And her answer is "no" in her column this morning at The Daily. She notes:
Liberal pundits are thrilled by a recent (non-peer-reviewed) blog post claiming that Romneycare — the universal coverage program that Mitt Romney enacted in Massachusetts in 2006 — has put a lid on skyrocketing health care costs. But they shouldn't pop the cork yet: The evidence shows neither that the declining costs will last nor that they are the result of the program… [They] could claim success if the premium declines actually stemmed from the logic of universal care — that is, from savings generated through more preventive and timely care and less emergency use. And there is evidence of fewer emergency visits. But is that the cause of the declining premiums? No.
Read the whole thing here.
Comments