Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Our analysis identifies profound contrasts in politics, political strategy and programmatic details between the Clinton plan and the successful expansions. The Clinton plan was partisan, leadership and ownership of the plan was limited to the White House, it altered
Draft Not For Distribution, Citation or Attribution the way most people would receive health insurance, challenged entrenched interests,
lacked grassroots support, and was susceptible to charges of “socialized medicine.” In contrast, SCHIP and Massachusetts reform were and are bipartisan, leadership and ownership are broad-based, the way most people receive insurance remains the same,
these programs build off the existing system, and administration is state-based. Further, while the Clinton plan provided detailed policy prescriptions, SCHIP allows for significant state flexibility and innovation, and the Massachusetts Legislature left many of the plan details to a Board with broad interest group and consumer representation. The process by which SCHIP and Massachusetts reform were developed helped consolidate support and forge the political compromises necessary to achieve legislative success. This was not the case with the Clinton plan.