The Speaker has said he wants to LAOI have to admit that I was put off when Speaker Nunez said he would submit the legislative single-payer proposal for an analysis of the Legislative Analysts’ Office. Some, including the LA Times editorial board, suggested it was part of a retribution for those who based their opposition on their support for a single-payer solution. We support both AB x1 1 and SB840, and I have never seen the two as either/or… In fact, I am in the camp that believes these efforts are complementary. So I am not interested in an effort to attack single-payer. But I am interested in an effort to better put in context what the LAO does and doesn’t do. And to get more comprehensive analyses in the future. As our Health Access response shows, the LAO analysis of the health reform didn’t quantify a single cent of potential savings that came from AB x1 1. Many costs and risks were quantified, but no savings was. And when risks were noted, there was no determination of the scale of the risks. So while risks were noted, many seemed significantly overstated. If this same methodology was used toward single-payer, it would be a problem. We and several other single-payer supporters believe that single-payer would result in significant savings, from administrative simplicity, global budgeting, cutting out the insurance middleman, a reorienting of the system toward prevention, etc. But if the LAO never quantified any of these savings—if they assumed that it would cost a similar amount per person per month as the current private system—then single-payer might seem prohibitively expensive. There are some that might dispute some of these savings—but to quantify *no* savings would not seem to be credible. Yet no one questioned this methodology for the AB x1 1 analysis. On risks, the LAO

Leave a Comment

%d bloggers like this: