Kaisernetwork.org – Dec. 19, 2008.

The Boston Globe on Friday examined how “[k]ey players in the debate over how to provide health care coverage for the nation’s 47 million uninsured” residents believe that the Massachusetts health insurance law is “an important model for what Washington could do and how to get it done.” The state system requires that residents obtain health coverage, with subsidies available for eligible residents. In addition, employers must either offer coverage or pay into a state insurance fund. Massachusetts also expanded public health coverage programs, such as Medicaid, to more low-income residents and children and created a health insurance exchange that allows residents to compare and purchase health plans.  Click title to read more…

Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chair Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) in a statement said, “From both policy and political perspectives, it is impossible to underestimate the positive influence of Massachusetts reform on the prospects for national health reform in 2009.” Kennedy said that statistics released on Thursday show that 97.4% of Massachusetts residents are insured, compared with 90% when the law was passed in 2006.

In addition to Kennedy, who helped craft the state law, President-elect Barack Obama and Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-Mont.) have “endorsed a Massachusetts-style ‘incremental universalism’ approach, as well as some of the fundamental steps [Massachusetts] took to fill in the cracks” in the health insurance system, the Globe reports. Kaiser Family Foundation President and CEO Drew Altman said, “The architecture of the Massachusetts plan is very similar to the architecture of what everyone is talking about, which is essentially building on the existing system and not throwing it out.”

Experts say that “Congress is unlikely to adopt an exact replica of the Massachusetts law for the nation,” according to the Globe. The state had fewer uninsured residents than the nation as a whole when it implemented the plan, and more residents already had “very generous health insurance coverage, so requiring all Americans to have the same comprehensive coverage as Massachusetts residents could be expensive and politically treacherous,” the Globe reports. Baucus in a statement said, “Every state is different,” adding that he studied Massachusetts “very closely” when designing his health care proposal but limits to transferability exist.

In addition, the Globe reports that a “national health insurance plan would also probably include elements the Massachusetts law lacks, like more muscular efforts to reduce medical costs and improve quality — components that leaders in both parties agree are extremely important and which some specialists say are best addressed on a national scale.” Lawmakers also are considering a public Medicare-style insurance option for people who cannot obtain coverage through their employers, as well as reducing tax breaks for people with employer-sponsored coverage to help subsidize coverage for those who do not have access to coverage through their jobs (Wangsness, Boston Globe, 12/19).