Obamacare by another name...

Obamacare by another name...

Once the new administration repeals Obamacare, what comes after it could share a lot of the underlying logic of the ACA, even as it may be positioned as being very different. 

This is because policy makers have the same goals, will face the same market factors, and have to deal with the same trends, as the ACA.

The goals of any healthcare policy in the US (or indeed around the world) are the same as those of Obamacare:

  • Better quality care
  • Cost-effective care
  • Broad access to care

The market factors that policy designers face are the same as those faced by the ACA. These include:

  • Entrenched incumbents
  • Concentrated providers and payers within geographies
  • High market power of drug and device manufacturers

Finally, there is no escaping from the trends that the ACA had to deal with that are, if anything, even more pronounced today. These trends were (mostly) headwinds against the goals mentioned above.

  • Increasing consumer demand (including driven by supply attributable to Fee-for-Service incentives)
  • High inflation driven both by market power and by new technology
  • New delivery models such as retail clinics and telehealth
  • Significant insurance gaps including a high rate of uninsured/ underinsured

The bar is high on that alternative and given these underlying commonalities, it would be hard to throw out everything and come up with a solution that works. Many aspects of the ACA including consumer friendly regulations (e.g. guaranteed issue and coverage of adult children under parent plans), delivery system reform (e.g. value based payments), and expansion of coverage under Medicaid (though through block grants and state control) should substantially survive even if they are described in different terms.

Most interesting will be to see how any new dispensation is able to retain these features of the ACA while axing the features that are unpopular (e.g. the individual mandate) but provide the checks and balances necessary to achieve the goals around cost, quality, and access.

More perspectives at the Recon Strategy blog

要查看或添加评论,请登录

Nikhil Bhojwani的更多文章

  • Why payers and providers are leaving money on the table

    Why payers and providers are leaving money on the table

    Care management interventions (supporting patients with education and health coaching between encounters) have been…

  • Ai in Healthcare: Perspective

    Ai in Healthcare: Perspective

    If intelligence is understood to mean traits that enable humans to independently perceive, contextualize, interpret…

  • Biopharma risk-sharing: Is the time right?

    Biopharma risk-sharing: Is the time right?

    A couple of years ago, we addressed the question of whether drug companies could use new business models to capture…

    1 条评论
  • Avoiding the "hybrid" strategy trap

    Avoiding the "hybrid" strategy trap

    Most people like their coffee either hot or iced (for all kinds of interesting, but for this purpose irrelevant…

    7 条评论
  • Not thinking "inside" the (black) box

    Not thinking "inside" the (black) box

    This post explores one of the most common mistakes in strategy development. Strategy is about making a choice under…

    5 条评论
  • Can drug companies make drugs, AND money

    Can drug companies make drugs, AND money

    In this morning’s New York Times, Andrew Ross Sorkin asks, “DO drug companies make drugs, OR money”? That's a fair…

  • Boiling the ocean...or not

    Boiling the ocean...or not

    We've all heard the term, "Boiling the Ocean" to refer to an approach that is broad and ambitious and generally leads…

    1 条评论

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了