New Jersey Chamber of Commerce on National Health Care Reform

New Jersey Chamber of Commerce on National Health Care Reform: There is Room for Common Ground and Areas we Vehemently Oppose

When the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce launched its Platform for Progress Healthcare Coalition four years ago its main objective was to improve New Jersey's health care system to ensure that it is accessible, accountable, and affordable.

Congress and the Obama Administration are considering sweeping reforms of the health care system to be completed in an extremely compressed timeframe.

Where does the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce stand on this issue?

The Chamber's Board of Directors believes there is common ground - and many of the Platform for Progress objectives are being addressed. We have long advocated for expanding the use of electronic medical records and other healthcare IT; offering prevention and wellness programs that make employees healthier; and pay-for-performance, which rewards healthcare providers for positive outcomes.

Sen. Ted Kennedy's bill has some positive aspects not called for in the Platform for Progress agenda, such as health care Gateways (allowing one-stop shopping for health insurance) and guaranteed coverage without regard to preexisting conditions.

While the number one issue for consumers may be the elimination of the tax-free nature of health insurance premiums, the Chamber Board has serious concerns about four other aspects of the reform agenda that may endanger millions of jobs and hurt companies of all sizes - the creation of a "public option" insurance plan, an employer mandate, a minimum benefits package, and changes to The Employee Retirement and Income Security Act (ERISA).

Of most concern to the members of the Chamber Board is the creation of a new government run insurance plan that would compete unfairly with private insurance. One recent study by the Lewin Group, a national health care consulting firm, suggested that 131 million Americans would drop their current coverage to take advantage of this plan. This would lead to a huge new liability for the government, and there would be tremendous pressure to bring costs under control. We instead support a system where patients and their doctors make decisions related to the delivery of care. We oppose the public option.

An employer mandate would cripple small companies that are not able to afford health insurance. As a result, they may have to lay off employees or invest less in the business. Employers nationwide already voluntarily pay $500 billion annually for health benefits for employees.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has testified before Congress that a minimum benefits package might force all health plans to be expensive "Cadillac" plans. Health reform needs to be affordable, or it will not be successful.

Finally, ERISA allows large companies to offer health benefits to their employees that are specifically designed to meet their needs. We oppose any change to the ERISA preemption so that employer provided benefits continue.

The number of people who are provided insurance through small New Jersey companies - firms with between two and 50 employees - has shrunk by 111,667 in the past 10 years, including a staggering 36,000 in the last year, according to the state Department of Banking & Insurance. Today, at least 1.3 million state residents are uninsured and the numbers are growing. The lack of affordability has resulted in roughly half of the state's uninsured being full time workers.

On a national level our health care crisis has resulted in 50 million uninsured. Both the public and private sectors are being strangled by spiraling costs that are crippling our economy in New Jersey and nationwide. The Obama administration and Congress are addressing this extremely complex issue quickly, with little time for citizens to digest what is happening. This is alarming because, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the tab for health care reform could cost Americans $1.6 trillion over 10 years.

Everyone agrees the health care system has problems. Solutions need to be identified and vetted in a cautious and thoughtful way. After all, decisions made will impact 17% of our economy. Whether a full understanding of the impact on patient care, viability of our hospitals and cost to the nation can be demonstrated over a single summer remains to be seen. As our representatives in Congress weigh alternatives, it's appropriate to reference the Hippocratic oath; do no harm.