By Evan Falchuk

Inside Higher Ed notes an important oversight in the Baucus health care plan.  It seems that the proposal could eliminate college and campus health plans.  According to Jim Turner, President of the American College Health Association:

Congress simply isn’t thinking about college students’ health care.  They’re not trying to be malicious, I don’t think, but the legislation could unintentionally be eliminating student health insurance programs.

Forgetting about college students was probably a mistake.  But I’m not sure we should be too surprised.  There’s an “experience gap” when it comes to the insurance market in Congress – the states have been responsible for regulating it for decades.  And if you are trying to take on a big, complicated subject without much experience at dealing with it, you should be expected to make some silly mistakes.  Which of course begs the question of what else has been overlooked, or what other important, unintended consequences lurk in the reform plans.

But the experience gap isn’t limited to Congress.

Ari Matusiak, a law student and founder of a reform advocacy group says that when it comes to coverage, students ought to just. . . eat cake. . . I mean, be covered under their parents’ health plans.  It’s why he he supports an effort by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to require that young people be allowed to stay covered under their parents’ plans until age 27.  According to Matusiak:

If there’s any provision that matters most to college students, it’s that one.  Most college students are covered by their parents’ plans and want to be covered under those plans since they come with little or no cost to them.

John Belushi couldn’t have said it any better.  Still, I suppose it’s reasonable to allow kids to stay on their parents’ plans past the age at which they stop being kids.  In fact, a large number of states already allow this.   But not all students are equal.

For example, consider a student from Massachusetts who goes to college in California.  If his parents are well-off and have a “Cadillac”-style PPO health plan, the coverage will work great in California.  Going to the doctor will be just like it is at home.  But what if they’re not so well-off ?  What if the student’s parents have a low-cost HMO plan?  The student seeking medical care in California is going to face big out-of-network co-pays and deductibles for every single doctor he sees.  He may even find that his care isn’t covered at all.  So much for “little or not cost.”

Now, you might say that this is an argument for a public option, and maybe it is.  Or maybe it’s an argument for limiting out-of-network costs for students.  Or, maybe, it’s an argument for making sure students have the choice of getting insurance like they’re get it now.  It’s probably an argument for any number of other possible reforms.

I don’t pretend to know the right answer, or even all the right questions.  In the rush to reform, though, our representatives in Congress seem to have decided it doesn’t matter that much.

Is it really a good way to reform our health care system?