Lewin Group: 'Health Care for America' Works

Study Finds 'Health Care For America' Plan Covers All for Less

Jacob S. Hacker

"Health Care for America," developed for the Economic Policy Institute by Yale University Political Science Professor Jacob Hacker, would provide health care coverage for virtually every American while generating huge cost savings — more than $1 trillion over 10 years, according to the Lewin Group, a nationally respected, nonpartisan consulting firm. (Read the full Lewin Group report. ) Their report offers the most detailed analysis of the reform proposal to date.

The plan combines the best features of the current employer-based system, which the Lewin Group estimates would serve two-thirds of workers under Hacker's proposal, with a federally administered insurance pool similar to Medicare, the popular program for older Americans, that would be funded by user premiums and co-pays, employer contributions and government subsidies.

Key elements of this plan have been included in the health care proposals of presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama.

“What these results show is that by building on the best elements of Medicare and employment-based health insurance, 'Health Care for America' can provide every American good affordable, guaranteed coverage for no more than we're spending for health care today – and with the promise of big savings and quality improvements down the road,” Hacker said in response to the findings.

READ: The full Lewin Group report | Health Care for America's role in the health care debate | Health Care for America and the presidential candidate's health care plans

Two Approaches to Health Care

There are two widely divergent approaches to the problems of the U.S. health care system. Conservatives want to further diminish the role of government and tell individuals that "you're on your own" in shouldering the burden of health care costs and battling the health care business bureaucracy. In the Health Care for America plan, a large national pool administered by the government would compete with private plans to provide health care for everyone, a “shared responsibility” approach.

Here are the major differences between the two approaches:

The Political Divide: Shared Responsibility vs. "You're On Your Own"
	Shared Responsibility	"You're on Your Own"
Employers	Employers would offer health coverage at least as good as Health Care for America, or pay 6 percent of payroll into a national pool to cover their employees.	Current tax deduction for employers that offer health care would be eliminated in favor of a new standard income tax deduction for anyone with health insurance — essentially a disincentive for employers to offer coverage .
Individuals	Individuals would automatically be enrolled, either at their place of work or when they seek care, with a guarantee of coverage from birth until they go on Medicare. Premiums would be capped, with generous subsidies for lower-income families.	Individuals would be encouraged to purchase health care through tax incentives, including tax-advantaged health savings accounts for high-deductible plan enrollees. Individuals with modest means would be left out.
The federal government	The federal government would use the buying power of the large national pool to negotiate lower costs by providers and drug companies.	The government would not regulate the individual insurance market either to increase access or to reduce costs, producing less coverage at higher cost, without pooling risks.