Once detractors, medical groups say health-care reform is a must

February 21, 2010 at 12:00a.m.

MarketWatch

LOS ANGELES — A decade and a half ago, industry groups such as the American Medical Association opposed the Clinton administration’s version of health-care reform and helped in ultimately defeating that effort.

Now, however, on the eve of hearing President Barack Obama’s latest iteration of what the nation’s health-picture should look like, they and numerous other medical associations are worried today’s version of health overhaul will die on the vine.

It’s never been needed more, they say, adding it is essential that at least some measure of reform take place.

The AMA, American Hospital Association, American Nurses Association, American College of Physicians, American Health Care Association and even America’s Health Insurance Plans — the trade group representing health carriers — all agree on one thing: Some type of reform is necessary. And they’re a little more than irked that health reform appears to be dormant since they have lobbied for the cause.

“We’re very frustrated at the lack of action on it in recent weeks after we’ve expended so much energy,” said Rose Gonzalez, director of government affairs at the American Nurses Association. “The decisions that nurses make at the bedside every day, they need to make on Capitol Hill. They need to make them at the White House.”

It appears the president and lawmakers are about to give it another whirl, though. Obama plans to reveal his new blueprint for reform ahead of the summit Thursday on health care — some reports say his version could be unveiled as early as today. Obama is expected to at least bring forward some of the highlights in both the House and Senate versions of health care.

How in depth Obama plans to go is unclear, but the president has indicated he will have some general outline for Republicans and Democrats to consider as they try to salvage some of what both houses passed late last year.

It was thought the two sides would reconcile their two versions via conventional means, but that was threatened by the January election of Republican Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, upsetting the filibuster-proof majority Democrats had in the Senate. Now, it appears the House may have to be willing to accept the Senate’s version of health care, provided some key issues are addressed in the Senate’s budget-reconciliation process, which is not subject to filibuster.

Whichever way the reform process leads, these medical groups generally want the same key issues addressed: Bend the cost curve, cover the uninsured, boost preventive-medicine measures and excise pre-existing- condition provisions from insurance policies.

Both House and Senate bills try to achieve that, but to varying degrees and means.

The most glaring difference is that the House bill contains a public-insurance option that largely is thought to be dead in the water due to Senate objections, though no last rites have been given to it just yet.

More lawmakers are signing on to revive the public option — some angry with ever-skyrocketing rate hikes — and could seek to pass it through a budget reconciliation process.