Health Exchange Approach to Reform will Give Consumers Choices & Control
http://www.aframnews.com/html/interspire/articles/985/1/Health-Exchange-Approach-to-Reform-will-Give-Consumers-Choices-amp-Control/Page1.html
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison
Kay Bailey Hutchison is the senior U.S. Senator from Texas and is the senior Republican on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation. By Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison
Published on 10/7/2009
Americans love having options. From the food we eat to the cars we drive, we relish making our own choices based on our preferences and what is best for ourselves and our families. Health care should not be an exception.
Americans love having options. From the food we eat to the cars we drive, we relish making our own choices based on our preferences and what is best for ourselves and our families. Health care should not be an exception.
Yet the proposals put forward by the Obama administration and the Democratic Congressional leadership would create a massive government plan for health care and crowd out the choices Americans expect. A federal government takeover of our nation’s health care will limit, if not eliminate, an individual’s options in health care insurance and delivery. This does not mean “no” is the answer to reform, either.
In Texas, we lead the nation in the number of uninsured, which raises the premiums and property taxes for those who are covered. And many families who want insurance do not have access to affordable choices. Now is the time for other approaches.
Under the current system, most employees are presented limited options regarding their coverage—and their choice is to take it or leave it. However, the health exchange places all the decision-making power into the hands of the consumer. A state-level health exchange would allow consumers to compare plans at a single shopping point.
A hallmark of a health exchange is that it utilizes minimum government input and maximizes private competition and consumer choice.The benefits to consumers are clear. Participation is elective, and employees are empowered to choose the coverage that best meets their needs.
Workers who currently do not qualify for employer-sponsored health coverage, such as part-time or contract employees, could be eligible to receive an employer contribution toward their health insurance. The employer’s set contribution would be applied to the premium cost, and the employee would pay the difference. A health exchange would streamline coverage for families with both spouses employed by allowing contributions from multiple employers to be pooled and applied to a single health insurance plan that is best for their household.
It could eliminate gaps in care because plan benefits are portable from job to job, provided that both employers participate in the exchange. This approach is also profitable for employers. A defined contribution system dramatically simplifies their role in health care coverage, reducing an employer’s responsibility to setting the contribution rate for their staff.
The approach would significantly lower administrative costs and labor, as employers would no longer face the cumbersome task of selecting benefit structures, insurance companies or provider networks, and negotiating a single plan that works for all of their employees. I believe the health exchange is a valuable model for Texas to follow. It keeps the government in its appropriate role of facilitating innovative private market solutions. And it places the decision-making power exactly where it should be—in consumers’ capable hands.
Yet the proposals put forward by the Obama administration and the Democratic Congressional leadership would create a massive government plan for health care and crowd out the choices Americans expect. A federal government takeover of our nation’s health care will limit, if not eliminate, an individual’s options in health care insurance and delivery. This does not mean “no” is the answer to reform, either.
In Texas, we lead the nation in the number of uninsured, which raises the premiums and property taxes for those who are covered. And many families who want insurance do not have access to affordable choices. Now is the time for other approaches.
Under the current system, most employees are presented limited options regarding their coverage—and their choice is to take it or leave it. However, the health exchange places all the decision-making power into the hands of the consumer. A state-level health exchange would allow consumers to compare plans at a single shopping point.
A hallmark of a health exchange is that it utilizes minimum government input and maximizes private competition and consumer choice.The benefits to consumers are clear. Participation is elective, and employees are empowered to choose the coverage that best meets their needs.
Workers who currently do not qualify for employer-sponsored health coverage, such as part-time or contract employees, could be eligible to receive an employer contribution toward their health insurance. The employer’s set contribution would be applied to the premium cost, and the employee would pay the difference. A health exchange would streamline coverage for families with both spouses employed by allowing contributions from multiple employers to be pooled and applied to a single health insurance plan that is best for their household.
It could eliminate gaps in care because plan benefits are portable from job to job, provided that both employers participate in the exchange. This approach is also profitable for employers. A defined contribution system dramatically simplifies their role in health care coverage, reducing an employer’s responsibility to setting the contribution rate for their staff.
The approach would significantly lower administrative costs and labor, as employers would no longer face the cumbersome task of selecting benefit structures, insurance companies or provider networks, and negotiating a single plan that works for all of their employees. I believe the health exchange is a valuable model for Texas to follow. It keeps the government in its appropriate role of facilitating innovative private market solutions. And it places the decision-making power exactly where it should be—in consumers’ capable hands.