ShareThis Page

The TennCare lesson: A national disaster

| Saturday, March 27, 2010

Years ago Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen, a Democrat, called it a "disaster." Today President Obama calls the same idea "reform."

Both the president's prescription for the uninsured and Tennessee's TennCare program are premised on the same sugar pill: a vast expansion of health insurance coverage without affecting cost or quality. But not only did TennCare, enacted in 1994, lead to a cost explosion with its major expansion of Medicaid, Tennessee's mortality rate didn't keep pace with improved rates in neighboring states, according to Heritage Foundation scholar Brian Blase.

With a quarter of Tennessee's population enrolled in TennCare, inflation-adjusted per capita Medicaid spending between 1994 and 2004 increased an average of 146 percent as compared with 71 percent for other states.

And while Tennessee's mortality rate declined modestly in its first four years (2.1 percent), the average decline in surrounding states more than doubled that figure. Hence, a restructuring of TennCare.

The highly touted new health care law expands coverage to 32 million Americans. The bill's projected 10-year estimated cost: $938 billion. If past federal forecasting is any indication, that's a pipe dream.

Given Tennessee's predictable experience, one wonders what ObamaCare cheerleaders have been smoking. No wonder attorneys general in so many states have gone to court.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.