Kertesz (19-11) reports that in 2006, Massachusetts enacted a healthcare reform law requiring almost every resident of the state to obtain or purchase insurance coverage. It is noted that because of this law, substantially more citizens of the state are covered. Provisions in the law allow free health care for those who meet set poverty criteria, subsidized healthcare for those just beyond poverty thresholds, and incentives for getting coverage, such as a fine for not obtaining coverage. The law also established a regulatory agency, the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, which offers subsidized coverage and facilities purchases of private plans by small businesses and individuals.
This paper evaluates the program. The paper argues that the program was not thought out well, and its implementation is seriously flawed and presents the state with a very real financial burden.
HealthCare Reform in Massachusetts
Has Massachusetts' Healthcare Reform Program been successful? The answer to that depends on the standard used to judge success. For example, Kingsdale (1), an executive director of the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, notes that the program is far from perfect (an understatement) but feels that it is better than the alternative of higher premiums forcing people off the insurance roles and employers reducing the benefits that their health programs offer. The main argument offered by Kingsdale is that the healthcare reform law has provided greater access to healthcare for substantial numbers of people. Kingsdale does not much talk about the costs of the expanded access, and the burden paying for it might place on the state.
However, Anderson (1-2) states that whatever benefits the program is responsible for, when the standard of judgment used to evaluate program success shifts from access to costs, Massachusetts Healthcare Reform is at the crisis level. As Anderson puts
...