Opinion editor's note: Editorials represent the opinions of the Star Tribune Editorial Board, which operates independently from the newsroom.
A wisely careful approach on 'public option'
Minnesota lawmakers commendably did not rush through a proposal that would allow consumers to buy into public health programs.
July 15, 2023 at 11:00PM
•••
MNsure, the state's online health insurance marketplace, rarely makes headlines these days. But its glitch-filled 2013 launch and struggles during its early years of operation offer lessons both humbling and lingering for policymakers.
The American health care system is complex, particularly when it comes to coverage. Navigating deductibles, copays, coinsurance, in-network and out-of-network care is daunting for those relying on private health plans. Public programs, such as medical assistance and Medicare, which come with eligibility requirements, can be challenging to negotiate as well.
The Affordable Care Act's rocky rollout made it abundantly clear that any health insurance changes, no matter how well-intentioned, can create confusion and anxiety for consumers. Careful consideration is vital for any future reforms. Fortunately, Minnesota heeded that as it cautiously set the stage in the 2023 session for what could potentially be the next big state-level health care reform.
It's known as the "public option." There are differing interpretations of what this means. But the classic definition is "a publicly funded, government-run insurance plan that directly competes with private health insurance coverage, with the goal of driving down premiums and underlying health care costs," according to Georgetown University's Center on Health Insurance Reforms.
One example of a public option: allowing Americans of all ages to buy into the federally run and financed Medicare program (which generally serves those 65 and up) in the same way they would purchase coverage from a private health insurer. Other variations: allowing people of all incomes to purchase coverage through medical assistance programs, which currently limit eligibility through income caps. Or allowing the general public to buy into the state employees' health care plan.
The goals, of course, are noble: moving closer to universal coverage by making insurance more affordable and benefits more expansive for everyday consumers. Government health programs' vast size could provide purchasing power to lower coverage costs. A bigger pool of enrollees could also help spread out the cost of providing medical care to them, helping cushion against premium increases.
But with health care, "the devil is in the details," as University of Minnesota School of Public Health Prof. Lynn Blewett noted to an editorial writer this week. Launching a public option brings with it vexing questions, including:
- Would those buying into the public option cover the full cost of their coverage, or would government subsidies be required? If so, how much would this cost?
- How much federal aid could be tapped to offset program costs?
- How much would premiums be for consumers? Would there be cost-sharing, such as annual deductibles or copays? Would the benefits offered to buy-in customers match those currently offered to public program enrollees?
- What would the impact be on medical providers, who already complain that reimbursement for care for public program enrollees' care doesn't cover costs?
- Why have other states' public options not lived up to expectations? A Politico article reviewing efforts in Washington, Colorado and Nevada suggests measures there have fallen short in keeping costs down or have struggled with enrollment.
The 2023 Minnesota legislative session garnered national attention for the ambitious slate of policies enacted by the DFL state government trifecta. The public option legislative language passed, however, took a commendably cautious approach.
It didn't rush through legislation launching a public option. Instead, it sets in place a process to address many of the questions this editorial raises.
The bill calls for actuarial analysis and other expertise to assess a public option's potential benefits, costs and impact. A report is due back to the Legislature on Feb. 1, 2024. The bill's language also calls for a proposed implementation plan in early 2027, with additional legislative approval likely needed to move forward.
It's an expeditious timeline, but one that sensibly gathers information and relies on expert analysis. It also gives the executive branch wide latitude to draw upon those findings and tailor a public option for Minnesota. One possible answer to also keep in mind: a public option might not work here given other states' lackluster experience and the potential to upend Minnesota's other pioneering efforts to keep coverage affordable. Legislators will also have time to digest expert findings.
That's a sensible place to land. Lawmakers merit praise for their responsible restraint. If enacted, a public option would be a sweeping state health reform. It merits careful, informed consideration before moving forward to ensure it would serve Minnesotans' best interests.
Editorial Board members are David Banks, Jill Burcum, Scott Gillespie, Denise Johnson, Patricia Lopez, John Rash and D.J. Tice. Star Tribune Opinion staff members Maggie Kelly and Elena Neuzil also contribute, and Star Tribune CEO and Publisher Steve Grove serves as an adviser to the board.
Editorials
From the Editorial Board: Crime is down, by the data, but comfort levels are not up
Denise Johnson on behalf of the Minnesota Star Tribune Editorial Board
There’s still too much crime for people to feel secure. The work of finding a sound but holistic approach to public safety is not done.
