The Orlando Sentinel (10/2, Shelton) reported, "In a 63-page comparison, the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund found that both" Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Barack Obama's (D-Ill.) healthcare "proposals lack specifics and each would cost more than $1 trillion during a 10-year period."
HealthDay (10/2) noted, however, that although "both presidential candidates want to make health insurance available to more Americans," The Commonwealth Fund's analysis favored Sen. Obama's plan, saying that it "shows greater potential for making care more affordable, accessible, efficient, and higher quality, though it will likely fall short of covering everyone." The report indicated that Sen. McCain's plan, on the other hand, "is likely to increase insurance administration costs" and that it "would not likely lead to universal coverage" either.
Modern Healthcare (10/3, Blesch) adds that one of the Commonwealth Fund's top "criteria for judging the proposals" was whether they "advocate universal coverage as a goal." The report contended that Sen. Obama's plan would "provide more people with affordable health insurance that covers essential services, achieve greater equity in access to care, realize efficiencies and cost savings in the provision of coverage and delivery of care, and redirect incentives to improve quality." Meanwhile, because Sen. McCain's plan "focuses on making it easier for people to buy insurance on the individual market if they don't get it at work, providing tax credits, and allowing policies to be purchased across state lines," The Commonwealth Fund was "critical of [his] strategy." The report indicated that Sen. McCain's plan may result in less employer-sponsored coverage, "and that insurance deregulation might encourage insurance companies to compete on price but also neutralize consumer protections."
"Robert Moffit, Ph.D., who directs the Center for Health Policy Studies for the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation, called the projections 'nonsense,'" WebMD (10/2, Boyles) noted. Moffit, "criticizing the report's projections of uninsured people," said that "he's not surprised by the report's conclusion, since the Obama plan is very similar to one proposed by The Commonwealth Fund earlier this year." He also faulted "the report for concluding that McCain's proposed tax changes will only have limited effects on boosting the number of insured Americans." Moffit argued that because the country has "never had a tax policy like" Sen. McCain's in the past, "there is no historical experience to draw from." And, he found it "hard to believe that" Sen. McCain's "generous tax relief, including refundable tax credits...will only result in two million more insured."
With regard to the candidates' focus on health IT, the report indicated that "greater adoption of health information technology could save the country" an estimated "$88 billion in a 10-year period," according to Government Health IT (10/2, Robinson). The report, however, "assumes a one percent assessment imposed on insurance premiums and Medicare outlays -- money the federal government would then provide to state and local agencies to accelerate the adoption of health IT." And, although the report "states that about $368 billion in savings could [be] realized by establishing a center for medical effectiveness," Government Health IT noted that neither candidates' "proposals have offered many details about their health IT plans."
Request a copy of "What really ails the U.S. health care system" (FACT or FICTION). email request with title of book, and your name, address, and phone number to:
info@amsinsure.com .
