New Massachusetts Polling Data: What's the Lesson?

Paul Krugman doesn't like the Rasmussen poll on the popularity of health reform in Massachusetts.  I've cited that poll in the past, so I have an obligation to present contradictory information.  Besides, when Krugman talks, I listen.  Since many people consider the reform we're likely to get similar to that which was enacted in that state, it's an important issue.

Krugman cites the Boston Globe/Harvard School of Public Health poll and finds this to be its essential conclusion:  " 79 percent want (reform) to continue."  That's much stronger than the tepid support in the Rasmussen bill, and it's important.

I had a somewhat different interpretation, however, when I read the write-up in the Globe that Prof. Krugman cites.  "79 percent of those surveyed wanted the law to continue," the article says, "though a majority said there should be some changes, with cost reductions cited as the single most important change that needs to be made."

Then there's this:  "In another question, residents were nearly evenly split over whether Massachusetts could afford to continue with the law as it stands: 43 percent said the state could not, and 40 percent said it could."

Lastly, the money quote (literally):  "A national survey by Kaiser released this month found that Massachusetts has the most expensive family health insurance premiums in the country, averaging $13,788 in 2008."

Some of us knew that already, but it's important to repeat it in this context.

Granted, the Senate bill has more cost containment in it that the original Massachusetts bill, especially in the latest draft (and thanks in part to progressive opposition to the bill, in my opinion.)  But I still think it's weak on cost controls, and that many people are wildly overestimating the effect of those that it does contain.  But it's worth noting that many of the bill's proponents have been touting the idea that mandates themselves will help keep premiums under control.  I think that argument has been seriously undercut by results in Massachusetts.

Comments

[LarryE]

Um, the money quote was not really the money quote. Saying MA has "the most expensive family health insurance premiums in the country" tells you nothing unless you know how they ranked before the state health care law was passed and how things have changed since.

Consider that the article said "Double-digit increases in premiums have become almost routine in Massachusetts, with the state’s major insurers saying they will raise rates about 10 percent next year. This trend began well before the overhaul passed, however...." To make the judgment you did, you need to know both how costs in MA have been rising in comparison to other states over the same period and, perhaps more importantly, how fast they've been rising in the state since the change as compared to before it.

You may well be right that the plan has done little to restrain cost inflation - but the information in the article is simply not sufficient to show that.

My own money quote would be "Roughly 90 percent of Massachusetts residents had health coverage before the law went into effect and now state data show that about 97 percent do, the most nationwide."

But I could accept Krugman's, that 79% of respondents want to continue the law (even as most of those recognize some changes are likely necessary) and only 11% want to repeal it.