The Center for Governmental Research has begun a partnership with the Rochester City School District. We’ve been invited to support implementation of Superintendent Jean-Claude Brizard’s Five Year Strategic Plan.
I’m a planning skeptic. Often the process of planning is so exhausting that we declare, “It’s done!” when the ink is dry. We forget that the plan serves only to lay out the course and load the starter pistol. The plan is too-often ignored. We continue going about our tasks as though nothing had changed. To the Superintendent’s credit, many of plan’s strategies codify activities already underway. In fact, the first of the five years was 2008-09. Like all good leaders, Brizard is impatient about his plan.
Early this year I wrote about the high deductible health plan (HDHP) and health savings account (HSA) being offered to CGR by Excellus. A look-back seems timely.
Five of us at CGR signed up for the HDHP and HSA combination. With our experience as background, nearly the entire staff selected this option for the coming year. Why?
The December 8 election for fire district commissioners is a date to remember for taxpayers who are interested in reducing local property taxes. By state law, fire districts are separate and independent units of local government, typically governed by five to seven commissioners who are elected by voters within each fire district. Terms are staggered so that changing a board requires several elections. From the perspective of taxpayers, the key point is this – fire commissioners develop and approve the budget for their district and determine the property taxes needed to support their budget. Thus, if taxpayers want to reduce their fire district property tax, taxpayers need to convince their fire commissioners to reduce the district budget, or elect different commissioners at the next election.
Congress is edging closer to passing legislation that restructures health insurance. The Senate and the House are debating compromise bills within their houses, after which a conference committee will seek to reconcile differences between them. With these details still under debate, we conclude our six part series on health reform with a few observations.
Public Option. If private insurance plans are part of the problem, then one solution may be to offer another option, a health insurance plan that is run by the government. At this writing, a “public option” seems likely to survive and become part of the final legislation. The debate over the public option has highlighted a fundamental social tension between those who fear too much government and those who fear too little (discussed in the first column in this series). Like Goldilocks, each of us wants the balance to be “just right.”
In this column, we address the challenge of expanding health insurance coverage. First, we explore why our employer-based system leaves gaps in coverage, even for people with jobs. Second, we discuss the challenge of relying on the individual insurance market, which has to fill these gaps.
In April, Kent wrote of a woman who had signed up for a “consumer-directed health plan.” While the plan saved her money, she yearned for days when she didn’t have to think about the cost of a doctor’s visit or a prescription.
Traditional health insurance insulates us from the visit-by-visit, script-by-script cost of care. That’s a problem. Facing only a fixed co-pay (or not even that), we don’t look at the “right side of the menu.” In our health care “restaurant,” the menu doesn’t tell us that the Lobster Thermidor costs twice as much as the Chicken Piccata. And we don’t care, because “insurance” will pay for it.
Last week we explored regulatory approaches to slowing health care spending growth. Today we discuss changing the incentives for consumers, providers and insurance markets.
There is a speechwriter in Washington who smiles each time someone says “bending the cost curve.” “Cutting health care costs” may be unattainable but “bending the curve” is essential.
To summarize our first two columns: Cost lies at the heart of the health care problem. Health care insurance masks the price signals that guide buyers and sellers. Providers are paid to do more and consumers have little incentive to refuse (go to www.cgr.org and click on the Policy Wonk link to read the first two).
In this column and the next, we look at ways to tame cost growth.
Welcome to the second in our series on health care. (If you missed the first one, check it out at blog.cgr.org.) Today we discuss the growth in health care cost, both how much and how fast it has grown, and the reasons. Next week’s column will focus on ways to reduce health care costs—or, more realistically, to slow the rate of growth.
In 1960, health care spending was 5% of gross domestic product (GDP). This year it’s expected to reach about 18%. For the past 30 years, health care cost has been rising 2% faster than GDP.
On the one hand, perhaps this doesn’t matter. We are spending more on health care and sometimes we get more for our money. Medical science has discovered new therapies. Pharmaceutical companies have identified fabulously successful new drugs. The survival rate for many dread diseases has increased significantly. For example, many cancer sufferers are living longer and experiencing a higher quality of life. Some diseases that were fatal only a few years ago—AIDS is the most prominent example—are now considered almost chronic illnesses. But these new therapies, these new drugs, these new treatments aren’t cheap. Genentech’s Avastin, currently used for a broad range of cancers, can cost from $4,000 to $9,000 per month.
You, too, can be fluent in Health Care! In only 10 easy audio lessons, you can amaze your friends with your command of phrases like single payer, health co-operative and rescission, plus acronyms like ERISA, LOS, IPA and HIPAA. Available on CD or by MP3 download for 10 easy payments of only $29.95.
Tempted? We’ll be attempting a similar feat over the next four weeks. Jim Fatula and Kent Gardner will be offering a “back to basics” look at the debate over health care reform. Two core issues—health care cost and health insurance coverage—occupy center stage.
Visiting Washington this summer, Kent watched a session of the Senate and listened to a member’s passionate speech on this subject. Yet he spoke to an empty chamber. Only one other senator was present. Oh, and C-SPAN’s camera, focused only on him. It seemed a metaphor for what has been a sorry debate, filled with speeches but few discussions. Radicals on both ends of the spectrum are driven more by ideology than by thoughtful differences in policy. This is a war between different faiths, a bitter competition between tribes in which winning is the only goal.
New York swept the annual property tax competitions sponsored by the Census Bureau. Scored by the Tax Foundation, New York counties dominated the competition in the “property tax as a share of median home value” event, capturing all of the top ten places. Camden, New Jersey was pushed off the top ten after a spirited showing from New York’s Chemung County. Newcomer to the Top Ten, Chemung ranked #16 in 2007.
In the “property tax per dwelling” event, New York’s perennial champions, Nassau and Westchester counties, took the top two spots with Rockland and Putnam counties also placing. The remainder of the Top Ten was dominated by New Jersey, always a contender in the nation’s tax competition.
What a contest to win! Is there hope of ever losing this competition? What must we do to cut the cost of state and local government? Does it matter?
Monthly blog by senior staff on public policy + updates.
Enter your email address.
The Center for Governmental Research has begun a partnership with the Rochester City School District. We’ve been invited to support implementation of Superintendent Jean-Claude Brizard’s Five Year Strategic Plan.
The December 8 election for fire district commissioners is a date to remember for taxpayers who are interested in reducing local property taxes. By state law, fire districts are separate and independent units of local government, typically governed by five to seven commissioners who are elected by voters within each fire district. Terms are staggered so that changing a board requires several elections. From the perspective of taxpayers, the key point is this – fire commissioners develop and approve the budget for their district and determine the property taxes needed to support their budget. Thus, if taxpayers want to reduce their fire district property tax, taxpayers need to convince their fire commissioners to reduce the district budget, or elect different commissioners at the next election.