Watch out for Clinton on health care

Nation's Business,  Jan, 1998  

• E-mail
• Print
• Link

There he goes again.

President Clinton is pressing yet another heavy-handed scheme for federal intrusion into the nation's health-care system.

He wants Congress to adopt in 1998 what he terms "appropriate federal protections" for the purchase of health-care services. The specifics of the plan were developed by a 34-member advisory commission representing the health-care field, the business community, consumers, labor, and state and local governments. Clinton named the panel to develop the recommendations.

The commission's report, Consumer Bill of Rights and Responsibilities, covers issues such as choice of providers; access to specialists; appeals procedures on patient disputes with health plans and health-care providers; availability of information about health plans and providers; and responsibility of individuals for "maximizing health habits." (See Benefits Update, Page 29.)

The commission conceded that it had not considered cost implications and that in some circumstances its proposals could "create additional costs for employers; health insurers and plans; federal, state, and local governments; and consumers."

Not surprisingly, the plan already has run into stiff opposition. Reminding the public of Clinton's failed 1993-94 effort at health-care reform, House Majority Leader Richard Armey, R-Texas, said: "Clinton Care 2 will include all the essential regulatory features of Clinton Care 1."

Small business is getting ready to fight the new health-care initiative as vigorously as it did the 1993-94 effort. This new opposition was signaled when the one dissenting vote to the advisory commission's recommendations came from member S. Diane Graham, chairman and chief executive officer of STRATCO, Inc., of Leawood, Kan., a 50-employee engineering and technology company.

Informing Clinton of her disagreement, she noted the lack of a cost analysis in defining various consumer rights. Graham wrote to the president:

"I believe the core principles contained in the commission's report are realistic aspirations to be achieved over time within a voluntary marketplace. ... I most fervently oppose presenting these aspirations as 'rights' to be legislated into dictates" without regard to affordability or consumer preferences.

Federal actions that escalate health-insurance costs, Graham wrote, would force many small businesses to drop employee coverage entirely.

Such concerns are already reflected in the opposition of major Washington-based business organizations. Thomas J. Donohue, president and chief executive officer of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, responded to the Clinton initiative by noting that it "charts a dangerous course of government micromanagement that will increase costs and decrease employee coverage."

"The private sector already leads the way on quality improvement. We don't need the federal government's involvement," Donohue said.

Rather than press the commission's government-oriented plan, the president should heed the advice of dissenting member Graham: Work with interest groups to expand access to quality care through "visionary, voluntary, viable" approaches.

COPYRIGHT 1998 U.S. Chamber of Commerce
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning