Gov. Deval Patrick wants Massachusetts to crack the code on health care costs, a punchy slogan he uses when hes promoting nationally the Bay States cost-containment efforts. But transforming his ambition into policy has produced some messy sausage-making in his state Legislature.

Key stakeholders arent sure whether the springtime rush to craft a state approach to health care costs will create a national model much the way Massachusettss 2006 coverage expansion signed by Gov. Mitt Romney helped create a framework for President Barack Obamas 2010 national health law. In fact, some are wondering whether the cost-savings effort will even work in Massachusetts.

That remains to be seen. Hopefully, the final product is reasonable and we can all adjust, said Richard Aghababian, president of the Massachusetts Medical Society.

Hospitals, doctors and insurers have ferociously lobbied to protect their industries, and lawmakers crafting the bill are feeling the effects of the tug of war.

One thing we have learned so far is that its a lot more complicated than just expanding access to health coverage, said Sen. Richard Moore, a Democrat who helped negotiate the contours of the 2006 law signed by then-Gov. Mitt Romney and is now helping shape the second stage of Massachusetts reform.

Lawmakers in both the Massachusetts House and Senate say their plans could save $150 billion over the next 15 years, slowing health care cost growth to a speed that matches or even trails the states economic growth rate. To achieve this, the proposals nudge the health care industry to embrace new payment models, de-emphasizing the current fee-for-service system that rewards doctors for the volume of services they provide.

But deep fissures have developed. Unlike the Senate, for example, the House would slap a luxury tax on hospitals that command higher reimbursement rates and use the money to boost providers that are underpaid. The House bill also sets a more aggressive cost-control target and forces hospitals to negotiate individually rather than in groups to set reimbursement levels with insurers.

Patrick, an Obama campaign surrogate, has argued that solving soaring health costs in Massachusetts could vindicate the national health law. Romney, on the other hand, has taken flak from conservatives for fathering Massachusettss health care law particularly its individual mandate. And while he has vowed to repeal the federal health law, hes defended the state reform, arguing that its popular and hasnt added much to the states fiscal burden. A successful cost-control effort could lend credence to those claims.

But that doesnt solve the question of whether the effort will be successful.

Continued here:

Bogged down by health care in Mass.