COMMENTARY: ‘Fixing’ health care? Don’t start with what’s working

During the recent election, many candidates across the political spectrum were promising to expand access to health coverage. Some proposals could unintentionally jeopardize the coverage most Americans rely on.

In many cases, healthcare has become the single defining concern facing American families. In fact, health-care costs are the biggest financial worry for American families, with 60 percent of adults reporting that they are “very” or “somewhat worried” about being able to afford the care they and their loved ones need.

As we debate the future of health and healthcare in this country, we must focus on protecting access for those who already have it while expanding access to millions more in a way that aligns incentives to drive down costs and improve outcomes most important to patients.

Throwing away what is working for most Americans seems foolish.

Employer-provided coverage provides healthcare to millions of households. It’s the way most Americans, or 181 million people, get coverage. These plans follow a straightforward model: Employers pay for a portion (or all) of a plan’s premium and, in doing so, offer a crucial benefit to their employees. They help companies compete for and retain top talent while keeping employees and their families healthy.

Plans can be tailored to company specifics, offering “above and beyond” coverage options and add-ons to further attract the best talent. For example, employer-provided coverage can provide access to cost-effective gym memberships, nutritional services or even innovative smartphone apps to assist in concierge-level care. Ultimately, healthy employees are more productive, and companies know that.

The system isn’t just functioning. It’s popular. Nearly 9 out of 10 workers report satisfaction with their employer-provided coverage, and nearly all, 96 percent, say it’s important to their household’s financial security.

Employers and employees win with employer-provided coverage. That’s why lawmakers should be wary of major overhauls, such as Medicare by Choice, which could impose a sweeping increase in federal control over health care and risk devastating employer-provided coverage, a widely used path to insurance.

Rushed efforts that weaken employer-provided coverage with an unproven alternative carry substantial risk and may leave Americans enrolled in coverage that doesn’t meet their needs, with numerous bureaucratic hurdles likely required to switch plans. Further, such a policy may price some employers out of the market, pushing company employees who are currently pleased with their employer-provided coverage into plans that may not provide the same benefits or care access. Add in the possible negative effect on family members, and the concern only grows.

Millions of Americans have spent years building relationships with doctors and their healthcare team through their employer-provided coverage. Policymakers should think carefully before advancing reforms that could disrupt those trusted relationships.

Lawmakers are elected to solve problems, not create new ones, and any proposal that risks undermining coverage that people value today deserves particularly close scrutiny at a minimum.

Everyone would agree that America’s healthcare system today is far from perfect. Policymakers should keep looking for ways to lower costs, better measure and reward outcomes that matter most to patients, and expand access to high-quality, meaningful care. Through these efforts, competition can thrive, and American health can truly improve.

But healthcare reform should begin with a simple question: Does a new policy risk doing more harm to the communities it’s trying to protect? More than 180 million people get their health coverage through work, and such high levels of bipartisan satisfaction are rare in today’s political climate. As we debate the future of health care in America, policymakers should focus on fixing what’s broken, not disrupting what’s working.

Real progress means improving the systems people rely on, not gambling on an uncertain alternative, especially when lives may be on the line.

David N. Bernstein is an orthopedic surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital and co-faculty director of the Harvard Medical School Surgical Leadership Program. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.