How does Our Senate Bill compare to the (old proposed) "National Health Insurance Partnership Act"?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

I'm curious - does anyone have a breakdown of what the "National Health Insurance Partnership Act" was? About all I know is that it was proposed back during the Nixon Administration and the Dems said NO. I was a bit too young to follow the issue back then, but I would enjoy reading a side by side comparison/breakdown of both our current proposed legislation versus the long-defeated "National Health Insurance Partnership Act".

[Oregone]

1. Mandated insurance with government subsidies

Some aspect better, and some worse. There was a much better alternative single-payer, payroll tax bill that was viable (Kennedy-Mills compromise), but the unions didn't throw their support behind it because they wanted the whole cake (another Kennedy single payer with no copays, which costed about 50% more and required the rich to be taxed). There remains some myth that Kennedy should have compromised and signed off on the NHIPA, when there was a contingent of liberals that were just needed to sign off on his (but never does anyone retrospectivly suggest people should have compromised to Kennedy, but only Kennedy should have compromised to Nixon). Here is info on the two plans

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1499&dat=19760517&id=ph8qAAAAIBAJ&sjid=KSkEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6942,4322069

Here is Nixon's NHIPA:

HOW EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE WOULD WORK

Every employer would be required to offer all full-time employees the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan. Additional benefits could then be added by mutual agreement. The insurance plan would be jointly financed, with employers paying 65 percent of the premium for the first three years of the plan, and 75 percent thereafter. Employees would pay the balance of the premiums. Temporary Federal subsidies would be used to ease the initial burden on employers who face significant cost increases.

Individuals covered by the plan would pay the first $150 in annual medical expenses. A separate $50 deductible provision would apply for out-patient drugs. There would be a maximum of three medical deductibles per family.

After satisfying this deductible limit, an enrollee would then pay for 25 percent of additional bills. However, $1,500 per year would be the absolute dollar limit on any family's medical expenses for covered services in any one year.

As an interim measure, the Medicaid program would be continued to meet certain needs, primarily long-term institutional care. I do not consider our current approach to long-term care desirable because it can lead to overemphasis on institutional as opposed to home care. The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare has undertaken a thorough study of the appropriate institutional services which should be included in health insurance and other programs and will report his findings to me.

IMPROVING MEDICARE

The Medicare program now provides medical protection for over 23 million older Americans. Medicare, however, does not cover outpatient drugs, nor does it limit total out-of-pocket costs. It is still possible for an elderly person to be financially devastated by a lengthy illness even with Medicare coverage.
I therefore propose that Medicare's benefits be improved so that Medicare would provide the same benefits offered to other Americans under Employee Health Insurance and Assisted Health Insurance.

Any person 65 or over, eligible to receive Medicare payments, would ordinarily, under my modified Medicare plan, pay the first $100 for care received during a year, and the first $50 toward outpatient drugs. He or she would also pay 20 percent of any bills above the deductible limit. But in no case would any Medicare beneficiary have to pay more than $750 in out-of-pocket costs. The premiums and cost sharing for those with low incomes would be reduced, with public funds making up the difference.

The current program of Medicare for the disabled would be replaced. Those now in the Medicare for the disabled plan would be eligible for Assisted Health Insurance, which would provide better coverage for those with high medical costs and low incomes.

Premiums for most people under the new Medicare program would be roughly equal to that which is now payable under Part B of Medicare--the Supplementary Medical Insurance program.

HOW ASSISTED HEALTH INSURANCE WOULD WORK

The program of Assisted Health Insurance is designed to cover everyone not offered coverage under Employee Health Insurance or Medicare, including the unemployed, the disabled, the self-employed, and those with low incomes. In addition, persons with higher incomes could also obtain Assisted Health Insurance if they cannot otherwise get coverage at reasonable rates. Included in this latter group might be persons whose health status or type of work puts them in high-risk insurance categories.

Assisted Health Insurance would thus fill many of the gaps in our present health insurance system and would ensure that for the first time in our Nation's history, all Americans would have financial access to health protection regardless of income or circumstances.

A principal feature of Assisted Health Insurance is that it relates premiums and out-of-pocket expenses to the income of the person or family enrolled. Working families with incomes of up to $5,000, for instance, would pay no premiums at all. Deductibles, co-insurance, and maximum liability would all be pegged to income levels.

Assisted Health Insurance would replace State-run Medicaid for most services. Unlike Medicaid, where benefits vary in each State, this plan would establish uniform benefit and eligibility standards for all low-income persons. It would also eliminate artificial barriers to enrollment or access to health care.

COSTS OF COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH INSURANCE

When fully effective, the total new costs of CHIP to the Federal and State governments would be about $6.9 billion with an additional small amount for transitional assistance for small and low wage employers:

--The Federal Government would add about $5.9 billion over the cost of continuing existing programs to finance health care for low-income or high risk persons.

--State governments would add about $1.0 billion over existing Medicaid spending for the same purpose, though these added costs would be largely, if not wholly offset by reduced State and local budgets for direct provision of services.

--The Federal Government would provide assistance to small and low wage employers which would initially cost about $450 million but be phased out over five years.

For the average American family, what all of these figures reduce to is simply this:

--The national average family cost for health insurance premiums each year under Employee Health Insurance would be about $150; the employer would pay approximately $450 for each employee who participates in the plan.

--Additional family costs for medical care would vary according to need and use, but in no case would a family have to pay more than $1,500 in any one year for covered services.

--No additional taxes would be needed to pay for the cost of CHIP. The Federal funds needed to pay for this plan could all be drawn from revenues that would be generated by the present tax structure. I am opposed to any comprehensive health plan which requires new taxes.

MAKING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM WORK BETTER

Any program to finance health care for the Nation must take close account of two critical and related problems--cost and quality.

When Medicare and Medicaid went into effect, medical prices jumped almost twice as fast as living costs in general in the next five years. These programs increased demand without increasing supply proportionately and higher costs resulted.

This escalation of medical prices must not recur when the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan goes into effect. One way to prevent an escalation is to increase the supply of physicians, which is now taking place at a rapid rate. Since 1965, the number of first-year enrollments in medical schools has increased 55 percent. By 1980, the Nation should have over 440,000 physicians, or roughly one-third more than today. We are also taking steps to train persons in allied health occupations, who can extend the services of the physician.

With these and other efforts already underway, the Nation's health manpower supply will be able to meet the additional demands that will be placed on it.

Other measures have also been taken to contain medical prices. Under the New Economic Policy, hospital cost increases have been cut almost in half from their post-Medicare highs, and the rate of increase in physician fees has slowed substantially. It is extremely important that these successes be continued as we move toward our goal of comprehensive health insurance protection for all Americans. I will, therefore, recommend to the Congress that the Cost of Living Council's authority to control medical care costs be extended.

To contain medical costs effectively over the long-haul, however, basic reforms in the financing and delivery of care are also needed. We need a system with built-in incentives that operates more efficiently and reduces the losses from waste and duplication of effort. Everyone pays for this inefficiency through their health premiums and medical bills.

The measure I am recommending today therefore contains a number of proposals designed to contain costs, improve the efficiency of the system and assure quality health care. These proposals include:

1. HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATIONS (HMO'S)

On December 29, 1973, I signed into law legislation designed to stimulate, through Federal aid, the establishment of prepaid comprehensive care organizations. HMO's have proved an effective means for delivering health care and the CHIP plan requires that they be offered as an option for the individual and the family as soon as they become available. This would encourage more freedom of choice for both patients and providers, while fostering diversity in our medical care delivery system.

2. PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS REVIEW ORGANIZATIONS (PSRO'S)

I also contemplate in my proposal a provision that would place health services provided under CHIP under the review of Professional Standards Review Organizations. These PSRO's would be charged with maintaining high standards of care and reducing needless hospitalization. Operated 'by groups of private physicians, professional review organizations can do much to ensure quality care while helping to bring about significant savings in health costs.

3. MORE BALANCED GROWTH IN HEALTH FACILITIES

Another provision of this legislation would call on the States to review building plans for hospitals, nursing homes and other health facilities. Existing health insurance has overemphasized the placement of patients in hospitals and nursing homes. Under this artificial stimulus, institutions have felt impelled to keep adding bed space. This has produced a growth of almost 75 percent in the number of hospital beds in the last twenty years, so that now we have a surplus of beds in many places and a poor mix of facilities in others. Under the legislation I am submitting, States can begin remedying this costly imbalance.

4. STATE ROLE

Another important provision of this legislation calls on the States to review the operation of health insurance carriers within their jurisdiction. The States would approve specific plans, oversee rates, ensure adequate disclosure, require an annual audit and take other appropriate measures. For health care providers, the States would assure fair reimbursement for physician services, drugs and institutional services, including a prospective reimbursement system for hospitals.

A number of States have shown that an effective job can be done in containing costs. Under my proposal all States would have an incentive to do the same. Only with effective cost control measures can States ensure that the citizens receive the increased health care they need and at rates they can afford. Failure on the part of States to enact the necessary authorities would prevent them from receiving any Federal support of their State-administered health assistance plan.

MAINTAINING A PRIVATE ENTERPRISE APPROACH

My proposed plan differs sharply with several of the other health insurance plans which have been prominently discussed. The primary difference is that my proposal would rely extensively on private insurers.

Any insurance company which could offer those benefits would be a potential supplier. Because private employers would have to provide certain basic benefits to their employees, they would have an incentive to seek out the best insurance company proposals and insurance companies would have an incentive to offer their plans at the lowest possible prices. If, on the other hand, the Government were to act as the insurer, there would be no competition and little incentive to hold down costs.

There is a huge reservoir of talent and skill in administering and designing health plans within the private sector. That pool of talent should be put to work.

It is also important to understand that the CHIP plan preserves basic freedoms for both the patient and doctor. The patient would continue to have a freedom of choice between doctors. The doctors would continue to work for their patients, not the Federal Government. By contrast, some of the national health plans that have been proposed in the Congress would place the entire health system under the heavy hand of the Federal Government, would add considerably to our tax burdens, and would threaten to destroy the entire system of medical care that has been so carefully built in America.

I firmly believe we should capitalize on the skills and facilities already in place, not replace them and start from scratch with a huge Federal bureaucracy to add to the ones we already have.

COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN--A PARTNERSHIP EFFORT

No program will work unless people want it to work. Everyone must have a stake in the process.

This Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan has been designed so that everyone involved would have both a stake in making it work and a role to play in the process consumer, provider, health insurance carrier, the States and the Federal Government. It is a partnership program in every sense.

By sharing costs, consumers would have a direct economic stake in choosing and using their community's health resources wisely and prudently. They would be assisted by requirements that physicians and other providers of care make available to patients full information on fees, hours of operation and other matters affecting the qualifications of providers. But they would not have to go it alone either: doctors, hospitals and other providers of care would also have a direct stake in making the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan work. This program has been designed to relieve them of much of the red tape, confusion and delays in reimbursement that plague them under the bewildering assortment of public and private financing systems that now exist. Health-cards would relieve them of troublesome bookkeeping. Hospitals could be hospitals, not bill collecting agencies.

CONCLUSION

Comprehensive health insurance is an idea whose time has come in America.

There has long been a need to assure every American financial access to high quality health care. As medical costs go up, that need grows more pressing.

Now, for the first time, we have not just the need but the will to get this job done. There is widespread support in the Congress and in the Nation for some form of comprehensive health insurance.

Surely if we have the will, 1974 should also be the year that we find the way.

The plan that I am proposing today is, I believe, the very best way. Improvements can be made in it, of course, and the Administration stands ready to work with the Congress, the medical profession, and others in making those changes.

But let us not be led to an extreme program that would place the entire health care system under the dominion of social planners in Washington.

Let us continue to have doctors who work for their patients, not for the Federal Government. Let us build upon the strengths of the medical system we have now, not destroy it.

Indeed, let us act sensibly. And let us act now--in 1974--to assure all Americans financial access to high quality medical care.

RICHARD NIXON
The White House,
February 6, 1974.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/September/03/nixon-proposal.aspx

Kennedy responded by calling NHIPA "a partnership between the administration and the private health insurance industry. For the private industry, the administration plan offers a windfall of billions of dollars annually. The windfall is not entirely a surplus, since elements of Administration's proposal appear to have originated in the insurance industry itself"

[Echo In Light]

2. Thanks for including this