| OCR Text |
Show Conclusion What do all these legislative and private studies mean for the future of health care in Utah? At the state level, probably very little. With the passage of HB 130 in the 1993 General Session, a few small steps were made towards improving access and controlling costs. Some argue that because the changes in HB 130 were incremental, they were not worth pursuing. They argue that the only way to solve our health care problems is to enact major systemic reform. However, the policy making process in a democracy is inherently incremental. Despite arguments that our current system is not sustainable, sweeping changes, either at the state or federal level are perhaps unlikely. Most interest groups, across the political spectrum, agree on the objectives of health care reform. All support providing universal coverage, controlling increases in costs, and maintaining quality. However, there is wide disagreement regarding how to achieve these objectives. The lack of consensus is due in large measure to the amount of money involved. Our country spent $800 billion last year on health care. Any reform involves substantial redistribution of that money and a tempering of annual increases in the income of health care providers and financiers. Meaningful reform threatens the existence of influential participants. The various health care interest groups are sufficiently powerful to produce stalemate and prevent major changes. In the past, they have opposed any changes they view as unfavorable. More importantly, universal health insurance coverage carries such a large funding commitment as to preclude it from being fully adopted anytime soon. States that have affirmed the goal of universal coverage find that they must phase-in coverage over many years. On the state level, the Health Care Policy Options Commission is our best hope for finding a way to meet our common objectives. HB 67, which creates the commission, clearly states the health care reform objectives: universal coverage, high quality, and controlled costs. The commission is charged with finding ways to reach these objectives. Governor Leavitt hopes to develop solutions that are in the public interest by excluding interest groups from the direct decision making, and by placing the issue before the voters, he hopes to educate the public about the tough choices we face. Both of these are laudable objectives. However, the personal leadership of the Governor and legislative leaders is needed to reform our health care system. Utahns should not be disappointed that immediate major reform is perhaps not on the political horizon. The size of the health care system and the complexity of this problem more appropriately lend themselves to cautious, incremental change. Policymakers, interest groups, and business leaders will continually attempt to forge consensus agreements that will eventually result in a system that provides everyone with appropriate health care, efficiently delivered. About the Author Bryant Howe is a Managing Research Analyst in the Utah Legislature's Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel. He provided staff assistance to the Access to Health Care Task Force and is currently a research analyst for the Human Services Interim Committee. He holds an Honors Degree of Bachelor of Arts in History from the University of Utah and a Masters of Public Administration Degree from Brigham Young University. 114 HEALTH CARE REFORM |
