Healthcare bills flawed, will drive state deeper into debt

The state House of Representatives voted recently to open up the state’s health coverage plan to thousands of municipal workers and non-profits. Citing the bill’s projected $70 million price tag, and expressing a hesitancy to get the state further into the health insurance business, especially where the legislation will set up a program of self-insurance and pooling on behalf of the state, Rep. Tim LeGeyt (R-Canton) voted against the measure.

Rep. LeGeyt stated, “The issues that this legislation sets up call into question not only the efficiency of the state to administer this program, but the potential liability of providing and maintaining a system of self-insurance and the necessary financial pool to pay claims. This legislation is problematic and does not have my support.”

Proponents of the bill make a number of assumptions, many of which are flawed. For example, the bill assumes that the state would be able to realize a cost savings over insurance companies by paying out claims directly, streamlining the cost of administrating those claims, establishing provider networks, negotiating provider payments and providing utilization review and disease management services.  The state currently doesn’t have the infrastructure in place to provide any of these services.

The proponents also assume that it will be cheaper for a government agency to handle the administration of the claims.  This situation highlights a philosophical difference regarding who does better, less expensive work; government or the private sector?