WSJ Blogs

Real-time commentary and analysis from The Wall Street Journal
Health Blog
WSJ's blog on health and the business of health.

In Mass., Costs Rise Again for Universal Health Coverage

The cost of subsidizing health insurance keeps going up in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts MapThat’s noteworthy because the state’s rule requiring everyone to buy insurance resembles Hillary Clinton’s proposal to mandate health insurance for all Americans, and because the Mass. plan has been cited as a possible model in several other states.

The subsidized-insurance program — aimed at those who can’t afford insurance on their own — will cost “significantly more” than the $869 million the state’s governor proposed in his 2009 budget just two months ago, Massachusetts’s top financial official told the Boston Globe.

The program’s cost is rising not only because all health-care costs are going up, but also because more people than expected have signed up. Meanwhile, a rule that charges a penalty to businesses that don’t provide insurance to their employees has raised only $6 million this year, far less than the $24 million initially budgeted, the Globe says.

The state’s looking at a number of ways to lower costs and raise revenues. A panel yesterday voted to raise premiums and copays for some people covered by the plan; starting July 1, the lowest premiums will rise by about 10%, to between $39 to $116 per month. And the panel decided to raise the state’s per-patient payment to insurers by 10%, rather than the 15% the insurers had asked for. But those changes won’t be enough to close the gap between what was originally budgeted and the new projections.

“Health-care reform is not sustainable financially and it’s also not sustainable politically if the best we can do is more taxpayer money and shifting costs to consumers,” Nancy Turnbull, an associate dean at the Harvard School of Public Health and member of a state board that oversees the program, told the Globe. “We have to find other ways [to raise money and control costs] and we have to find them very quickly.”

Map via Wikimedia Commons

Add a Comment


Comments (5 of 37)

View all Comments »
    • No:

      Satin's point "b" is not correct; or should I say it is terribly misleading. Employer-sponsored healthcare insurance - which is what is really being debated here - came into existence just following WWII when we had wage and price controls.

      Employers were not allowed to raise wages to attract labor, so congress enacted legislation allowing favorable tax treatment of employer-sponsored healthcare and later other benefits. So, depending on the level of corporate tax (let's just use an example of 30%) this means that it costs the EER $0.70 for every $1.00 in healthcare benefits they provide.

      Several other points I would like to make, but will do so briefly:

      1) Spending a greater % of GDP in healthcare is the US does not, in and of itself, signal that this is a problem. Just like other consumption goods and services, it may simply be that Americans have chosen to re-allocate their budgets towards a greater share of healthcare, buying less of something else. Being an income normal good, this is naturally an effect of a rising standard of living. So citing the % of GDP spent on healthcare is meaningless unless put into a cogent context and explanation as to why this is a "bad" thing.

      2) International comparisons are meaningless. US business funds a great deal of the healthcare spend; but also pays much higher corporate taxes, so they are getting squeezed; Americans are of a different mindset than those in other countries - especially closed socialist-style economies such as Sweden, with their socialized healthcare, very high taxes and homogeneous population. Americans will not accept European style rationing - just look at the repeated failure of the "Oregon Plan." They will not accept Hillary Care, which in its initial form called for jail terms for patients that went out of their "assigned area" for care and the physicians that treated them.

      Of course, many polls show Americans want Universal coverage. Who wouldn't want "something for nothing?" But when the camel's nose gets under the tent and they get a taste of what this scheme really amounts to (if you are >50 or >60 and you need bypass surgery? Forget it. You can't have it. This is what rationing leads to my friends.

      So, get real pollsters who know the issues and have them ask the right questions: what would you be willing to give up for "universal healthcare" in terms of choice, quality of care, innovation, freedom; and what would you be willing to pay for it? Let's see what the polls tell us then.

      I could go on, but that is enough for now.


    • Most hospital costs (the biggest costs in health care) are artifically inflated by unions who demand and control the salaries and staffing volumes are most of the hospitals in the U.S. Did anyone read the recent WSJ article that all the laid off factory and auto-industry workers are flocking to hospitals looking for jobs b/c they pay "much more" than they were making as lowly-skilled factory workers?? Nice. Nurses regularly pull down $85,000 per year and techs about $50,000 per year (with only a 9-month certificate!) so when I hear everyone blaming the doctors (who are the cheapest part of the care) I become ill. P.S.- When the day comes when the best physicians no longer accept insurance, we will rue the day we beat them down with all our verbal abuse. Who needs who more?

    • Health insurance is the reason for skyrocketing health care costs. Hospitals can charge however much they want because they get paid by the insurance company, 99% of the time the patient doesnt even know how much a test costs.

      A human gets a blood test, the charge is $900. Take your cat or dog to the vet for a blood test, which is virtualy the same (probably sent to the same lab) the charge is $160 (that's with the Vet's mark up). Why? Because veterinary hospitals don't get paid by insurance. They would not have any clients if they charged $900.

      Solve the rising cost of health care? ABOLISH HEALTH INSURANCE.

    • Satan's point "b" is awfully accurate.

      I just don't get why make the claim that doc's income "doesn't keep up with inflation" as Anonymous does. Ever stop to think that maybe those income were too high to begin with and due for a major correction?


    • Some of you people make me sick with your statements:

      "The best/brightest doctors should be in front line care, not in a dermabrasion lab, or in a plastic surgery suite"

      “Doctors are the public face of the healthcare system”

      1. Your thinking is Socialist ie USSR Communist. No one other than the doctor should decide where he or she wants to work. Maybe based upon your credentials you should be flipping burgers at local corner burger place. It would help out the store owner and speed up the service to the labor workers on the street. SU!!
      2. Doctors should not be considered a public face of health care. If a doctor is a public face to you, then you need to get a job and find a private practice and stay out of the ER or the public welfare office. If you can not obtain such a job, well then oh well, you should have paid attention in school, you should have not committed that crime, maybe move somewhere where there is incentive to obtain a decent job for a decent wage and the cost of living is cheaper. Or are you too good for a real job. Maybe you need two jobs. Oh gosh. Maybe you should have worn a condom. How about some personal responsibility on your part for where you are today.
      3. STOP relying on the so called “government” to fix the problems. Name one solution that the “Government” has come up with that did not cause problems in the economy, ie tax burden on middle class workers, lack of decent service. You can not. So SU!!!
      4. “Government” is as per the Constitution of the United States, you, me and everyone who is a CITIZEN of this former great nation. But to people like some of ya’ll, “Government” are the people who are going to give you money. Whose money? MY MONEY!!!! You act as if your legislative body has a big Dollar Tree behind the state house and they run out side and shake it. Then the wet backs help them pick it up and put it in baskets. They then divide it up and give it away to everyone, yippy fun in the sun. That’s because you’re a DA!!!! The government you look to, vote in and rely on sends dirty messages to business owners and hard working people who make a decent living, “give us more money” ie taxes, and when they do not the GOVERNMENT sends men with guns to collect the money. Does Lexington Concord sound familiar? Does the Shot heard Round the World ring a F’ing bell in your hollow heads? You have let the “government” do exactly what “we” ie my family line , maybe not yours, fought for and is why you have such lovely parks in and around Boston. Get your head out of your A!!! They take you guns so cant fight back, oh , I am sorry that is to protect the people, public safety. Yes with all the guns laws in MA, there are no gun crimes. Another failed policy. Next time your about to be murdered, dial 911 they are on the way to help you!

      Posted by an over taxed sick of the welfare state citizen of the former great nation.

About WSJ's Health Blog



    • Health Blog on Twitter
    • Health Blog on Facebook

Most Popular