The AP (12/8, Espo) reports that in a
"potential trade-off with party moderates," Senate Democratic
liberals "are seeking expansion of...Medicare and Medicaid as
part of a compromise that drops a government insurance option
from healthcare legislation." Under the deal, "near-retirees
beginning at age 55 or 60 who lack affordable insurance would be
permitted to purchase coverage under Medicare," while Medicaid
"would be open to all comers up to 150 percent of poverty." The
deal would also have "private insurance companies selling
national, non-profit plans, to be overseen by a federal agency,
an alternative to a longstanding call by liberals for the
government to sell insurance as a means of forcing competition
on the industry." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has
set a Tuesday deadline for talks on the arrangement.
The New York Times (12/8, A28, Pear, Herszenhorn)
further explains that under the plan, "the federal Office of
Personnel Management would negotiate with insurance companies to
offer national health plans to individuals, families and small
businesses. The personnel office has decades of experience
arranging health benefits for federal employees, including
members of Congress." However, a separate "liberal proposal
would require insurers to spend a specified share of premiums --
about 90 percent -- on clinical services and activities that
improve the quality of care. This would, in effect, limit the
profits that insurers could make."
The Washington Post (12/8, Murray) reports, "The
Medicare buy-in idea has circulated for years, and Senate
Finance Chairman Max Baucus considered a version of the
expansion when he set out to craft his panel's healthcare bill a
year ago," but "some Democrats said they are not yet convinced
about the Medicare buy-in approach, citing concerns that it
would drive up rates for current beneficiaries, harm providers
in states with low Medicare reimbursement rates, and threaten
the program's long-term solvency."
Details of the Medicare proposal, "including who would
be allowed in and how much it would cost enrollees, are
unclear," USA Today (12/8, Fritze) reports, "but talk of the
Medicare 'buy-in' approach gathered support from Democrats who
have been otherwise split over the idea of a government-run
insurance plan intended to compete with private insurers."
Still, "lawmakers cautioned that there are many steps to
go even if an accord holds," according to Bloomberg News (12/8,
Litvan, Jensen), which notes, "Senators negotiating behind
closed doors said they may reach an agreement as early as this
week."
The Wall Street Journal (12/8, Hitt, Adamy, subscription
required) notes that Democratic Sens. Ben Nelson (NE) and Debbie
Stabenow (MI) were among those voicing support for the
compromise. Ten Democratic Senators are negotiating the deal.
The Los Angeles Times (12/8, Levey, Hook) reports that
Democratic Sens. Ben Cardin (MD) and Mark Pryor (AK) also were
optimistic of the deal. Meanwhile some lawmakers, including Sen.
Kent Conrad (D-ND) "remained wary of the idea" of expanding
Medicare. Sen. Conrad said, "What's that going to do to rates?
What's that going to do to Medicare solvency?"
Politico (12/8, Brown) says that if "the Senate goes in
this direction, the challenge for Reid is framing this
alternative as an acceptable compromise for progressives.
Politically, the idea holds appeal for moderates, who have
opposed establishing a new government insurance plan, but might
also satisfy liberal demands for more choice and competition for
private insurers."
