Washington Post Misrepresents Individual Mandates
Here’s a poor, unsuccessful letter to the editor I sent to The Washington Post:
“Like Car Insurance, Health Coverage May Be Mandated” [July 22, page A1] paints a misleading picture of proposals to require Americans to purchase health insurance – i.e., an “individual mandate.”
First, the article lacks balance. It cites three politicians who support an individual mandate but none who oppose it, a group that includes a majority of Republicans. The article claims an individual mandate “has its roots in the conservative philosophy of self-reliance,” even though most conservatives, including the movement’s flagship magazine National Review, oppose the idea. The closest the article comes to offering an opposing perspective is one conservative who has supported an individual mandate in the past and may yet again, just not yet.
Second, the article makes the demonstrably inaccurate claims that an individual mandate “lowers overall costs” and “help[s] keep premiums down” by adding more young and healthy people to the insurance market. Forcing healthy people to purchase insurance does not affect premiums for sicker purchasers, because insurers set premiums according to each purchaser’s health risk. The article confuses a mandate with price controls, which force low risks to pay more so that high risks can pay less.
Finally, if an individual mandate reduced overall costs, then health care spending would be falling in Massachusetts, which enacted the nation’s only individual mandate in 2006. Instead, overall health spending is rising, and the rate of growth has accelerated under the mandate. Rising health spending implies rising health insurance premiums, which has also been the Massachusetts experience.
Health Care Priorities
As Washington debates a big increase in federal health care spending, I came across these two articles on what a splendid job the government is doing managing its current health programs.
Harvard professor Malcolm Sparrow recently testified that roughly $100 billion or more of Medicare and Medicaid dollars go down the drain each year due to fraud. It’s easy to rip these programs off because of their vast size and electronic claims processing. Medicare processes more than 1 billion of claims each year.
This Washington Post article last year described one particular example of the fraud. A high-school drop-out managed to bilk Medicare out of $105 million by submitting a 140,000 false claims from her laptop computer.
So we’ve got $100 billion or so of taxpayer’s hard-earned money being stolen each year from our current public health care plans. You would think that with today’s giant budget deficit that the highest priority of policymakers would be to reform these programs to reduce the unbelievable and disgusting amounts of graft. But no, many in Congress and President Obama have decided that current government health care works so well that they want to expand it.
President Obama wants to create a new “public health option” to “keep insurance companies honest.” Hey Mr. President, you should do something about the $100 billion of dishonesty in current public health plans, instead of hitting up taxpayers to fund an even more bloated health care budget.
“Why Health Care Reform Could Fail Again”
Former Clinton administration adviser Stanley Greenberg has an illuminating article in The New Republic. Greenberg compared the polls he did during the Clinton health care debate to his recent polling on President Obama’s proposed reforms:
Perhaps I should know better than to have sensed any profound changes in the country. And, when I got the results for the new survey, I looked at each question warily, remembering how it all went badly wrong. As I reached the last of the questions, I exclaimed: “Oh no. It can’t be. Nothing’s changed.”…
The country divides evenly on whether the greater risk is an unchanged status quo or government reforms that “create new problems.” And, finally, Obama might want to pay attention to how closely his situation echoes Clinton’s. Then and now, more people favor the president’s health care plan than oppose it, but the supporters make up less than a majority.
If anything, I found on most of these questions that the desire for change and support for reform was slightly stronger 16 years ago, underscoring the importance of learning some lessons from that history…
Our inability to talk credibly about how we would reduce health care spending or costs for individuals and the country built a contradiction into all our efforts–the more we talked about the comprehensiveness of our plans, the more voters worried this would yield higher premiums or higher taxes. Very quickly, voters came to conclude that their families would face higher costs.
And those dynamics are still in play. In my recent polling, I found that voters are skeptical about claims that reform will reduce costs and personal health outlays. Claims about simplicity, information-technology modernization, and best practices don’t seem to be enough to persuade them otherwise…
It may surprise you that Obama has already lost seniors, according to our current survey–only one-third approve of his plan. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see there isn’t much in it for them. There is already talk of carving out major savings from Medicare and, unlike during Clinton’s battle, no offer of a new drug benefit. Clearly, they need to see health care gains for themselves too…
With few illusions about the old system, union households are strong supporters of Obama’s proposal. Yet the members will ultimately judge whether the plan is good for their families–and I’m certain that all the talk about taxing insurance contributions has not gone unnoticed…
[W]hile voters have great confidence in Obama and his administration, they are worried about the deficits and spending and the government bailouts of the irresponsible. So, while voters want to see a rebalancing away from greed and toward the public good, almost half the citizenry is worried the government may get it wrong.Ross Perot is a distant memory, but his more libertarian, blue-collar male voters are very much alive. They are pretty certain government will mess this up–and only about 30 percent support Obama’s health care plan right now. With Republicans reciting their mantra about no “government takeover” of health care, the plan’s opponents have found a common text…
Most are not at all satisfied with a system that has forced them to trade higher wages for continued health insurance coverage and other compromises. But those personal compromises to get satisfactory coverage will mean people can live a little longer with the status quo and want to make sure the proposed changes really will make things better for their families.
Those who support real health care reform should take note.
Week in Review: Health Care Battles, Pay Caps and North Korean Prisoners
Will Obama Raise Middle-Class Taxes to Fund Health Care?
President Obama is promoting an expansion in federal health care spending, and Democratic leaders are scrambling to find ways to pay for it. The plan is expected to cost about $1.5 trillion over the next decade, but the administration has promised that health care legislation won’t add to already huge federal budget deficits. In a new paper, Cato scholars Michael D. Tanner and Chris Edwards argue that expanding government health care will likely involve huge tax increases on the middle class.
Tanner warns of “Obamacare” to come, saying that Obama’s new health care plan will give “government control over one-sixth of the U.S. economy, and over some of the most important, personal, and private decisions in Americans’ lives.” Don’t miss Tanner’s in-depth analysis of the new health care plan that is making its way through Congress, which “would dramatically transform the American health care system in a way that would harm taxpayers, health care providers, and — most importantly — the quality and range of care given to patients.”
A part of the plan would include “public option” (read: government-run) health care, which would allow the government to compete against private health care providers. Tanner says it would be the first step toward wiping out the private insurance market as we know it:
Regardless of how it is structured or administered, such a plan would have an inherent advantage in the marketplace because it would ultimately be subsidized by taxpayers. It could, for instance, keep its premiums artificially low or offer extra benefits, then turn to the U.S. Treasury to cover any shortfalls. Consumers would naturally be attracted to the lower-cost, higher-benefit government program.
…It is unlikely that any significant private insurance market could continue to exist under such circumstances. America would be firmly on the road to a single-payer health care system with all the dangers that presents. That would be a disaster for American taxpayers, physicians, and—most importantly—patients.
Treasury Seeks to Control Executive Pay Across the Private Sector
Fox Business reports, “The Treasury Department on Wednesday took new steps to rein in executive compensation, saying the Obama Administration would introduce legislation that could create stricter limits on pay; it also appointed an official to head up efforts on the issue.”
In a 2008 Policy Analysis Ira T. Kay and Steven Van Putten explain the misconceptions many people have about executive pay, and why the market is a better arbiter than any bureaucrat in Washington:
Such populist sentiments are often based on misunderstandings about the role of corporate executives in the economy and the vigorous competition that exists for these highly skilled leaders. In the past, federal regulatory efforts based on such misunderstandings have generated unintended consequences, which have damaged the economy and hurt the ability of the market for executives to self-regulate over time.
The labor market for executives and the associated pay levels are already subject to high levels of regulation. Indeed, U.S. corporations are subject to more stringent executive pay disclosure requirements than corporations anywhere else in the world. Before additional regulatory and legislative efforts are unleashed, policymakers should examine the rationale for current pay structures and the strong links between executive pay and corporate performance.
In a Washington Times op-ed, Alan Reynolds says efforts to cap executive pay are wholly misguided:
Congressional hearings to barbecue Wall Street executives are as fun as a circus, but with more clowns. Presidential politics is now taking such political distractions to a lower level.
…Most top executives who were actually in charge during the craze of overinvestment in mortgage-backed securities have been fired. Executives who are fired are not in a position to be “giving themselves” anything.
In reality, top executives are mainly paid by accumulating a big stockpile of company stock and stock options. Estimates of annual CEO pay that Congress and the press have been focusing on look as high as they do only because of the high value of restricted stock or stock options at the time.
Writing in 2007 (before the first round of major bailouts), Cato scholars Jerry Taylor and Jagadeesh Gokhale took it a step further: “Pay Bosses More!”:
Excessive executive compensation harms no one but perhaps the stockholders who put up with it. And stockholders put up with it because there’s good reason to believe that sizable CEO compensation packages help — not harm — corporate performance, which redounds to their benefit, and that of the firms’ workers.
Companies pay workers what they must to deliver their products and services to the market, and supply and demand establishes executive compensation packages the same way it establishes consumer prices. Any overcompensation comes out of the firm’s bottom line — at a loss to the shareholders, not the workers.
North Korea Sentences Two U.S. Journalists to 12 Years Hard Labor
Two American journalists were convicted of entering North Korea illegally while on assignment, and exhibiting “hostility toward the Korean people.” This week, a North Korean court sentenced them to 12 years in a labor prison.
Cato scholar Doug Bandow comments:
Washington should publicly downplay the controversy and present the issue to the Kim regime as a humanitarian matter. The Obama administration should indicate its willingness to open a broader dialogue with North Korea, but indicate that positive results will be possible only if Pyongyang responds with cooperation instead of confrontation. Releasing the two journalists obviously would provide evidence of the former.
Regrettably, Laura Ling and Euna Lee are political pawns. As such, Washington’s best strategy to achieve their release is to simultaneously reduce their perceived value to Pyongyang and ease tensions between the U.S. and North Korea. Patience may be the Obama administration’s highest virtue and Ling’s and Lee’s greatest hope.
In a Cato Daily Podcast, Bandow discusses what can be done for the American prisoners, and how the U.S. government should react.
The Economic Case for Health Care Reform
There’s an old Yiddish saying that, “If my bubba had wheels she’d be a trolley.” So goes the logic of the Obama administration in their paper released yesterday, “The Economic Case for Health Care Reform.” Their claim is that reducing health care costs would help the economy. Yes, if health care costs were reduced it would likely help the economy, though we should remember that the health care industry is part of the economy.
There is nothing in Obamacare, however, that will reduce costs. In fact, expanding coverage may cause costs to rise. One study by MIT’s Amy Finkelstein suggests that the prevalence of insurance itself has roughly doubled the cost of health care. So, if Obama succeeds in expanding insurance coverage, it’s very likely to increase the cost of care.
Take Massachusetts for example. Three years ago, Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney signed into law one of the most far-reaching experiments in health care reform since President Bill Clinton’s ill-fated attempt at national health care. Proponents promised the reforms would reduce health care costs, suggesting the price of individual insurance policies would be reduced by 25-40 percent. In reality, however, insurance premiums rose by 7.4 percent in 2007, 8-12 percent in 2008, and are expected to rise 9 percent this year. This is compared to a nationwide average increase of 5.7 percent over the same three years. Nationally, on average, health insurance for a family of four costs $12,700; in Massachusetts, coverage for the same family costs an average of $16,897.
In fact, since the bill was signed, health care spending in the state has increased by 23 percent. Thus, despite individual and employer mandates, the creation of an insurance connector and other measures that increase insurance regulations, Massachusetts has failed to bring costs down.
President Obama and Congressional leaders have endorsed expanding coverage in similar ways to Massachusetts. The proposals would undoubtedly make it easier for some people to get coverage, but would also raise insurance costs for the young and healthy, making it more likely they would go without coverage. This leaves two choices: revert to the individual mandate (President Obama opposed the mandate as a candidate) or increase subsidies to try to cut costs to young and healthy individuals, thereby adding to the already substantial cost of the proposed plans.
Ultimately, controlling costs requires someone to say “no,” whether the government (as in single-payer systems with global budgets), insurers (managed care) or health care consumers themselves (by desire or ability to pay). In reality, any health care reform will have to confront the fact that the biggest single reason costs keep rising is that the American people keep buying more and more health care.
Church of Universal Coverage Begins Its Campaign against that Pesky CBO
Last Monday, when lobbyists for the six biggest health care industry groups joined President Obama to announce their support for reducing health care spending by $2 trillion over 10 years, I penned and voiced my suspicion that the real motivation was to pressure the Congressional Budget Office to assume that Democrats’ health care reforms would reduce spending, despite the lack of evidence. My wife said that hypothesis sounded a little . . . conspiratorial.
Last Thursday, when it was revealed that there was no actual agreement and that the White House basically manipulated the industry to get a week’s worth of good health care press, I started to doubt whether strong-arming the CBO was really the goal of that media stunt. Then Jonathan Cohn set me straight.
In an article for The New Republic aptly titled, “Numbers Racket,” Cohn acknowledges that the biggest problem facing Democrats is that the $2 trillion cost of universal coverage has to come from somewhere. Cohn, like many Democrats, complains that the “curmudgeonly” CBO isn’t letting reformers off the hook by assuming that universal coverage will (partly) pay for itself. Cohn also acknowledges that pressuring the CBO was a likely purpose of last week’s media stunt:
The CBO took nearly the same positions back in 1994 — a fact not lost on either the White House or congressional leaders, who have communicated their concerns publicly and privately. One apparent purpose of bringing industry leaders to meet Obama this week was to showcase the potential for cutting costs; see, the administration seemed to be signaling, even the health care industry thinks it can save money by becoming more efficient.
Democrats have set their sights on legislation that would give government enormous power over Americans’ earnings and medical decisions. The main political obstacle to those reforms is their cost, thus Democrats are pressuring the CBO to pretend that those costs don’t exist. The CBO (and everybody else) should resist the Democrats’ effort to make truth yield to power.
Filed under: Health, Welfare & Entitlements; Tax and Budget Policy
How Does It Feel to Be at the Table Now?
On Monday, the Obama administration held a well-publicized love-fest with lobbyists for the health care industry. It turns out that rather than a “game-changer,” the event was a fraud. And the industry got burned.
At the time, President Obama called it a “a watershed event in the long and elusive quest for health care reform“:
Over the next 10 years — from 2010 to 2019 — [these industry lobbyists] are pledging to cut the rate of growth of national health care spending by 1.5 percentage points each year — an amount that’s equal to over $2 trillion.
By an amazing coincidence, $2 trillion is just enough to pay for Obama’s proposed government takeover of the health care sector.
Yet The New York Times reports that isn’t the magnitude of spending reductions the lobbyists thought they were supporting:
Hospitals and insurance companies said Thursday that President Obama had substantially overstated their promise earlier this week to reduce the growth of health spending… [C]onfusion swirled in Washington as the companies’ trade associations raced to tamp down angst among members around the country.
Health care leaders who attended the meeting…say they agreed to slow health spending in a more gradual way and did not pledge specific year-by-year cuts…
My initial reaction to Monday’s fairly transparent media stunt was: “I smell a rat. Lobbyists never advocate less revenue for their members. Ever.” The lobbyists are proving me right, albeit slowly. (Take your time, guys. I don’t mind.)
Filed under: Cato Publications; Government and Politics; Health, Welfare & Entitlements
Toles on Obama/Health-Care-Lobbyist Media Stunt
Today’s Washington Post has a terrific editorial cartoon about this week’s announcement by President Obama and health care industry lobbyists that they’re all willing to reduce health care spending growth by 1.5 percentage points.
A Not So Happy Anniversary for the “Massachusetts Model”
Three years ago yesterday, then-Governor Mitt Romney signed into law the most far reaching state health care reform plan to date. At the time, we warned that the plan, with its individual and employer mandates, new regulatory bureaucracy (the Connector), and middle-class subsidies would result in “a slow but steady spiral downward toward a government-run health care system.” Sadly, three years later, those predictions appear to be coming true.
- While the state has reduced the number of residents without health insurance, some 200,000 people remain uninsured. Moreover, the increase in the number of insured is primarily due to the state’s generous subsidies, not the celebrated individual mandate.
- Health care costs continue to rise much faster than the nationally. Since the program became law, total state health care spending has increased by 23 percent. Insurance premiums have been increasing by 10-12 percent per year, nearly double the national average.
- New regulation and bureaucracy is limiting consumer choice and adding to costs.
- Program costs have skyrocketed. Despite tax increases, the program faces huge deficits in the future. As a result, the state is considering caps on insurance premiums, cuts in reimbursements to providers, and even the possibility of a “global budget” on health care spending.
- A shortage of providers, combined with increased demand, is increasing waiting times to see a physician, especially primary care providers.
With the “Massachusetts model” being frequently cited as a blueprint for state or national health care reform, it is important to recognize that giving the government greater control over our health care system will have grave consequences for taxpayers, providers, and health care consumers. That is the lesson of the Massachusetts model.
CER: A (Slightly) Different Perspective
My colleague, Michael Cannon, makes several good points about comparative effectiveness research (CER), both in his letter to USA Today and in his excellent paper on the subject. I strongly agree with him that we should not reflexively oppose CER—much of health care spending is wasteful or unnecessary, and it makes sense, therefore, to test and develop information on the effectiveness of various treatments and technology, giving consumers tools to evaluate the value of the care they receive. There is also a case for the use of CER in taxpayer-funded programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Taxpayers should not have to subsidize health care that has not proven effective, nor can Medicare and Medicaid pay for every possible treatment regardless of cost-effectiveness.
However, I am more skeptical in general about CER than he is for several reasons.
- First, “quality” and “value” are not unidimensional terms. In fact, such concepts are highly idiosyncratic with every individual having different ideas of what “quality” and “value” means to them, based on such things as a person’s pain tolerance, lifestyle, feeling about hospitalization, desire to return to work, and so forth. For example, a surgeon may tell you that the only way to ensure a cure for prostate cancer is a radical prostectomy. But that procedure’s side-effects can severely impact quality of life – so some people prefer a procedure with a lower survival rate, but fewer side effects. Who is better suited to determine which of those procedures represents “quality” and “value,” a government board or the person directly affected?
- Second, comparative effectiveness research too often has a tendency to gear its results toward the “average” patient. But many patients are outliers, whose response to any particular treatment, for either good or ill, can vary significantly from the average. This matters little when the research is simply informative. However, if the research becomes the basis for more prescriptive requirements, for example prohibiting reimbursements for some types of treatment, the impact on patient outliers could be severe.
- Third, comparative effectiveness research can create a time lag for the introduction of new technologies, drugs, and procedures. The FDA, for example, has already caused delays in introducing drugs that have resulted in unnecessary deaths. Depending on how the final program is structured, comparative effectiveness research could create another layer of bureaucracy and testing between the development of a new drug, for example, and its introduction into the health care system. One only has to look at the difficulty in expanding Medicaid drug formularies to see how this could become a problem.
The advocates of government-sponsored CER clearly intend for it to be used as a basis for rationing care, not just in government programs, but for private insurance as well.
Cannon points out that government-sponsored CER is likely to be corrupted under pressure from special interest lobbies and politicians. I couldn’t agree more. Government-sponsored CER, therefore, is liable to yield the worst of all possible worlds, not only rationing, but rationing that is based on special interest lobbying rather than science.
Health care, is of course, a finite good. Therefore, it will always be rationed in some fashion. But, it is far better if the rationing agent is the consumer himself, rather than the government or any other arbitrary agent. The private sector is already undertaking CER. To the degree that consumers, insurers, and providers make use of this information, that is a good thing. If consumers don’t like how an insurance company, for example, uses CER in determining its reimbursement policy, he or she can choose a different insurer.
Government-imposed fiat rationing allows for no such choice. Therefore, we should oppose any government involvement in CER, and any efforts by the government to use CER to restrict reimbursement, especially in private insurance plans.
Cato on Facebook
Cato on Twitter
Cato on YouTube
Cato Tweets