Donate
Email Password
Not a member? Sign Up   Forgot password?
Business and Economics Education Environment Health Care California
Home
About PRI
My PRI
Contact
Search
Policy Research Areas
Events
Publications
Press Room
PRI Blog
Jobs Internships
Scholars
Staff
Book Store
Policy Cast
Upcoming Events
WSJ's Stephen Moore Book Signing Luncheon-Rescheduled for December 17
12.17.2012 12:00:00 PM
Who's the Fairest of Them All?: The Truth About Opportunity, ... 
More

Recent Events
Victor Davis Hanson Orange County Luncheon December 5, 2012
12.5.2012 12:00:00 PM

Post Election: A Roadmap for America's Future

 More

Post Election Analysis with George F. Will & Special Award Presentation to Sal Khan of the Khan Academy
11.9.2012 6:00:00 PM

Pacific Research Institute Annual Gala Dinner

 More

Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts
10.19.2012 5:00:00 PM
Author Book Signing and Reception with U.S. Supreme Court Justice ... More

Opinion Journal Federation
Town Hall silver partner
Lawsuit abuse victims project
Publications Archive
E-mail Print Schwarzenegger's Health Care Plan: A Bridge too Far, or a Bridge to Nowhere?
Ripon Forum Op-Ed
By: Diana M. Ernst
10.26.2007

The Ripon Forum, Volume 41, No. 5, October/November 2007


When Arnold Schwarzenegger introduced a plan this past January to reform California’s health care system, many people said there was little chance the plan would ever be approved. The issues were too formidable, they claimed; the political hurdles, too high to overcome. 

Nine months later, the California Legislature is meeting in a special session to consider a revised version of the Governor’s plan. In looking at this revised proposal, the question that people should be asking is not whether it is a bridge too far politically, but rather, from the standpoint of good policy, whether it is a bridge to nowhere – an ill-conceived boondoggle that will cost too much and benefit too few. 

The Governor has said he would “never close the door on anything,” and his revised plan is proof. Perhaps the biggest highlights are that it will cost $5 billion more than the plan introduced in January, and would rely on the lottery to fund health care. The Governor has said that funding to replace the lottery (truly reliable funding) would have to be set later. 

Under the new plan, California’s workers, providers and individuals would still collectively strain to insure the state’s uninsured. All Californians would have to buy health insurance, insurers would be subject to guaranteed issue, and hospitals would still be under the gun for 4% of revenues, but only after a few stipulations from the California Hospital Association. 

Perhaps the most significant of these stipulations is that hospital taxes would be kept separate from California’s general fund, and they would first go to increase Medi-Cal (Medicaid) payments to hospitals, and then to California’s uninsured. 

Of course, these increases will be soaked up quickly. The Medicaid bureaucracy owes providers some $750 million in reimbursements. As a result, fewer doctors are participating. Two long-term care facilities have already filed suits against the state of California for not providing requisite Medi-Cal payments. In fact, Medi-Cal is second only to Texas for the highest Medicaid bill in the U.S., at $35 billion. Nevertheless, Governor Schwarzenegger wants to expand Medi-Cal and related programs for 900,000 more Californians. 

Amidst protests from the California Medical Association, the governor’s new plan would no longer tax doctors 2%, but it would still tax employers -- this time, based on payroll rather than the number of employees. If the business’ payroll is more than $100,000 and you don’t already offer health benefits, then you will pay a health care fee on a sliding scale from 0-4 %. 

Perhaps the single best aspect of the Governor’s revised plan is to align state tax laws with federal laws by allowing Californians to make pre-tax contributions to Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), a kind of 401(k) for health. HSAs paired with high-deductible health plans will encourage Californians to save for health care rather than depending on employers or the government. More than a third of today’s HSA owners were previously uninsured. 

Schwarzenegger is working towards a finance proposal for the November 2008 ballot. If he really does intend to “keep the door open” through this process, then he should follow the lead of State Senate Republicans to fix, rather than force, insurance. 

The state should reform “scope of practice” laws affecting nurse practitioners, who are qualified to provide basic, affordable health care. This would allow Californians to take advantage of retail-based “convenient clinics,” a competitive answer to emergency rooms for basic services. Also, costly government-mandated health benefits force Californians out of individual insurance. Insurers need to compete with each other to meet the needs of individual patients. 

These incremental, common sense steps may not provide for dramatic headlines. But they will provide people with a bridge that leads to a better health care system – a system that is defined not by government taxes or mandates, but by choice, quality and cost-effective care.


-###- 

Diana Ernst is a Health Care Policy Fellow at the Pacific Research Institute.

Submit to: 
Submit to: Digg Submit to: Del.icio.us Submit to: Facebook Submit to: StumbleUpon Submit to: Newsvine Submit to: Reddit
Within Publications
Browse by
Recent Publications
Publications Archive
Powered by eResources