The Journal recently endorsed Gov. Bill Richardson’s Health Solutions Plan (HB 62), noting that the time had come to act on health reform. The editorial also noted that business lobbyists and health insurance plans support HB 62, underscoring the assumption that these changes are best when supported by the business world.
The editors might be interested in what has happened to the health-reform plan in Massachusetts, which Richardson in the past had expressed a hope to emulate here. That plan was also endorsed by local businesses, local insurance companies and then-Gov. Mitt Romney, who describes himself as an astute businessman.
Massachusetts had the very laudable goal (as we do) of covering hundreds of thousands who had no coverage before this plan. If money was no object, this discussion would end here. We know that when large numbers of people have access to health care who were previously denied this access, there will be increased costs. The question is how well these costs are forecast and what plans are made to generate the money to cover those costs. California recently pulled back from its Massachusetts-like plan because officials could not understand how to fund it.
A compromise approach, the Health Coverage Act (HB147/SB225) this week won the approval of the House on a bipartisan 56-6 vote. It proposes changes that would work on many of the same issues Richardson proposes, but would define alternative ways to achieve those goals — and define the costs — using expert panels.
This approach will ensure that we are not caught redfaced if our costs outstrip projections (as they have in Massachusetts by $245 million) or if more people in our state are found to be uninsured than our current projections (as has happened in Massachusetts).
Massachusetts is only counting on $5 million in revenues from their employer mandate instead of the $24 million originally budgeted. If Massachusetts, with its higher population levels, has been unable to generate a premium low enough for everyone, what other alternatives should New Mexico explore to get there? These questions are hard ones, but at least HB147/SB225 will be asking them and looking for experts to provide a set of alternatives.
I commend the governor for taking a position on delivering universal health care, and for wanting to meet the health-care needs of our uninsured. But the need to do something immediately should be balanced with as strong a desire to make the right decisions before we implement changes that may have to be reversed or compromised beyond recognition.
Remember: When, during recent Republican debates, Romney was asked about the deficits in the program he implemented two years before he left the governor’s office, he blamed the Massachusetts Legislature!
New Mexico legislators should remember that they will be bearing the burden of the decisions made here well into the future. Whatever we initiate now will have a profound impact on the future of healthcare costs and on the structure of our health system.
Dr. Kuehn is a policy adviser to the Health Care For All campaign.
opinion 
...go to bookmarks
E-mail Story
Print Friendly
