• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Wyden-Brown Won’t Give States the Flexibility They Need to Reform Health Care

    States have a lot to lose under Obamacare. Beyond representing a huge overreach of Congress’s constitutional authority, the new law includes several provisions that restrict states’ ability to reform their health care systems in ways that best serve residents’ specific needs.

    Obamacare requires all states to extend eligibility for Medicaid to an additional 18 million citizens. This will have serious implications for state budgets, which are already stretched thin by the cost of the program.

    The law also requires that states set up health insurance exchanges, for which the rules and regulations will be defined by the federal government. Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels writes that Washington “assumes that [states] will set up and operate its new insurance ‘exchanges’ for it, using our current welfare apparatuses to do the numbingly complex work of figuring out who is eligible for its subsidies, how much each person or family is eligible for, redetermining this eligibility regularly, and more. Then, we are supposed to oversee all the insurance plans in the exchanges for compliance with Washington’s dictates about terms and prices.”

    Areas in need of change differ greatly from state to state, so efforts to reform health care should be driven by the states to target these varying needs. Recognizing this, Senators Ron Wyden (D–OR) and Scott Brown (R–MA) have co-sponsored legislation intended to help states take a different direction in reform under Obamacare. But their proposal falls short of the mark.

    Obamacare allows states to pursue alternate paths to the new law by applying for a waiver from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and maintaining the same quality and level of coverage as would otherwise exist. The Wyden–Brown measure would simply advance the date on which states can apply to waivers from 2017 to 2014 so that states would not have to implement the major provisions of Obamacare and then wait three years to take an alternate route. This may seem logical, but as Heritage expert Stuart Butler explains in The New England Journal of Medicine, the proposal is not sufficient to remove the obstacles to state flexibility.

    First, Butler explains that Wyden–Brown “locks the states into guaranteeing a generous and costly level of benefits. True, a state could propose alternative benefit requirements if they had the same actuarial value as those in [Obamacare]. But the requirements go well beyond basic coverage, and the HHS secretary is the one who defines ‘at least as comprehensive’ benefits.”

    Furthermore, states would not be able to include other health programs, like Medicaid and SCHIP, in waiver requests, making it more difficult to propose innovative alternatives that would create savings and give patients more control in existing health programs. Finally, since the Secretary of HHS will ultimately decide which states receive waivers, they would be susceptible to the preferences of the Administration.

    Wyden–Brown sheds light on a major flaw of Obamacare, but it does not go far enough to provide states with the changes they really need. Even before passage of Obamacare, more flexibility was needed for states to implement the kinds of reform that would best serve their residents. The first step to putting states in the driver’s seat is to repeal Obamacare, after which Butler proposes creating a bipartisan waiver commission to receive reform plans and to approve “a balanced slated of state proposals,” thus allowing states to innovate without Washington getting in the way.

    Posted in Obamacare [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to Wyden-Brown Won’t Give States the Flexibility They Need to Reform Health Care

    1. wendyreyees says:

      You know what You guys should stop complaining because, one the health care we have now isnt as good as it was supposed to be. also the law has just been signed so give it some time. so if u want to say u have the right to choose tell that to ur congress men or state official. If you do not have insurance and need one You can find full medical coverage at the lowest price by searching online for "Wise Health Insurance" If you have health insurance and do not care about cost just be happy it and trust me you are not going to loose anything!

    2. Bobbie says:

      Thank you so much for another clear understanding of this colossal set up. This bill is unconstitutional and dangerous to the economy. People have to accept Americans are self-reliant and this bill has already increased our medical insurance costs/copays, we will soon be unable to afford. The government insurance is not wanted or allowed. We do not want government insurance exchanges.

    3. Pingback: » Financial News Update – 02/15/11 NoisyRoom.net: The Progressive Hunter

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.