Note: This isn’t about the health care “compromise.” For my thoughts on that, go here.
As I noted a week ago, US Congressman Dave Reichert (R-8) has written a four-part series about health-care reform for a group of Eastside papers, including the Auburn Reporter, the Bellevue Reporter, and the Issaquah Reporter. (Reichert was among four Washington State representatives who voted against health-care reform in the House—all three of our GOP reps plus Rep. Brian Baird, D-3.).
Although I’m disappointed that Reichert doesn’t support the basics of health-care reform, I do have to give him props for going into so much detail about his views on the health-care crisis.
With the Senate poised to vote on its version of the bill, the remaining three parts of Reichert’s epic editorial are out.
In Part II, Reichert comes out, unsurprisingly, in favor of “medical liability reform,” which would limit punitive damages from lawsuits against negligent doctors and other health-care providers.
Recent studies have also shown that liability reform not only lowers the cost of liability insurance for doctors, but also lowers health care costs generally through reducing the use of defensive medicine practices that include unnecessary tests and services – services that physicians order to protect themselves from lawsuits, but that have the effect of driving up insurance premiums.
Of course, lower “general” health-care costs are cold comfort to those injured or killed by negligent doctors in states like Texas, which Reichert cites as an example of successful medical tort reform. (Just last week, a report by Public Citizen declared medical liability reform in Texas a “failure.”)
In Part III, Reichert argues in favor of tax credits, subsidies, and health savings accounts.
By improving health savings accounts and flexible spending arrangements as well as creating new tax benefits to offset the cost of long-term care premiums, we can create incentives to be prepared and to save now for future and long-term health care.
The problem with those private-market solutions—essentially, you pay into an account now and withdraw money to pay for health costs out-of-pocket later—is that they work great if you don’t get sick, but can run out mighty fast if something happens, like a disabling accident, that suddenly increases your health care costs. (That’s one reason it’s called health “insurance.”)
Finally, in Part IV, Reichert comes out in favor of Personal Health Records, which would give patients and doctors online access to medical records, which Reichert calls a “needed first step toward a nationwide electronic medical records system.”
I don’t know a ton about PHRs, but they sound like a reasonable idea; however, I would be curious what privacy advocates have to say about putting sensitive medical information online and giving doctors (and potentially insurance providers?) access to that information.
