Wait For It!
In condemning Massachusetts' landmark effort to insure our citizens, Shikha Dalmia can't wait (for the facts) to render a verdict ("No to CoerciveCare," Feb. 14).
The writer claims that spending for our subsidized plan will cost 85 percent "more than originally projected" during the next fiscal year. The governor's budget proposal calls for $869 million. The original estimate by the conference committee that wrote the legislation in 2006 pegged it at $725 million. That's 20 percent, not 85.
The writer claims that inflated demand combined with onerous regulations triggered premium increases of 12 percent this year. Premiums had been rising 12 percent or so prior to reform, but new rates are going up only five percent, not 12. As of July 1, 2007, the typical uninsured individual in Massachusetts could buy a policy that covered twice as much for half the premium as that person could have bought before reform. Just one example of how we are helping control costs, not increase them.
The writer claims that the cheapest plan available to a couple in their 50s is $8,200. It's actually much less, and when the couple takes advantage of reform to buy it with pre-tax dollars, the price is nearer to one-half of Dalmia's $8,200 assertion.
Across the country, more and more people are going without health insurance every day. In just 18 months, Massachusetts has newly enrolled over 300,000. Now there's a fact. And better yet, this one is true.
Jon Kingsdale
Executive Director
Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority
Shikha Dalmia responds: Mr. Kingsdale disputes my figures about the cost overruns, but the numbers are clear: This year, Massachusetts budgeted $472 million for this portion—and spent $619 million. Next year, by Mr. Kingsdale's own account, the governor is seeking subsidies worth $869 million—an 85 percent increase over this year's original budget, as I noted. What's more, the Boston Globe reported last week that the "annual costs for the subsidized insurance program at the heart of the [universal health care] initiative are projected to double over the next three years, reaching $1.35 billion by June 2011." Mr. Kingsdale claims that Massachusetts' health care reforms will moderate the 12 percent annual premium increases that have plagued it, like the rest of the country. Actually, the reverse is the case. Some years ago, a moderating trend began nearly everywhere except Massachusetts, precisely because its reforms have inflated health care demand and choked supply. Mr. Kingsdale insists that uninsured couples in their 50s can obtain coverage for half of the $8,200 that I had claimed. But a search on CommonwealthConnector fetched nothing less than $833.39 per month or $10,000.68 per year in annual premiums for 50-plus couples making over $40,000 and living in Middlesex or Suffolk counties. Co-pays and deductibles are extra. Mr. Kingsdale's claim would only pan out if federal and state tax breaks discounted these premiums by 60 percent—a virtual impossibility. The preliminary results of Massachusetts's grand universal care experiment are not encouraging. Mr. Kingsdale does Bay State residents no favors by pretending otherwise.
