Huntsman faults Romney’s Mass. health plan

By Shira Schoenberg, Globe Correspondent

MILFORD, N.H. -- Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, who has grown increasingly critical of his Republican opponent Mitt Romney, today laid out a new point of contrast: the health care plans that each man passed as governor.

Asked by an employee at the electronics manufacturing company Cirtronics where he stands on health care, Huntsman first expressed his desire to repeal President Obama’s health care reform. He then contrasted the health care reform he passed as governor of Utah with the one passed by Romney when Romney was governor of Massachusetts.

“You can either look at the heavy handed government-centric mandate enforcing people’s behavior, which in cases like Massachusetts, we have seen premiums rise substantially…or you can create a free market based exchange, which we chose in Utah,” Huntsman said.

The Utah reform created a health exchange, or insurance marketplace, in which employers pay a defined amount toward a health plan chosen by the consumer. The Massachusetts reform included an individual mandate requiring everyone to have health insurance, to avoid forcing the state to cover medical costs for the uninsured.

Huntsman also touted the work he did in Utah harmonizing medical records, allowing different doctors to access a patient’s medical records. Huntsman said he believed such a system would help someone like his daughter, who has juvenile diabetes, by letting a doctor know what type of treatment has worked best for her in the past.  

Speaking to reporters after the event, Huntsman said the country needs a more “market-driven” system for health care, which allows states to experiment with different ways of reducing costs and dealing with the uninsured.  He said the role of Washington is to free up the market – for example, by allowing insurance companies to issue policies across state lines.

Asked about his comments on Massachusetts’ plan, Huntsman said it was the prerogative of the state and governor to establish a Massachusetts system. But, he said, “Something that results in higher costs and more of a burden on the private sector at a time we desperately need to create jobs is probably not something that would meet with widespread approval.”

Huntsman himself considered a mandate when deciding how to reform Utah’s health care system. A mandate was included in early drafts of the reform and Huntsman told interviewers in 2007 that he was “comfortable” with a mandate and a mandate of some sort “has to be part” of any serious attempt at reform. He has said during his campaign that he considered every possible option. Asked today whether Romney was ill-advised in implementing Massachusetts’ system, Huntsman said he believed Romney did not understand that a mandate would lead to increased premium costs. “As we look back now, I think he would see it as an ill advised move,” Huntsman said.

The Huntsman campaign pointed to a study by the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University, which documents both the higher costs to the state of Massachusetts from the health care reform, and the increased premiums for Massachusetts insurance plans after health care reform took effect. According to that study, the average cost of a family insurance plan increased by $2,500 between 2006 and 2009.

On the campaign trail, Romney has defended his Massachusetts plan, even as he criticizes President Obama for implementing a national mandate. According to a Globe analysis of Romney’s plan, the plan has dramatically reduced the number of uninsured. Polls find that the plan remains popular in Massachusetts, and high health care costs in Massachusetts are not necessarily attributable to Romney’s plan. The Globe found that the reform has increased costs but the state’s share -- $406 million in the last fiscal year -- has been manageable.

The Romney campaign declined to comment.