MMA Weighs in on Public Option Proposal

February 9, 2023

On February 8, the House Commerce Committee heard HF 96 (Long, DFL – Minneapolis), a bill that would allow more Minnesotans to purchase health coverage through MinnesotaCare. This is often referred to as the “public option.” 

The MMA shared a letter to the bill authors with members of the committee. The letter expressed support for the bill's efforts to provide subsidies to reduce cost-sharing for individuals who choose to enroll in gold plans through a public option. The MMA also noted support for a minimum actuarial value of at least 70% for any plan sold through a public option.  

The MMA is concerned, however, that offering low-premium plans with high-deductibles will result in Minnesotans being underinsured. The underinsured often delay and forgo care. Minnesota has one of the highest rates of enrollment in high-deductible insurance plans, which results in severe underinsurance and patients avoiding or delaying care.  

In the letter, the MMA also outlined support for coverage to undocumented Minnesotans, as well as support for an actuarial study conducted by the Department of Human Services prior to implementing a public option. 

The MMA outlined several concerns with the proposed reimbursement levels and sufficient provider participation. If the percentage of patients who are enrolled in a public program becomes too high, practices will not be able to continue to stay in business. MA reimbursement rates need to cover the cost of doing business. 

The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce echoed these concerns in its opposition to the bill, arguing the bill would raise healthcare costs. “Government healthcare programs pay doctors and hospitals much less than commercial health insurance plans,” Minnesota Chamber of Commerce Healthcare Policy Director Bentley Graves said. “As a result, healthcare providers operations are subsidized by higher prices for those with private insurance who pay more to offset this differential.”  

Graves went on to argue that this bill “will lead to a significant financial impact on doctors and hospitals, especially practices that operate on already narrow margins in rural and underserved communities, and may lead to further decreased access and increased costs in the future.” 

The committee passed the bill and referred it to the House Health Finance and Policy Committee where it will receive its next hearing.