California Dabbles With Reining in Health Spending

[Greenbeard]

California has joined the small-but-growing list of states that are trying to force stakeholders to get a handle on rising health care costs by setting a statewide spending growth target. The results in other states thus far are a bit mixed, or at least unclear, but with the California's single-payer bill seemingly perennially stalled this is a signal they're going to try to get at the issue in other ways.

California Dabbles With Reining in Health Spending

California is now among the states trying to keep health-care costs down by setting spending caps — a task that pits public officials against a deeply entrenched and heavily lawyered set of players. It’s uncertain whether the state can get insurers, hospitals and medical groups to collaborate on containing costs even as they jockey for their slice of California’s $400 billion-plus health-care pie.

The verdict could take years.

In late April, the state’s new Office of Health Care Affordability set a five-year target for spending growth that starts at 3.5 percent for 2025 and drops to 3 percent by 2029. The goal of the embryonic agency is to make care more affordable and accessible while improving health outcomes and reducing inequity. . .

For health-care organizations that miss the target, a long and messy process begins that could end with fines of as much as 100 percent of the overspending. But that probably wouldn’t happen until 2030 or beyond, if ever.

In 2013, Massachusetts was the first state to set annual spending targets. Connecticut, Delaware, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island and Washington are among other states that have set targets.

The results in Massachusetts have been mixed: The state beat its target in three of the first five years, falling below the average national spending increase.

But more recently, its health spending has increased. In 2022, it exceeded the target by nearly double, and the state’s Health Policy Commission, which oversees spending control efforts, warned of “many alarming trends.”

 

[Integrityrespec]

California needs to rein in all spending. Crazy spending is running that train off the rails.

 

[phoenix2020]

What I want to see, nation-wide, are regulations requiring health care providers to publish costs for their services. It is ridiculous that health care is one of the vanishingly few areas where I cannot "shop" around for options.

 

[Glitch]

California has joined the small-but-growing list of states that are trying to force stakeholders to get a handle on rising health care costs by setting a statewide spending growth target. The results in other states thus far are a bit mixed, or at least unclear, but with the California's single-payer bill seemingly perennially stalled this is a signal they're going to try to get at the issue in other ways.

California Dabbles With Reining in Health Spending

It was inevitable, and does not come as a surprise.

However, California, like Connecticut, Delaware, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island and Washington, have the exclusive constitutional authority with regard to healthcare. Every State has the exclusive constitutional authority to determine how they wish to implement healthcare within their given State. As with RomneyCare in Massachusetts, it is the exclusive constitutional authority of the States.

What is specifically prohibited by the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution is for the federal government to involve itself in healthcare. They would be usurping the exclusive constitutional authority of the States and violating the Tenth Amendment by doing so. Which is why MediCare/MedicAid and ObamaCare are unconstitutional and need to be abolished.

 

[Glitch]

What I want to see, nation-wide, are regulations requiring health care providers to publish costs for their services. It is ridiculous that health care is one of the vanishingly few areas where I cannot "shop" around for options.

That would require an amendment to the US Constitution.

As it stands currently, the federal government is prohibited from involving itself in healthcare, education, or social spending. Those powers are the exclusive authority of the States, not the federal government.

 

[Greenbeard]

What I want to see, nation-wide, are regulations requiring health care providers to publish costs for their services. It is ridiculous that health care is one of the vanishingly few areas where I cannot "shop" around for options.

The Affordable Care Act does this for hospitals, but making health care truly shoppable turns out to be quite difficult.

 

[mrjurrs]

California has joined the small-but-growing list of states that are trying to force stakeholders to get a handle on rising health care costs by setting a statewide spending growth target. The results in other states thus far are a bit mixed, or at least unclear, but with the California's single-payer bill seemingly perennially stalled this is a signal they're going to try to get at the issue in other ways.

California Dabbles With Reining in Health Spending

The American healthcare system is broken. Provide a level of care for everyone paid for by taxation. If wealthier people want to add 'bonus' coverage (private room etc) let the secondary health insurance keep those programs.

 

[Peter]

What I want to see, nation-wide, are regulations requiring health care providers to publish costs for their services. It is ridiculous that health care is one of the vanishingly few areas where I cannot "shop" around for options.

In a system where the consumer is expected to pay for healthcare this is totally wrong.
Costs should be open to see and if one provider is way overcharging you can avoid them.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

California needs to rein in all spending. Crazy spending is running that train off the rails.

Where do you live again?

 

[PoS]

California needs to rein in all spending. Crazy spending is running that train off the rails.

Nah, let them go bankrupt. Its high time the fed gubmint stops bailing the libs out all the time.