The recent contributions by nurses from around the country to support a detailed analysis of a single-payer health care system in Maine do more than just help pay for a study. They are evidence of the widespread frustration over the current state of health care and they suggest that many people believe Maine is onto something.

Nurses’ associations in Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania and California contributed more than $27,000 toward a study directed by the Maine Legislature last year to study the feasibility of a single-payer system for this state. Such a study, according to the lead lawmaker on the issue, Rep. Paul Volenik, would cost between $40,000 and $200,000, depending on the range and detail of the study and such extras as software that would allow policymakers to examine the effects of different utilization and funding models. The group studying the issue, the Maine Health Security Board, now has about $35,000 with the nurses’ donation; it has applied for a grant o f up to $200,000 from the Health Access Foundation, which was established with proceeds from the sale of Blue Cross.

Rep. Volenik has properly stressed that the board is not looking for general statistics about the benefits and costs of a single-payer system, but a specific analysis of Maine: what will likely work here, what won’t and how much various plans would cost. Members of the board are far from reaching consensus on a specific plan, he said. But that’s how it should be: Get the data, compare it with the $5 billion health care system Maine now has, make a recommendation and expect the Legislature to act.

The referendum in Portland last year over this issue – in which opponents substantially outspent supporters but support for universal health care won anyway in a nonbinding vote – is further evidence of the importance of this analysis being as detailed as possible. The cost of health care for those with coverage and the health and financial problems created for those without coverage makes the current system unsupportable long-term. The Portland vote says many people are willing to risk what they have to get something better. That should have told everyone in the current system that the public doesn’t think highly of what it has.

A thorough, neutral analysis of Maine’s health-care situation will be useful no matter what results it finds for a single-payer system. Though not all the money for a major study is yet available – Rep. Volenik suggests that flexibility on the part of those bidding on the study will be an important attribute – getting this work done is well worth Maine’s time. No one should expect a free or cheap system to come out of this, but, like the Portland voters, it is fair to expect something better than what exists now.