NEW YORK - Democratic and Republican presidential candidates are taking far different approaches in proposing healthcare reform, according to an extensive analysis of the seven top candidates by the Health Research Institute of PricewaterhouseCoopers, a large professional services firm.
The Democrats' proposals promise broader and more immediate changes, with new government mandates, programs and funding, while the Republicans' proposals rely on indirect approaches, such as changes in tax incentives that could move insurance away from an employer-based model.
According to PricewaterhouseCoopers study, Beyond the Sound Bite, most of the candidates say their plans would temper the future rate of growth in healthcare spending, even though the federal government would spend more, at least initially, to pay for healthcare through either additional tax credits or deductions, or expansion of government health programs.
However, none of the leading candidates are proposing a single-payer system, so it appears that the industry's future continues to ride on the fine-tuning of the current public-private system.
The study contends that the Democratic candidates are talking about healthcare with the voters at least twice as often as the Republicans, outside of Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney, who has made healthcare a key issue. Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. John Edwards, Sen. Barack Obama and Romney are discussing healthcare almost equally, the analysis in the study found.
Proposals for the current employer-based health coverage range from former Sen. Fred Thompson's comment to the press that employers be "divorced" from coverage to Edward's position requiring that employers "pay or play."
The market for individual insurance could receive a boost through the Republicans' tax credits or the Democrats' proposals to require individuals to buy health insurance.
According to reports, the Democrats favor mandates on either employers, individuals or both to cover more of the uninsured, while most Republicans favor tax credits and incentives for increased market competition, with no federal mandates for coverage.
The papers review how the candidates would reform healthcare coverage, how they would change tax rules to support their reforms and how they would control costs and improve quality of care. The report then finishes with key implications and risks for industry stakeholders.