Defining Essential Health Benefits
Under the new health care law, private insurance companies must offer a package of “essential health benefits” to consumers by 2014. Facing strong Republican opposition to the new law, the Obama administration said last month it would give states the power to decide which essential benefits are covered. Consumer advocates worry that states will select plans that don’t cover enough basic services while business groups fear the states will pick the most expensive plans. Diane and guests will explore what the latest decision means for consumer choice and health care quality.
Guests
Wilson H. Taylor Scholar in Health Care and Retirement Policy at the American Enterprise Institute
Urban Institute fellow; professor and former dean, Georgetown Public Policy Institute
senior correspondent, Kaiser Health News
Health Policy Director and Senior Federal Affairs Counsel,
National Conference of State Legislatures

Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
It would be refreshing to hear from health care experts who do not represent corporate/big insurance/big pharma interests and instead advocate for the real stakeholder - the patient. Seriously? The AEI point of view? A more progressive view that represents the needs of the average citizen should be heard.
It would be refreshing to hear from health care experts who do not represent corporate/big insurance/big pharma interests and instead advocate for the real stakeholder - the patient. Seriously? The AEI point of view? A more progressive view that represents the needs of the average citizen should be heard.
1.Dentistry; and not just extractions, and not only for children. In my activities I see thousands of toothless and gap-smiled adults, many with rotting teeth and in continuous pain. When the business minded knave suggests "Getta job" is he also going to hire these disfigured ones? Illnesses of the mouth, teeth and gums neglected lead to ever more costly, and deadly conditions. Decay and disease are not always due to lax hygiene. (Tobacco is often to blame.) Dentists probably save as many lives as the rest of medicine combined. The availability of affordable dentistry is not adequate when the above is considered.
2.I am puzzled by the Obamas who focus on 20% of children who are overweight in a nation where %50 of the population lives in poverty, and at least one fifth are SNAP eligible. It does no good to lecture about diet to people without grocery money. Thanks, Michelle. Evita Peron could not have done a better job.
3.Parsimony is our new medical codeword for denial of care by insurance companies. They reward medical callousness and the withholding of information and care options by providers. I have experienced this procedure several times in the last month involving my own care and that of others.
4.Death panels are operating like soylent green, way beyond Gov. Palin's comprehension.
During early negotiations with the Insurance Industry Karen Ignagni http://www.politico.com/arena/bio/karen_ignagni.html demanded that the Obama administration take the public option off of the table and that the mandate be put in. For this I believe the mighty insurance industry did not put up as big of fight as they did during the Clinton administration.
Can you tell us how the insurance industry directly undermined health care reform after they said they would play ball?
Also can you address McCarron Ferguson Act of 1945 which I believe exempts insurance companies for anti trust laws. Is this true?
Health insurance companies exempt from anti-trust laws
Can not have reform until this changes
http://www.examiner.net/news/x1914248650/Health-insurance-companies-exem...
Many Republicans are so called Christians. Based on alleged Christian values how do you explain their efforts to block health care for all?
I am so so tired of these fake Christians who hide their very selfish, greedy ways behind their alleged religious values. So disgusting so hypocritical
Pancake I live in southeastern Ohio (foothills of Appalachia) I remember when an acquaintance of mine whose husband is a surgeon was at the Athens County fair laughing and poking fun at many of the local people's teeth. I turned to her and said clearly most of these people can not afford what you can provide for your daughter due to poor pay, no health care etc. The lack of empathy in this nation by the more economically privileged is depressing
This bulletin by HHS punts on the hard decision. Consumer advocates have historically opposed sale of insurance across state lines, because of the lack of a minimum threshold. PPACA contemplates the sale of insurance across state lines; but this raises the real possibility of a "race to the bottom" - purchase of insurance in states with low benefits.
It is also a little naive to assume that a state has developed mandates based on what is best for the people in that state - those with a financial interest in the health system have often influenced those decisions. And we potentially will have to fight those battles all over again with this decision.
My oldest daughter is a teacher in Colorado. She and her husband (also a teacher) are pregnant. They will be paying 4500.oo out of pocket for the pregnancy and birth. Then will be paying 500.oo a month for insurance for the child once it is born. Two of their friends who are both college educated have decided to live an alternative life. She has chosen not to work out of the home and stays at home with one child and is pregnant with their second child. He works as an arborist. She is receiving free pregnancy care and has free health care for the three year old and will get free health care for the new child once it is born. They are not charged even a co pay on their free health care coverage.
Why is that Colorado charges a young educated couple who is accepting full responsibility for their choices by paying exorbitant amounts for pregnancy and health care and allowing another educated young couple to go economically free for their choices?
This is absurd and clearly not fair
Will these state by state decisions encourage real competition between insurance companies? Are insurance companies exempt from anti trust laws? Is this a way to bust up their power?
Can you talk about the McCarron Ferguson Act of 1945
In no other civilized nation would anyone face the double tragedy of debilitating illness and deep debt. Indeed, people in other well-off countries view America's lack of universal health care as cruel and barbaric, as indeed it is.
Conservatives like to think in terms of faith based solutions. Now charity is a good thing. People will always face tragic circumstances where compassion…. individuals and by entire communities….can relieve suffering. Voluntary giving, by the very rich and by ordinary people, can benefit society, especially when it is used to support the extra things that government cannot fully support, such as museums, symphonies, theater, and Little League. But conservatives romanticize charity when they view it as a substitute for government support, and argue that voluntary donations and good will gestures can adequately raise funds for K-12 education, feed the hungry, house the homeless, or pay for medicine, hospitals, and doctors' bills….
The real "community"-wide solution to our health care crisis is universal insurance, which can only be achieved with government setting the rules and providing subsidies.
Exorbitant medical bills are the biggest cause of personal bankruptcies and home foreclosure. In recent years, health care profits, for drug and insurance companies, in particular, have soared, while more and more Americans found themselves without any health insurance at all or with inadequate insurance that didn't cover their medical bills. As part of their standard business model, insurance companies calculated which Americans were expensive to cover and refused to provide coverage to those people who had what they euphemistically called "pre-existing conditions."
Last year the nation took a step forward in addressing these problems with a health reform law that requires every American to have insurance, provides subsidies for those who can't afford it, and restricts insurance companies from discriminating against sick people. While America was debating health care reform, the insurance companies, big business, and the Republican Party spent tens of millions of dollars, in TV ads, campaign contributions, and lobbying, to oppose and weaken the bill.
Now every Republican candidate for president has pledged to dismantle what they call "Obamacare" before it even has been fully implemented.
Vermont and Pennsylvania are moving towards single payer systems. What other states are moving this way? How will insurance companies deal with this?
Will this state by state choice create far more real competition between insurance companies? Are insurance companies still exempt from anti trust laws? Is this away to break up their grip?
Before the Government co-opted the moral obligation to donate by stealing from our wallets to give to social programs we may or may not agree with, people did take care of each other through social, community and religious groups. We still donate but the amount is cut by the amount of taxes that are levied against us due to social wellfare. Our communities would be stronger if people were allowed to help each other instead of putting more people in the poor house due to over taxation. The problem is ultimately that the more you tax the more people need help so tax more to pay for them as well... Let the morals and ethics of the individual dictate the giving, not the inefficent government.
Ohh and happy new year everyone, even you Teece, I think we can agree on that.
When will the Diane Rehm show have Wendell Potter on?
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/profile.html
Will pregnancy be considered a pre condition or illness by so many of the alleged religious Republicans?
As a resident of Virginia, the idea of potentially putting my health care into the hands of the current denizens of Richmond is troublesome at best.
The so-called moral obligation to help those who need it has historically fallen well short, hence the government programs that potentially help us all if/when we need it. (And I support but have have never needed any of them, so contain the snark....) The current Republican presidential candidates sound frighteningly reminiscent of Scrooge's thoughts about orphanages and workhouses....
National single payer remains the only equitable and cost-effective approach, but we clearly are not going to get there soon. In the meantime, we should require all to get coverage, require all to be eligible, and open the federal employees program to the whole country. The choices are still among private insurance plans, but there are enough of them to provide real options.
Can you explain how there will be health care savings in manditory health insurance program?
Currently, you pay for those who don't have insurance in the price you pay when you access health care. The hospitals and providers pass the cost to you.
Mandated Insurance just shift the cost from the health providers to the price you pay in insurance. Those who can't afford health care will not pay sufficiant premiums to cover the health care they will consume.
Thus mandated insurance will only increase health care cost since insurance companies add profit and administrative cost which will probably offset any new contributions of universal coverage.
Listening to the responses to the final caller, why does everyone feel they will end up paying for Marks heath expenses if he doesn't buy insurance? Can he not pay out of pocket for the services he recieves? Can the provider not go after him for nonpayment if he doesn't pay for the services they provide like all other companies?
Why do so many people feel this government run program will reduce my costs when few, if any, other government operation has ever come in under budget, or even on budget? Also, if the individual mandate is upheld, where will the federal governments dictates end? You can be certain there will be more if it's determined to be constitutional.
I have been a nurse for over 35 years. I am in favor of universal coverage of health insurance. I realize this is a complicated endeavor but there is one thing that is not being discussed. As a consumer it is almost impossible to find out the cost of any test or even office visit. Decades ago when working in a clinic or Dr.'s office we had the patient sign in when they arrived, at the end of the visit they were given an itemized statement with the cost listed, amount insurance would pay and their balance. If they did not have insurance a payment plan was set up. Today patients arrive they are handed a blank invoice to sign at the bottom with no list of cost or amounts that will be sent to insurance and you have no idea what amount will be due until you receive a statement. Patients need to be able to shop and compare by cost and not sign a blank check. Thank you, Rebecca
No, Diane, it - "you'll pay for my health care" - is not a fact at all, it's only preaching on your part, and nothing more.
I have always paid all of my health care out of my own pocket, and I always will, and you never have and never will, so please get your facts straight before you begin preaching political commentary on airwaves I AM funding.
Nothing argues more for de-funding NPR nationally than this purely political preaching with which you just hastily ended this segment, Diane.
To those who think they can always pay for their healthcare out of pocket, without the assistance of insurance, I applaud you for paying your bills. However, catastrophic illness or injury can happen to anyone. Unless you are quite wealthy, large medical bills can be devastating. While you may want to pay, have you budgeted for $100,000, $200,000 or a $1,000,000 in health care costs?
Also, on the program today, someone wrote in saying they were facing $51,000 in health insurance premiums for an individually purchased family insurance. I suggest that anyone facing premiums of that magnitude check with their state's high risk pool. While not all states have a pool, most do. Generally, the premium cost is at capped at 120% of regular premiums.
No, I am not involved with the insurance industry. I do have personal experience related to both of these issues.
And happy new year to you as well mnemecek. We do agree on that much.
Rather than re-type my comment, you might want to read my post. The reality is health problems can outstrip your assets in the blink of an eye. Unless you want to rely on the charity of strangers, buy catastrophic coverage.
I think that physicians and hospitals are becoming more aggressive in debt collection activities. However, legal action of any kind is also expensive. And, in the end you can't collect if the assets are not there.
Reading the comments of some on this show makes me wonder which America they live in. No one, other than the one percent, can afford paying for most hospitalization, even for minor procedure, if performed in a hospital "out patient" setting. To say nothing of major procedures. Those who cannot afford the premiums, buy minimum coverage and end up with major debt, as mentioned by a caller on the show.
Universal coverage is the only civilized form of health care and I'm sure we will, some day be dragged into it, kicking and screaming(for some), just as we were dragged into the enlightened world by abolishing slavery. Can you imagine that there were folks willing to laying down their lives in support of that heinous practise? To those constantly citing Canada as their example of socialized medicine gone wrong, just talk to some Canadians. While they also, do not like the long waiting times for some non-emergency procedures, they are happy they have coverage that will not leave they in severe debt due to medical illnesses. They will probably laugh you out the room if you suggested that they have a system similar to ours.
All advanced countries and many developing countries have universal coverage. It is the only way to deliver healthcare. Good health and well educated citizens are important assets to any country.
Five years ago at the recommendation of by doctor I had an iud inserted (after child birth), at the time had insurance. Now it's time to take it out I do not. No one is even interested in the removal (it is embedded) for under $1000 dollars. So now iam stuck with it, literally. Iam a single unemployed mother, without any options. Clearly this is considered by the state of Utah as non-essential.
It would seem that many Americans do not understand that low cost health insurance does not cover all medical costs in the case of a major hospitalization. Americans in this situation end up with enormous bills, go bankrupt or they receive charity--usually in the form of higher premiums from those who carry adequate insurance for themselves. I am so glad that you, Diane, finally stated this on today's show. It has not been stated, to my knowledge, before.
Thank you.
If Americans want to Opt Out of health insurance, I say let them. If you or your family & friends can not, or will not, pay possible health care bills, you will be put down and, you have to pre-pay for that, in case you don't have funds to pay for that to ensure you don't cost shift that to others.
Call me harsh but these folks want to be responsible for their own health care costs, well, go for it!
You get hit by a car and you have Opt'd Out - no care for you or your uncovered family. No police assistance, no fire assistance, no medics. You have to find your own way to the hospital or pre-pay the amublance before they take you, before they work on you at all! Oh, you are too damaged to get out your credit card, oops you may default on that, shifting your costs to the rest of us, which you don't want to, so cash only. You can't come up with the cash... Emergency services folks will call your family to ensure they will pay for their services and all your medical bills if you don't. Any asset they have, including their home, will be sold, if needed, to pay for your medical bills. If they refuse to make a binding agreement to do that, you will be put to death in a kind, cost effect way.
In my mind, this is the only way to ensure people who want to be responsible for own health care costs are held to their own standard. No health care credit!
We already know, that people without health insurance who get treated, many times, can not pay their bills which increases the costs for the rest of us. If you want out of the system, then get really out. Accept that if you can't pay, you get no services. You get hurt, you are sent home with nothing that you/your family can't buy over the counter.
Clearly, I support a system in which everyone is in. Which is not what we have now. But we can't keep pretending people will go thru their entire life and never have a health cost that is beyond their means to pay.
kathleen: My recollection is that you live over in Ohio and manage your parents healthcare. Thank you for that. That alone makes you an expert by experience. I live in NC and am the power of attorney for 11 seniors, some institutionalized. When the "got-it-made" nihilists estimate that charity can replace government programs I think about the family members who have dropped my seniors like a hot rock after absorbing all their life's accumulation and leaving them on Medicaid. Of course, if they had retained title to their houses these would now be bank property under medical liens. Our medical system has become a pump taking value from the sump of poverty and showering it over wealthy investors. When senior crisis arrives so does a $500 ambulance ride to that big ole extractor we call a hospital. If you survive the reluctance to treat poor people you are discharged to forcible confinement in a dog kennel we call a rehabilitation facility. Medicare soon runs out and SS benefits are attached. At 50 to75K a year billing, your house soon goes up in diapers and Carnation Instant Breakfast. By the time someone like me sees these indigents they are left legally with less than $50 a month for personal care needs. When I'm not securing fuel to keep mothers and kids warm I scrounging for clothes to keep senior dignity covered.
I go through 10 pairs of drugstore glasses a month because the CNAs don't have time to match them to residents. Those with low vision or a complex prescriptions are out of luck. You should see me sweat when smuggling broken dentures in and out of facilities to have my dental technician friends reglue and polish them. I have sworn to take my own life if possible rather than be abandoned in a rest home. The best ones have a high family and friend visitor rate, and questions and needs are constantly communicated. A potted plant gets more attention than most of these residents. Too many button pushes for help bring on the Tramadol and other quieting medicational restraints. Now that I'm "out" as an advocate it is amazing the things that are hidden when I arrive and the implausible lies I'm told. I know there are other elder-helpers out there who see these same things, so get some guts and speak up. File some complaints. Make the Med-mills work first for the residents, not the owners and providers.
Hello Diane -
On medical health insurance, it is very clear that insurance companies are more beholden to their stockholders than they will ever be to their clients. Health insurance should NOT be provided for profit! It should be a human right under the law, paid for by our taxes that are currently wasted on billion-dollar embassy buildings and misguided wars, pork-barrel projects and deductions for lobbyists, to name only a few. We have plenty of money to care for our citizens. Our government spends it badly.
Thanks for your attention.
Beverly Taylor