenable as baby boomers age. TPC's Howard Gleckman looks at the way we deliver and pay for these services in a new book, Caring for Our Parents: Inspiring Stories of Families Seeking New Solutions to America's Most Urgent Health Crisis. He and a panel of top policy experts will discuss how—or whether—long-term care should be included in health reform legislation.