Print edition: 
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recently announced $46 million in grants to states to develop consumer-friendly regulatory systems for curbing escalating health insurance premiums. That reminded me of the old Abbott and Costello routine called "Who's on First?" about the frustrating and hilarious attempts of two people to communicate — except this story isn't funny.
Didn't Congress just pass a massive health care reform bill that was supposed to make health care more accessible and affordable? Has government grown to the point that some people inside HHS aren't aware they (theoretically) solved these problems? Or are the feds just spending more of your money because they have it to spend?
The state of Kansas received a $1 million grant from the program. Application papers show that the Kansas Department of Insurance filed to request the money last June. State officials plan to spend $675,000 for information technology and actuarial services consultants to help design new systems, and another $130,000 to share insurance data with related data banks maintained by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners and the Kansas Health Policy Authority. The remainder of the money includes $90,000 earmarked for salary and other benefits for one additional full-time and one part-time employee and for additional equipment, supplies and travel expenses.
All kidding aside, not only did health care "reform" do nothing to bring down costs, most studies expect it to cause costs to rise. But we don't need to spend money on studies to identify consumer-friendly regulatory systems to control costs; we already know what to do:
* Permit the sale of catastrophic-only coverage (the new "reform" permits it for those under age 30; everyone should have the same opportunity).
* Promote and expand health savings accounts, including for new Medicaid recipients.
* Implement tort reform to reduce unnecessary (defensive) procedures, reduce malpractice insurance premiums and encourage specialists to see more patients.
* Limit insurance mandates and repeal excessive mandates already existing in the state to permit low-cost alternatives.
* Remove restrictions on small group plans so more employers can afford to offer coverage.
These are just examples of what could be done. Some already have been proposed in the Kansas Legislature, but didn't pass. The problem isn't coming up with ideas, it's getting them past special interests that prefer the status quo.
Until enough elected officials choose consumer interests over corporate and government interests, it seems we're destined to follow the same process: spend money to study how to save money, identify solutions, reject solutions, rinse and repeat. It almost sounds like a stand-up routine, except it isn't funny.
