It would be a mistake to go backward on health reform

With both chambers of the Minnesota Legislature up for election this fall and all eight U.S. House seats up for grabs, Minnesotans are likely to hear even more vows from politicians to repeal the Affordable Care Act, a promise Republican presidential candidates already repeatedly make.

But a new report out from the Minnesota Department of Health and the University of Minnesota should give pause the next time that pledge is made. Repealing the law doesn't strike a blow against Obama, who is leaving office. Instead, it would harm those who benefited from the law's expanded access to health coverage through medical assistance programs and tax credits to reduce pricey private insurance premiums.

Many of those aided by the law are friends, family and neighbors — a point driven home in the report released this week. The number of Minnesotans without insurance dropped to a record low of 4.3 percent in 2015, compared with a national uninsured rate estimated at 9.1 percent. That's a reduction of nearly half since a 2013 state survey.

According to the findings, "more than 200,000 people in Minnesota — including 35,000 children — gained health insurance coverage" during this two-year span. Many of them had been without insurance for more than a year, suggesting that health reforms are reaching those who had previously fallen through the system's cracks.

This is a noteworthy achievement. Access to health care strengthens families, communities and the state's workforce. Some of the coverage gains should be attributed to the state's resilient economy, which has enabled workers to keep their jobs and coverage or obtain a job and benefits (contrary to critics' concerns about the law, employer coverage has held steady in Minnesota).

But the federal health law and Minnesota's energetic embrace of it deserve credit, too. The state's health insurance marketplace, MNsure, contributed by raising awareness of coverage assistance and through its strong outreach to underserved communities.

Minnesota certainly shouldn't sit on its laurels. Coverage disparities still exist among minority communities. And there's a stubborn lack of awareness about public health programs. Many of the remaining uninsured have not taken advantage of available pathways to coverage.

Improving health insurance should also be a goal. Many of those with new coverage through the private market have opted for high-deductible "bronze" plans that may dissuade them from seeking care or leave them with high out-of-pocket costs. The Legislature needs to drill down this session to improve the affordability of plans sold on the individual market.

MNsure certainly needs technological and reliability improvements. But the new, positive numbers show that Minnesota is moving in the right direction. Now is not the time to go backward.