ROBERT C. Pozen’s suggestion to reduce the number of mandated insurance benefits would also reduce access to quality, affordable care for residents of the Commonwealth while doing little to solve the problem of skyrocketing insurance premiums (“A bitter health care pill,’’ Op-ed, Aug 10).
Massachusetts’ landmark health reform law raised the rate of insured residents to a near-universal 97 percent. The goal of this bipartisan effort was not to just provide access to insurance but to provide access to quality insurance which, through covered prevention and early detection services, is a key element to reducing health care costs.
A 2008 Massachusetts Division of Health Care Finance and Policy report found that mandates are not a major cost driver, and concluded that “the true net cost impact of mandated benefits is likely . . . in the range of 3 to 4 percent of premiums.’’ Instead of looking at these facts, Pozen’s attack on mandated benefits distracts from having to deal with the real cost drivers, such as the current fee-for-service payment system, which rewards quantity rather than quality of care.
The fundamental reason behind insurance is to spread risk among a large pool. Allowing stripped-down plans may limit premium increases a small amount for some people; however, the health and cost impacts for the larger population would end up being much greater for businesses, government, and taxpayers.
Marc Hymovitz
Director of government relations and advocacy American Cancer Society, New England Division Framingham 
Waiting for Twitter to feed in the latest...