One of the major stumbling blocks for a public option for healthcare reform is the issue of losing private control of healthcare. Conservative voters apparently will not support that option. There is a way that would remove any legitimate concern except for the inevitable decrease in the absolute magnitude of their private profits. Please read and consider.

::::::::

It is well known that a clear majority of the American public wants a public option for health insurance. It is also well known that there are more than enough ‘no votes” in Congress to block such an option, though those opposed to that option fail to make a rational argument on why they feel as they do. The issues that are the most prominent are the “socialization of medicine” and the loss of private control, choice, and options. There is a way to eliminate all of their concerns but perhaps one, without diluting the benefits of having a public option and therefore real reform.

A number of healthcare reformers have championed the concept of improving Medicare and then moving it into the private sector to be run as a private not-for-profit enterprise. This “Public Medicare” would collect premiums (though income adjusted) as do other corporations, but could also assimilate other government based programs, such as Medicaid and TennCare, and collect the monies currently used for programs as well. These government based programs, as well as others, could be more effectively managed by a single entity, from both a financial and healthcare outcomes perspective. We have searched for a way to set this up as an effective public option and to also rid ourselves of persistent complaints of the non-reformists.

The solution for this now seems very simple. The public option needs to be run as a non-profit, but it really does not matter who runs it. If some people are afraid of a “government takeover of healthcare” then we could remove that concern by allowing the existing private insurance companies to administer this Public Medicare option, though with a standard set of benefits for patients and compensation for providers. We could further establish overlapping geographic regions of control that could pit these privately run non-profit plans against each other so that they could compete for patients and for provider participation. With a level playing field, an established minimum level of healthcare coverage, and with fair treatment of providers, we could have healthcare for all and still have a privately run system. In fact, with the assimilation of the other government type plans, we could get the government completely out of healthcare delivery, except for their help in insuring that the total system is run fairly, honestly, and competitively.

Now, what about that last issue mentioned above. All objections to a public option for healthcare reform could be sidestepped with the above plan except for the loss of the current profit margins of the existing private for-profit insurers. This, also, could be addressed in two ways as follows. First and foremost, allow these regional non-profit public Medicare plans to compete against each other in healthcare outcomes. As their book of patients become healthier and as their providers become more efficient, most of the money that they save could be viewed as “profit” that could be used to reward patients and providers, and for corporate income that could be divided as the corporation sees fit. Utilizing a single information system, the relative population risk profile could be determined so as to allow a fair comparison of outcomes between the various privately administered plans. Now, for the first time we would really have competition in healthcare. Secondly, with an established minimal standard of coverage, these plans could be allowed to sell insurance options with more “bells and whistles” for those who want to pay more. However, these optional plans should not be allowed to pay the providers more, or we would wind up with a two tiered system.

This is a work in progress, so please comment and give input. I will send out “letters to the Editor” of Tennessee newspapers and send this concept to my representatives to try to get some feedback. Time is short and we need to dissuade Congress from passing a bill that is no real reform at all, simply for the sake of getting something passed.

Mark E. Green MD

www.OurHealthReform.com

MarkGreen@OurHealthReform.com

Authors Bio:
I am an average person who happens to be very concerned about the state of health care delivery in the United States. So many politicians and other persons of interest spread so much misinformation about reform, the only way to make it happen is to mobilize average Americans. This is my first attempt to expose my ideas to criticism. This is not a professional web site and it is crude. It should, however, allow me to get some feedback on the potential to generate some controversy.I am 55 years old, married to my wife Debbie for 30 years, and have four children. I am a medical doctor, and have my master's degree in Microbiology/Immunology. I practice general internal medicine in Maryville, Tennessee, at Blount Memorial Hospital where I am currently Chief Of Staff.My hobbies include hiking in the Great Smokey Mountains, learning the guitar, and writing poems. I have a collection of various firearms, though I do not hunt. I ride my motorcycle (Dynaglide) daily and work out in the gym at least twice a week.Mark Green MD