![]() |
![]() |
|||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
October 23, 2003
Nonpartisan Studies Dispute Basic Assumptions of Bush's Plan to Reduce Number of UninsuredAs part of the recent discussion about the 43.6 million Americans without health insurance,1 President Bush once again argued that reform of medical malpractice was key: "We must fix the problem of frivolous lawsuits against our doctors and hospitals."2 But the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found last year that "malpractice costs account for a very small fraction of total health care spending" and that even radical reform "would have a relatively small effect on total health plan premiums."3 This is one of several inconsistencies or contradictions that nonpartisan studies have discovered in the President's plans to gain health coverage for more Americans. The CBO also called into question the President's idea to cobble together small businesses to buy group insurance, which, he said, would "make a big difference"4 in reducing the number of uninsured. According to the CBO, these Association Health Plans (AHPs), as they are called, would give insurance to only about 600,000 additional people,5 an overall net of 1.5%. Another study released last week reported that "a third of the nation's workers without health insurance are employed by large companies"6 and are outside the scope of AHPs. One insurer disputed long-term cost savings, saying, "We see very little pricing advantage and feel most small businesses are better off having direct contact with the insurance company."7 Sources:
Misleader Archive |