Here's how Republicans should try for a bipartisan health plan

Back in 1997, House Speaker Newt Gingrich reached across the political aisle to create a bipartisan coalition with President Clinton to address the budget and Medicare and Social Security reform. These efforts made a big and positive impression on the public psyche.

By contrast, the recent battles over health insurance reform have completely lacked any kind of consensus-building. First, Obamacare was forced through with only Democratic votes, and the Republican “repeal and replace” drive is following the same path.

On an issue as complex and central to our lives as health insurance, there should be bipartisan compromise. Here’s how Republican senators should attempt it.

First, the Republicans should offer to keep the popular Medicaid expansion, especially because 20 Republican senators represent the 31 states that have it. True, Medicaid is filled with waste and cumbersome paperwork. But rather than cut it, a better solution is to connect a basic scaled-down product with a built-in bridge to jobs programs and premium support for increased services.

Second, I would remove the section that defunds Planned Parenthood. This gesture would attract Democratic votes. Defunding Planned Parenthood may be part of the GOP platform, but it has nothing to do with the health care law and should be addressed separately if at all.

Third, a consensus over high-risk pools and catastrophic options could pave a path to true bipartisanship. Both sides are aware that comprehensive one-size-fits-all insurance has led to soaring premiums and deductibles and insurers dropping out. But the Democrats are concerned that separating out sicker, higher-risk patients could lead to soaring premiums they can’t afford. Under the proposed new law, a state requesting a waiver can use high-risk pools only for those whose coverage has lapsed. But the Kaiser Family Foundation has reported that these pools have always been underfunded. This needs to change. For patients with lapsing coverage, Republicans must offer sufficient subsidies to bring the premiums in the pools down to an affordable range.

Obamacare costs way more than it should: Column

POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media

Health care score is Republicans 1, Americans 0: Andy Slavitt

Fourth, the Democrats can show they are willing to compromise by agreeing to catastrophic options and a la carte insurance choices in states that take waivers to shrink essential benefits (for those with lapses in coverage). We are a compassionate society, and we need to make sure that everyone has access to basic labs and prescription drugs, maternity, and mental health and cancer prevention screening. But why put the entire burden for payment across the whole society when a small percentage use most of the care? It would be more efficient and less costly if the government picked up the tab directly for those who couldn’t otherwise afford it. No owner of an old Toyota wants to be compelled to buy the same elaborate collision insurance as the owner of a new Ferrari.

Fifth, there is agreement that we need a health care safety net for all, but there is disagreement on the best way to achieve it. Some Democrats, including Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, advocate for a single-payer system or Medicare for all, but the insurers are too entrenched and powerful in this country for this to ever happen. Obamacare has reduced the number of the uninsured by 20 million, including the Medicaid expansion, but hasn’t done enough to improve access to inexpensive effective health care. The Congressional Budget Office now predicts that 23 million will lose their insurance by 2026 if the House Republican health care bill is passed and the mandates removed. But the number would be less than half of that if the Medicaid expansion were kept and user-friendly catastrophic options added. There is also another safety net for the uninsured. The National Health Service Corps of physicians serves 11 million people, and federally funded clinics provide care for 22 million, mostly in rural areas. These need to be expanded to inner cities.

Finally, both Republicans and Democrats need to recognize that we doctors are drowning in electronic record-keeping, defensive medicine bred of fear of liability, and excess time spent fighting with insurers for approvals and payments on behalf of our patients and ourselves. There are too few of us seeing too many patients for too little money. The insurance model isn’t designed to cover the personalized solutions of our high-tech future, yet we doctors are responsible for making sure our patients receive the best care possible. To relieve our burden we need tort reform; universal insurance forms, approvals and procedures; and more price transparency and payment up front through health savings accounts. We need more medical school graduates and more nurse practitioners.

Any new bipartisan health care law should consider our struggles and help us.

Marc Siegel, a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors and a Fox News medical correspondent, is a clinical professor of medicine and medical director of Doctor Radio at NYU Langone Medical Center. Follow him on Twitter: @DrMarcSiegel

You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @USATOpinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter. To submit a letter, comment or column, check our submission guidelines.