Survey on California Healthcare

by Brian Leubitz [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

Field released a poll on the California healthcare siuation. PDF available here. It focuses on the failed plan from the Governor and Speaker last year.  That's all well and good, and I respect Field enormously, but how can you release a poll without asking a question about single payer? I understand this is a highly complicated question that is tough to explain within a few sentences for a poll, but why is it that we can't get a decent poll in the state on single payer?

The results of the actual questions are quite interesting, and indicate a real consensus for reform, but it seems the policy details are still murky for many Californians.  Some bright points on said consensus include the series questions asking about proposed reforms. Specifically, 74% of Californians favor requiring health insurance companies to offer coverage to everyone without regard to their health condition and 77% favor providing state subsidized health insurance to low income adults.  Of course, there is a bit of interpretation in that last question, as that could just indicate support of Medi-Cal if the question is not clear. 

Of importance to the debate between the two presidential candidates, 68% of Californians favor requiring all Californians to have a minimum level of health coverage. An employer mandate garnered 73% support. Other suggested reforms fared similarly well.

Follow me over the flip for a look at the funding side and more.

Many of the funding mechanisms were well received. An employer requirement got 77% and a $1.75 cigarette tax got 71% support. But when it came to the hospital fee, well, let's just say the question was poorly asked.  When the question of whether we should increase hospital fees by 4% (a core piece of Arnold's plan), 77% opposed.  But 79% want us to increase the amount of federal matching funds.

What's not clear is that under the Nunez/Arnold plan, that hospital fee was used to garner additional federal funds. In a nutshell, the hospitals would go along with the increased fees in return for California increasing the Medi-Cal payments.  And since the federal government matching funds are based upon Medi-Cal reimbursement rates, that would bring in a bunch of federal matching funds. That really is the most no-brainer of funding mechanisms. Everybody wins, save the feds, where our bloated deficit grows. But this tradeoff doesn't need the grander scheme, and should be enacted, well, how about yesterday?

On a side note, the federal matching rate is why the cut in Medi-Cal payments made to decrease our deficit is so frustrating. For every dollar we cut there, we actually cut at least two. Frustrating, huh? Now you know why Gavin and the CMA are suing.

Back to the poll for one more question: Favorables/Unfavorables for leaders and orgs on health care. There are a few clear winners and losers. The biggest winner? Well, that would be "Nurses and the California Nurses Association" with the largest net favorable of +38. I imagine Steve Maviglio, Assembly Speaker Nunez's deputy chief of staff, having something of a heart attack upon seing that number, especially when compared to Nunez's net -9 figure. Arnold is flat at 40 Favorable/40 Unfavorable. The biggest losers are insurance companies at -39, Republican legislators at -26, and the media at -18.

Californians are concerned about health care, 52% are very concerned that they or somebody close to them will be without insurance.  What we do about that seems to be on a holding pattern pending the presidential election and the massive budget deficit. But while there are many options for reform, the one unviable path is the status quo.