Obama to Health Insurers: Stop Revealing How Expensive Our “Protections” Are
In the upside-down world of ObamaCare, politicians can force health-insurance companies to spend more yet blame them when premiums increase.
Today, President Obama extolled new “protections” included in the sweeping legislation he signed into law on March 23.
One category of “protections” requires consumers to purchase coverage for more and more expensive medical services (e.g., limitless coverage, requiring insurers to recognize ob-gyns as primary care physicians, coverage for “children” up to age 26). If consumers valued such “protections,” they would have already bought them — and if they’re not in a position to select their own coverage, Congress should have fixed that problem. Instead, Congress and President Obama forced consumers to buy them, and they are pushing health insurance premiums higher.
Another category of “protections” are actually just price controls. Beginning this fall, ObamaCare will force insurers to cover minors with expensive conditions and at the same time charge those families far less than the costs they impose on the insurer. Beginning in 2014, similar price controls will govern the entire market. Insurers will respond by avoiding, mistreating, and dumping sick people, because that’s what these price controls reward. Harvard health economist David Cutler, a sometime-advisor to President Obama, finds that health plans that provide quality care to the sick go out of business in the presence of those price controls. If you think insurers mistreat the sick now, just wait until ObamaCare takes hold. Along the way, ObamaCare’s price controls will increase premiums for young and healthy Americans.
Rather than take responsibility for its own law, the Obama administration is scapegoating insurance companies. According to The New York Times, “The White House is concerned that health insurers will blame the new law for increases in premiums that are intended to maximize profits rather than covering claims.” We’ve seen this before. Massachusetts enacted a nearly identical law, which also caused premiums to rise. State officials responded by imposing premium caps (more price controls!), which will force insurers to ration care. As Massachusetts’ Deputy Commission for Financial Analysis at the Massachusetts Division of Insurance put it, premium caps will be a “train wreck.”
Meanwhile, “The administration worries that escalating premiums will force more people drop their policies before the law is fully implemented,” writes the Associated Press. The administration is right to worry. ObamaCare is already increasing premiums, and in 2014, it will force insurers to cover you at standard rates even if you get sick, which creates an even bigger incentive to drop coverage.
Hmm…there’s gotta be someone the administration can blame for that, too.
Guns Save Lives, Part XXXIVXX
John Lee still has his life and four children still have a father because Mr. Lee had a handgun when three criminals tried to kill him and take his money.
When John Q. Citizen takes out a gun and the criminals flee, reporters don’t consider the incident “news” (at least when there are no injuries)–so guns are typically on the evening news when they are used by criminals. As a result of that skewed coverage, it is no wonder that many people have a negative view about firearms.
On June 17, Cato will be hosting a forum about guns, crime, and self-defense. Speakers include John Lott, Jeff Snyder, and Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign.
For related Cato scholarship, go here.
John Brennan on Countering Terrorism
Earlier today, I attended a lecture at CSIS by John Brennan, a leading counterterrorism and homeland security adviser to President Obama. His speech highlighted some of the key elements of the administration’s counterterrorism strategy, in advance of tomorrow’s release of the National Security Strategy (NSS).
I hope that many people will take the opportunity to read (.pdf) or listen to/watch Brennan’s speech, as opposed to merely reading what other people said that he said. Echoing key themes that Brennan put forward last year, also at CSIS, today’s talk reflected a level of sophistication that is required when addressing the difficult but eminently manageable problem of terrorism.
Brennan was most eloquent in talking about the nature of the struggle. He declared, with emphasis, that the United States is indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates, but not at war with the tactic of terrorism, nor with Islam, a misconception that is widely held both here in the United States and within the Muslim world. He stressed the positive role that Muslim clerics and other leaders within the Muslim community have played in criticizing the misuse of religion to advance a hateful ideology, and he lamented that such condemnations of bin Laden and others have not received enough exposure in the Western media. This inadequate coverage of the debate raging within the Muslim community contributes to the mistaken impression that this is chiefly a religious conflict. It isn’t; or, more accurately, it need not be, unless we make it so.
AP: Obama Misleads Voters about ObamaCare’s Effects on Premiums
Buyers, beware: President Barack Obama says his health care overhaul will lower premiums by double digits, but check the fine print…
The [Congressional Budget Office] concluded that premiums for people buying their own coverage would go up by an average of 10 percent to 13 percent, compared with the levels they’d reach without the legislation…
“People are likely to not buy the same low-value policies they are buying now,” said health economist Len Nichols of George Mason University. “If they did buy the same value plans … the premium would be lower than it is now. This makes the White House statement true. But is it possibly misleading for some people? Sure.”
Nichols’ comments are also misleading — which makes the president’s statement not just misleading but untrue.
Under ObamaCare, people would not have the option to buy the same low-cost plans they do today. That’s the whole problem: under an individual mandate, everybody must purchase the minimum level of coverage specified by the government. That minimum benefits package would be more expensive than the coverage chosen by most people in the individual market. Their premiums would rise because ObamaCare would take away their right to choose a more economical policy.
Note also that the CBO predicts premiums would rise by an average of 10-13 percent in the individual market. Consumers who currently purchase the most economic policies would see larger premium increases.
Finally, the Obama plan would also force millions of uninsured Americans to purchase health insurance at premiums higher than current-law premium levels, which they have already rejected as being too high. Their premium expenditures would rise from $0 to thousands of dollars. Yet the CBO counts that implicit tax as reducing average premiums, because those consumers are generally healthier-than-average. Only in Washington is a tax counted as a savings.
What Is ‘Meaningful’ Health Insurance? Who Decides?’
Noting that premium increases, such as Anthem’s proposed 39-percent hike in California, have caused individuals and employers to purchase less coverage, Kaiser Family Foundation president Drew Altman writes:
Rising health care costs and insurance company practices are leading not just to more expensive premiums, but to skimpier, less comprehensive coverage as well; slowly redefining what we have known as health insurance. To be sure, some economists argue that this is precisely what should happen…But this is not likely how regular people see it. Appropriate cost sharing is one thing, but we may be reaching the point in the individual market where the policies many people have simply cannot be considered meaningful coverage.
Of course, this is the whole idea behind President Obama’s proposed tax on high-cost health plans: higher prices will cause people to purchase less coverage, which will temper health care spending.
But whether Altman is correct depends on what the meaning of “meaningful” is. When individuals pare back the amount of insurance they purchase, they are revealing what they consider to be meaningful coverage. (The same is true when employers opt for less-comprehensive coverage, though employers’ revealed preferences are obviously a poor proxy for what their workers value.)
If Altman thinks the coverage that individuals are choosing “cannot be considered meaningful coverage” (note the passive voice), he is implicitly stating that individuals are not the best judges of their own welfare. And the only way to devise an alternative definition of meaningful coverage is through the political process.
It is difficult to argue that the political process does a better job of selecting meaningful coverage. That process forces many consumers to purchase coverage that they don’t find meaningful (e.g., chiropractic, acupuncture, circumcision), that they find offensive (e.g., abortion, contraception, in-vitro fertilization), or for treatments that are downright harmful (e.g., high-dose chemotherapy combined with autologous bone-marrow transplant for late-stage breast cancer).
Letting consumers reveal their preferences is possibly the worst way to define “meaningful coverage.” Except for all the others.
Obama’s Other Massachusetts Problem
Even if Democrat Martha Coakley wins 50 percent of the vote in the race to fill the late Sen. Ted Kennedy’s (ahem) term, there are other numbers emanating from Massachusetts that present a problem for President Obama’s health plan.
On Wednesday, the Cato Institute will release “The Massachusetts Health Plan: Much Pain, Little Gain,” authored by Cato adjunct scholar Aaron Yelowitz and yours truly. Our study evaluates Massachusetts’ 2006 health law, which bears a “remarkable resemblance” to the president’s plan. We use the same methodology as previous work by the Urban Institute, but ours is the first study to evaluate the effects of the Massachusetts law using Current Population Survey data for 2008 (i.e., from the 2009 March supplement). Since I’m sure that supporters of the Massachusetts law and the Obama plan will dismiss anything from Cato as ideologically motivated hackery: Yelowitz’s empirical work is frequently cited by the Congressional Budget Office, and includes one article co-authored with MIT health economist (and Obama administration consultant) Jonathan Gruber, under whom Yelowitz studied.
Among our findings:
- Official estimates overstate the coverage gains under the Massachusetts law by roughly 50 percent.
- The actual coverage gains may be lower still, because uninsured Massachusetts residents appear to be concealing their lack of insurance rather than admit to breaking the law.
- Public programs crowded out private insurance among low-income children and adults.
- Self-reported health improved for some, but fell for others.
- Young adults appear to be avoiding Massachusetts as a result of the law.
- Leading estimates understate the cost of the Massachusetts law by at least one third.
When Obama campaigns for Martha Coakley, he is really campaigning for his health plan, which means he is really campaigning for the Massachusetts health plan.
He and Coakley should explain why they’re pursuing a health plan that’s not only increasingly unpopular, but also appears to have a rather high cost-benefit ratio.
(Cross-posted at Politico‘s Health Care Arena.)
Dear Poor People: Please Remain Poor. Sincerely, ObamaCare
In a new study titled, “Obama’s Prescription for Low-Wage Workers: High Implicit Taxes, Higher Premiums,” I show that the House and Senate health care bills would impose implicit tax rates on low-wage workers that exceed 100 percent. Here’s the executive summary:
House and Senate Democrats have produced health care legislation whose mandates, subsidies, tax penalties, and health insurance regulations would penalize work and reward Americans who refuse to purchase health insurance. As a result, the legislation could trap many Americans in low-wage jobs and cause even higher health-insurance premiums, government spending, and taxes than are envisioned in the legislation.
Those mandates and subsidies would impose effective marginal tax rates on low-wage workers that would average between 53 and 74 percent— and even reach as high as 82 percent—over broad ranges of earned income. By comparison, the wealthiest Americans would face tax rates no higher than 47.9 percent.
Over smaller ranges of earned income, the legislation would impose effective marginal tax rates that exceed 100 percent. Families of four would see effective marginal tax rates as high as 174 percent under the Senate bill and 159 percent under the House bill. Under the Senate bill, adults starting at $14,560 who earn an additional $560 would see their total income fall by $200 due to higher taxes and reduced subsidies. Under the House bill, families of four starting at $43,670 who earn an additional $1,100 would see their total income fall by $870.
In addition, middle-income workers could save as much as $8,000 per year by dropping coverage and purchasing health insurance only when sick. Indeed, the legislation effectively removes any penalty on such behavior by forcing insurers to sell health insurance to the uninsured at standard premiums when they fall ill. The legislation would thus encourage “adverse selection”—an unstable situation that would drive insurance premiums, government spending, and taxes even higher.
See also my Kaiser Health News oped, “Individual Mandate Would Impose High Implicit Taxes on Low-Wage Workers.”
And be sure to pre-register for our January 28 policy forum, “ObamaCare’s High Implicit Tax Rates for Low-Wage Workers,” where the Urban Institute’s Gene Steuerle and I will discuss these obnoxious implicit tax rates.
(Cross-posted at Politico‘s Health Care Arena.)
FEHBP Plan Is No ‘Moderate Compromise’
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has announced that he has reached a super secret compromise on how to deal with the so-called public option for health reform. While Reid said the agreement was too important to actually tell anyone what is in it, most of the details have been leaked to the press.
Rather than set-up a completely government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurance, Congress would establish a program similar to the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program (FEHBP), which currently covers government workers, including Members of Congress. The FEHBP offers a variety of private insurance plans under a program managed by the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Each year OPM uses the Federal procurement process to solicit bids from insurance companies to be one of the plans offered. Premiums can vary, but participating plans operate under stringent rules. As a model, the FEHBP is apparently acceptable to moderate Democrats because the insurance plans are private rather than government entities, while liberals like it because it is government regulated and managed.
In addition, the compromise plan would expand Medicare, allowing workers ages 55 to 65 to “buy in” to the program, and may also expand Medicaid.
A few reasons to believe this is yet another truly bad idea:
- In choosing the FEHBP for a model, Democrats have actually chosen an insurance plan whose costs are rising faster than average. FEHBP premiums are expected to rise 7.9 percent this year and 8.8 percent in 2010. By comparison, the Congressional Budget Office predicts that on average, premiums will increase by 5.5 to 6.2 percent annually over the next few years. In fact, FEHBP premiums are rising so fast that nearly 100,000 federal employees have opted out of the program.
- FEHBP members are also finding their choices cut back. Next year, 32 insurance plans will either drop out of the program or reduce their participation. Some 61,000 workers will lose their current coverage.
- But former OPM director Linda Springer doubts that the agency has the “capacity, the staff, or the mission,” to be able to manage the new program. Taking on management of the new program could overburden OPM. “Ultimate, it would break the system.”
- Medicare is currently $50-100 trillion in debt, depending on which accounting measure you use. Allowing younger workers to join the program is the equivalent of crowding a few more passengers onto the Titanic.
- At the same time, Medicare under reimburses physicians, especially in rural areas. Expanding Medicare enrollment will both threaten the continued viability of rural hospitals and other providers, and also result in increased cost-shifting, driving up premiums for private insurance.
- Medicaid is equally a budget-buster. The program now costs more than $330 billion per year, a cost that grew at a rate of roughly 10.7 percent annually. The program spends money by the bushel, yet under-reimburses providers even worse than Medicare.
- Ultimately this so-called compromise would expand government health care programs and further squeeze private insurance, resulting in increased costs and higher insurance premiums, and provide a lower-quality of care.
No wonder Senator Reid wants to keep it a secret.
New Trial For Cory Maye
Great news – for a change! A Mississippi court has ordered a new trial for Cory Maye.
When Cato author Radley Balko was preparing his report on violent, no-knock, drug raids, he discovered the case of Cory Maye, who was then on death row for murdering a police officer. On closer inspection, Radley thought the shooting looked like self-defense, not murder. At Maye’s initial trial, he had lousy legal representation. Thanks to Radley’s writings about the case, Maye secured top notch lawyers for his appeal. With a new trial, Maye now stands a very good chance of getting out of prison altogether. Congratulations to Radley Balko!
Previous coverage here.
ObamaCare’s ‘Sweetheart Deal’ for PhRMA
The New Republic‘s Jonathan Cohn reports that back in March, IMS Health projected slightly negative revenue growth for the pharmaceutical industry but recently changed that projection to 3.5-percent annual growth from 2008 through 2013.
“What changed?” Cohn asks. “A major factor, according to IMS, was the emerging details of health care reform . . . Put it all together, and you have more demand for name-brand drugs . . . enough to boost revenue significantly.” And:
“If this bill is implemented,” the report concludes on page 138, “an increase in prices on new drugs can be expected.”
How could this be happening? Oh yeah:
That brings us back to the deal that the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America, which represents those companies, made with the White House and Senate Finance Committee . . .
The industry agreed to embrace health care reform and, later on, launched a massive advertising campaign to promote the cause. In exchange, the White House and Senate Finance–which had been asking various industries to pledge concessions that would help pay for the cost of coverage expansions–promised not to seek more than $80 in reduced payments to drug makers.
To an industry as big and profitable as the drug makers, giving up $80 billion over ten years wouldn’t seem like much of a sacrifice–a point critics started making right away. But if IMS is right, the drug industry wouldn’t even be giving up $80 billion, in any meaningful sense of the term. If anything, it’d be making more money. Maybe quite a lot of it.
Which is what I predicted, both here and here.
Cohn concludes, “the drug industry has enormous leverage in Congress.” But Cohn still supports the president’s health care takeover. Or is it PhRMA’s health care takeover?
Abortion Funding and Health Care
President Obama’s approach to health care reform — forcing taxpayers to subsidize health insurance for tens of millions of Americans — cannot not change the status quo on abortion.
Either those taxpayer dollars will fund abortions, or the restrictions necessary to prevent taxpayer funding will curtail access to private abortion coverage. There is no middle ground.
Thus both sides’ fears are justified. Both sides of the abortion debate are learning why government should not subsidize health care. Tip of the hat to President Obama for creating this teachable moment.
Meanwhile, Catholics should be outraged at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (to which my grandfather served as counsel). Yes, the USCCB helped prevent taxpayer funding of abortions in the House bill. But at the same time, those naughty bishops have abandoned the Church’s doctrine of subsidiarity by endorsing the rest of the Democrats’ plan to centralize power in Washington.
As it happens, Caesar is the main source of funding for Catholic hospitals. That may explain why the bishops are so eager to render unto, ahem, Him.
Cross-posted at Politico’s Health Care Arena.
The Pelosi Bill’s High Water Mark
Democrats are having difficulty corralling 218 votes for the Pelosi bill because Americans do not want government to be as big and as powerful as the House leadership does. Pro-life Democrats do not want a government so big that it can force taxpayers to fund abortions. Pro-choice Democrats do not want a government so big that it uses subsidies to restrict access to abortion coverage. Other Democrats don’t want a government so big that it turns the United States into a welfare magnet.
The American people don’t want the Democrats’ approach to health care generally. The more time the public has to digest ObamaCare, the more they dislike it:
And the Pelosi bill is the most expensive and extreme version of ObamaCare. Opposition will climb higher when the public learns the bill costs some $1.5 trillion more than Democrats claim.
Even a majority vote would not necessarily indicate majority support for the Pelosi bill. Rep. Jim Cooper (TN) and other Democrats are voting aye only because they want to keep the process moving – i.e., because this isn’t the vote that counts.
Win or lose, tonight’s vote will be the high water mark for the Pelosi bill.
(Cross-posted at Politico‘s Health Care Arena.)
Cato on Facebook
Cato on Twitter
Cato on Google+
Cato on YouTube
