Reform important for young citizens

As the health care debate rages on, young Americans should pay attention. Rapidly rising costs and the nearing retirement of the baby boomers raise the stakes of health care reform for the under-30 crowd.

There is much reason to root for expansion of coverage to America’s roughly 46 million uninsured (13.2 million of whom are young and healthy), but it must come with a focus on cost and efficiency.

Unfortunately, the effective kamikaze tactics of some Republicans combined with President Obama’s strategic missteps have put these goals in danger. So beware of the myths.

One of the most popular falsehoods is that the only path to low costs is a government-run insurance option. Before its recent backpedaling, the Obama administration sold the public option so well that it has now become a deal breaker for many.

But what the president failed to mention is that the Netherlands and Germany achieve universal coverage at low costs without a public option. Also since Maine’s public insurance option, Dirigo Health, began in 2003, premiums have risen by nearly 75 percent, and the program is in the red.

Relinquishing the public option would bring enough fence-sitting Democrats and Republicans on board to pass a strong bill and open the door for important regulations on insurance companies.

Authority could be granted to a comparative effectiveness research (CER) committee to recommend cost-effective medications, procedures and preventative screening.

This brings us to another great myth of the debate. Reform opponents, most notably those on the far right, assert that a CER committee would create a system of government-controlled rationing.

Reform foes fail to acknowledge that rationing already occurs. Both government-run programs and private insurance plans decide which treatments are appropriate to be claimed for and at what rates. These reimbursement decisions are often made arbitrarily and do not reflect the benefit provided by a given treatment or procedure.

A CER committee could recommend the most beneficial, least risky care and cut costs in the process. Doctors could also use this relevant research as a resource and would maintain their ability to treat patients in the same way.

The Senate Finance Committee, which is drafting the bill many say is the most likely to pass, recently stated that while a CER panel is a good idea it should be prohibited from issuing recommendations on medical practice. This is absurd. If the government pays for a committee to research cost-effective medicine but never listens to their advice, it will be a waste.

It is clear where these myths pick up steam. Instead of using nonpartisan sources like FactCheck.org, many absorb the angry, misleading banter of talking heads. These outlets helped build enough hysteria about “death panels” that the Senate Finance Committee has dropped a sensible provision paying for advanced care planning from their bill.

This type of misinformation on the air may also harpoon important cost-saving measures.

Regrettably this may already be happening. Obama’s rebranding of efforts as “health insurance reform” is a sign he is shying away from a comprehensive plan.

This should worry young citizens. While health care reform could be an enormous triumph for the younger generations, without real changes to costs and efficiency, they will be getting the raw end of the deal.