A legislative committee has ruled favorably on a Medicare for All bill for the first time in the measure’s 30-year history in Massachusetts, marking a major milestone for the state’s single-payer healthcare movement.
About a week before the legislative session ended on Friday, the Joint Committee on Health Care Financing advanced a redrafted version of H.5590, which would establish Medicare for All in the state. The updated version calls for the creation of a commission to investigate the models, financing systems and equitable implementation of single-payer healthcare.
State Rep. Lindsay Sabadosa, D-Northampton, one of the bill’s lead sponsors in the House, said the commission’s work would answer resident and lawmaker concerns that hinder support for universal healthcare.
“We really want to be part of this conversation that is happening nationally,” Sabadosa said. “So we really aligned our efforts to what other states are doing nationally so that all of us are rowing in the same direction.”
Under the legislation, the special commission will research different single-payer healthcare models, the costs of each model and the possibility of establishing these models in Massachusetts.
“Sound policy begins with sound evidence,” Rep. John Lawn, D-Watertown, House chair of the Joint Committee on Health Care Financing, said in a statement. “Before making consequential decisions about our healthcare system, we owe it to patients, providers and taxpayers to ground those decisions in careful analysis and reliable facts.”
Based on these findings, the commission will recommend the best ways to create and fund a universal or single-payer healthcare system. Any proposals must ensure all people, regardless of age, identity, financial status, disability or previous health history, have access to healthcare, according to the legislation.
The redrafted bill is far different from the one proposed by the Massachusetts Campaign for Single Payer Health Care, known as Mass-Care, according to David Cohen, chair of the coalition. Originally, the legislation outlined a full-scale single-payer healthcare system that he said could save Massachusetts $26 billion in healthcare costs while providing coverage for all residents.
Instead, lawmakers looked at universal healthcare legislation in other states that had gained momentum, much of it focused on studies of single-payer healthcare systems. After digging through thousands of documents, the committee ended up with a bill similar to legislation in Oregon, Sabadosa said.
“It was a very slow and methodical process to get where we are, but it really was the result of lots of people coming together to figure out how we could get this out of committee,” Sabadosa said.
Cohen is celebrating because he said this is the first time legislators have acted on any bill regarding single-payer healthcare in the three decades it’s been proposed. But he is also aware that people across the state need major healthcare reform as soon as possible.
“I’m not sure that people can wait two years for a study to be done, and another several years to see the outcome of the study,” he said.
Individual communities in Massachusetts have also weighed in to support a single-payer healthcare system. At least 23 municipal councils across the state, including Greenfield, have all passed resolutions in support of the measure.
In addition to broad community support, establishing a single-payer healthcare system is popular on the individual level, even in traditionally conservative districts.
In 2024, Mass-Care ran a nonbinding public policy question in 11 districts. The measure won in all 11 districts, with an average “Yes” vote of 64%. In two of the districts — the 3rd Hampden and 4th Hampden — Medicare for All won even as the districts voted for Donald Trump for president, Mass-Care notes.
Despite the bill advancing, the measure was not expected to advance out of the House Committee on Ways and Means before Friday’s end of the legislative session. This sends the document back to the beginning of the political process, though Sabadosa said a favorable ruling can push the bill over hurdles next year.
