|
Op-Ed: Instead of tightening government's
grip on health care, give Americans a personal option
[The Center Square]
Tom Price | RealClearWire
As America begins to put
the COVID-19 pandemic in the rearview, the lesson from this
once-in-a-generation crisis couldn’t be clearer: We need less, not more,
central planning in our lives. |
|
 For example, a study earlier this year by health economist
Casey Mulligan revealed that economic lockdowns mandated by government were
counterproductive, given the significant steps workplaces took to prevent the
virus from spreading.
The same is true with health care. By now, most folks know the story of how
Operation Warp Speed – the previous administration’s unprecedented plan to trim
bureaucracy from the vaccine development process – resulted in the creation of
multiple safe and effective vaccines in record time. But an equally important
storyline is how states took a sledgehammer to their own bureaucracies to expand
access to care for those in need.
Thirty-eight states increased the availably of telehealth in
response to the pandemic. Another 24 states waived certificate-of-need laws,
which require hospitals to receive a permission slip from the government before
they can open or add new facilities.
COVID-19 is forcing a long-overdue transformation of how health care is
delivered in our country. As University of Michigan professor Rashid Bashur
recently put it, “the genie’s out of the bottle.”
And yet, President Joe Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and others in Congress
are remarkably missing this point. Even though their big government approach to
health care hasn’t increased access to affordable care, they claim the solution
is to double down on this failed path. The far left is pushing Biden to adopt
even more radical ideas, like putting government in complete control of health
care.
Instead of an even more centralized system, let’s give voters what they deserve
– a personal option that keeps what they like about their health care, fixes
what they don’t like, and puts people, not bureaucrats, in control of their
care.
More affordability
One important improvement would be to expand tax-free health savings accounts.
HSAs save people at least 15% each time they make a health care purchase. Yet,
given the current constraints, only one in 10 Americans are eligible for an HSA
at any given time. By expanding eligibility, more Americans would be able to
save for health care costs. For those with less income, Congress could directly
fund their accounts.
Increased access
[to top of second column] |
There is strong bipartisan support for expanding
the use of telehealth, which has the ability to level the playing
field in terms of location and access. While it has seen an uptick
during the COVID-19 pandemic, this technology is still not available
to all, especially in underserved rural and urban communities. There
is bipartisan support for giving more Americans access to virtual
care. Lawmakers should waste no time getting it done.
Greater control
While short-term coverage is, by definition, not a long-term
solution, it is a viable option for people and families, especially
when the policy holder is between jobs. In some states, short-term
plans cost up to 80% less than traditional health insurance plans.
While opponents feared short-term plans would drive up prices on the
ACA exchanges, the only states where premiums have gone up are in
the five that prohibit short-term plans.
More choices
For far too long, the Food and Drug Administration has taken its
time in approving drugs and medical devices that were approved in
other advanced countries, such as Japan and in the EU. In addition,
the FDA won’t allow the sharing of valid scientific information
about promising experimental or “off-label” uses of already approved
drugs and devices. Changing these processes could save many lives
and result in cost savings.
All of this builds on reforms proposed last year in Healthcare For
You, and these ideas resonate strongly with Americans. A recent poll
by Public Option Strategies shows that voters prefer a personal
option to the “public option” or “Medicare for All” by nearly 40
points. Among independents, the poll found that a personal option
outperformed “Medicare for All” by 60 points and the “public option”
by more than 35 points
The point is, there are smarter, more effective, and more popular
ways to reduce costs and give people more options than simply
expanding government’s grip over the system.
For years, opponents of government-run health care have made this
argument but haven’t sold the public on a compelling enough
alternative. That alternative has arrived.
It’s time to deliver a health care system that
works for everyone. It’s time for a personal option.
Tom Price is a physician who served as Health and
Human Services secretary in 2017 and is a former U.S. congressman
from Georgia.
|
