USA Today reports that the Obama administration’s efforts may yield an 85 percent rise in federal fraud prosecutions.  Yawn.

Fraud expert Malcolm Sparrow:

By taking the fraud and abuse problem seriously this administration might be able to save 10 percent or even 20 percent from Medicare and Medicaid budgets. But to do that, one would have to spend 1 percent or maybe 2 percent (as opposed to the prevailing 0.1 percent) in order to check that the other 98 percent or 99 percent of the funds were well spent.  But please realize what a massive departure that would be from the status quo. This would mean increasing the budgets for control operations by a factor of 10 or 20. Not by 10 percent or 20 percent, but by a factor of 10 or 20. [emphasis added]

That’s not going to happen, as I explain here and in this video:

An 85 Percent Increase in Health Care Fraud Prosecutions? Be Still My Beating Heart… is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

I’m a few days behind on this, but over at The Corner Yuval Levin has written an important post about how health care entitlements are the real cause of the debt crisis facing the federal government. Using Congressional Budget Office projections, Levin creates this magnificent chart, which I plan to steal over and over again:

If Republicans want to conquer the federal debt, they need to embrace health policy like they embrace tax cuts.

Health Care Entitlements Are the Real Debt Bomb is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

Last week, The New York Times published an article subtitled, “In Desperately Poor Rwanda, Most Have Health Insurance.”  The main theme was the contrast between Rwanda’s compulsory health insurance system and the as-yet-non-compulsory U.S. health insurance market:

Rwanda has had national health insurance for 11 years now; 92 percent of the nation is covered, and the premiums are $2 a year.

Sunny Ntayomba, an editorial writer for The New Times, a newspaper based in the capital, Kigali, is aware of the paradox: his nation, one of the world’s poorest, insures more of its citizens than the world’s richest does.

He met an American college student passing through last year, and found it “absurd, ridiculous, that I have health insurance and she didn’t,” he said, adding: “And if she got sick, her parents might go bankrupt. The saddest thing was the way she shrugged her shoulders and just hoped not to fall sick.”

I don’t see anything absurd here, but I do see something remarkable. Rwanda is so poor, its per capita income is about 1 percent that of the United States ($370 vs. $39,000).  Its health care sector is an international charity case: “total health expenditures in Rwanda come to about $307 million a year, and about 53 percent of that comes from foreign donors, the largest of which is the United States.”  That’s roughly $32 per person per year, which doesn’t buy much.  Dialysis is “generally unavailable.”  As are many treatments for cancer, strokes, and heart attacks, making those ailments “death sentences” more often than in advanced nations.  Life expectancy at birth is 58 years, compared to 78 years in the United States.  Rwandan children are 15 times more likely to die before their first birthday (7 vs. 107 deaths per 1,000 live births) and 25 times more likely to die before turning five (8 vs. 196 deaths per 1,000 live births) than U.S.-born children.  (If you want to meet some Rwandan kids struggling to make it to age 5, read my friend’s blog, Life of a Thousand Hills.)  And yet, the saddest thing is a healthy-but-uninsured American college student.

What the Times sees as a paradox isn’t really a paradox.  Yes, the poorer nation has a higher levels of health insurance coverage.  But the wealthier nation does a better job of providing medical care to everyone, insured and uninsured alike. The Times reports that Rwanda’s national health insurance system isn’t fancy, “But it covers the basics,” including “the most common causes of death — diarrhea, pneumonia, malaria, malnutrition, infected cuts.”  Surely, the Times must know that anyone walking into any U.S. emergency room with any of those conditions would be treated, regardless of insurance status or ability to pay.  The same is true of other acute conditions, like heart attacks and strokes, for which uninsured Americans receive better treatment than insured Rwandans.  True, some uninsured Americans end up filing for bankruptcy, but let’s be clear: while bankruptcy is no day at the beach, suffering bankruptcy because you got the treatment is better than suffering death because you didn’t.  (As for dialysis, the United States already has universal coverage for end-stage renal disease through the Medicare program.)  The Healthcare Economist puts it this way: “Would you rather be sick in the United States without insurance or sick with insurance in Rwanda?”  You get the point.  If there’s a paradox here, it’s that insurance status does not necessarily correlate with access to medical care: uninsured people in the wealthy nation actually have better access to care than insured people in the poor nation.

An even bigger paradox, though, is Rwandan attitudes toward the United States. The United States generates many of the HIV treatments currently fighting Rwanda’s AIDS epidemic, as well as other medical innovations saving lives there and around the world.  More than any other nation, we create the wealth that purchases those and other treatments for Rwandans and other impoverished peoples.  The United States is probably closer to providing universal access to medical care for its citizens — and, indeed, the whole world — than Rwanda.  Rwanda’s “universal” system leaves 8 percent of its population uninsured. Though official estimates put the U.S. uninsured rate at 15.4 percent, the actual percentage is lower; and again, uninsured Americans typically have better access to care than insured Rwandans.  The real paradox is here that Rwandan elites think the United States is doing something wrong. Why?

Here’s one answer: Rwanda’s government explicitly guarantees health insurance to its citizens, and for some people that guarantee has value apart from any health improvements or financial security that may result.  Dr. Agnes Binagwaho, “permanent secretary of Rwanda’s Ministry of Health,” illustrates:

Still, Dr. Binagwaho said, Rwanda can offer the United States one lesson about health insurance: “Solidarity — you cannot feel happy as a society if you don’t organize yourself so that people won’t die of poverty.”

Set aside that a (permanent) third-world bureaucrat is telling the United States how to keep people from dying of poverty.  Binagwaho cannot feel happy without that government-issued guarantee.

How might such a guarantee increase happiness? It could make people happier by reassuring them that they themselves will be healthier and more financially secure (self-interest), or that others will be (altruism).  Yet altruism and self-interest probably cannot explain the “happiness benefits” that people enjoy when governments guarantee health insurance.  As I have argued elsewhere, the jury is out on whether broad health insurance expansions like ObamaCare result in better overall health; they may, but it is entirely possible that they would not.  The jury is also out on whether ObamaCare will produce a net increase in financial security.  It will subsidize millions of low-income Americans, but it will also saddle them with high implicit taxes that could trap millions of them in poverty.  Meanwhile, ObamaCare’s new taxes will reduce economic growth and destroy jobs.  If such a guarantee doesn’t improve health or financial security, it’s not worth much in terms of altruism or self-interest.

But there’s another potential “happiness benefit” that might accrue to supporters of a government guarantee of health insurance: it could make them happier by allowing them to signal something about themselves — e.g., that they are compassionate.  If people use a government guarantee of health insurance in this way, that could explain why Rwandan elites feel bad for uninsured Americans.  They may feel empathy for uninsured Americans because they perceive the American electorate has not sent uninsured Americans a valuable signal (“We care about you!”).  Meanwhile, the act of expressing pity for uninsured Americans allows Rwandan elites to signal something about themselves (“We are compassionate!”).  Robin Hanson has a lot to say about why people might use health insurance and medical care to signal loyalty and compassion.

My hunch is that this is an under-appreciated reason why some people support universal coverage: a government guarantee of health insurance coverage provides its supporters psychic benefits — even if it does not improve health or financial security, and maybe even if both health and financial security suffer.

If that’s the case, then we’re facing the same problem that Charles Murray identified in Losing Ground, his seminal work on poverty:

Most of us want to help. It makes us feel bad to think of neglected children and rat-infested slums…The tax checks we write buy us, for relatively little money and no effort at all, a quieted conscience. The more we pay, the more certain we can be that we have done our part, and it is essential that we feel that way regardless of what we accomplish…

To this extent, the barrier to radical reform of social policy is not the pain it would cause the intended beneficiaries of the present system, but the pain it would cause the donors. The real contest about the direction of social policy is not between people who want to cut budgets and people who want to help. When reforms finally do occur, they will happen not because stingy people have won, but because generous people have stopped kidding themselves.

One thing is for certain.  When Rwandan elites pity uninsured Americans, there is something very interesting going on.

While I’m at it, the health-policy advice I offered to China and India also applies to Rwanda:

Does not the fact that “these countries lack the fiscal resources required for universal coverage because of their…low average wages” suggest that many residents have more pressing needs than health insurance? For things that might just deliver greater health improvements? In a profession where universal coverage is a religion, such questions are heresy, I know.

China and India are in the process of a slow climb out of poverty. It is entirely possible that the best thing those governments could do to improve [health care] markets and population health would be to enforce contracts, punish torts, contain contagion, and nothing else.

Of course, if Rwandan elites support universal coverage largely because they want to signal something about themselves, this advice may fall on deaf ears.

Rwanda and the Psychic Benefits of Universal Coverage is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

The Obama administration sold — well, it pitched ObamaCare to the public with this promise: “It’s time we put the health of American families back in the hands of consumers – not the insurance industry.”

The Veterans Health Administration shows how incompetent the federal government is when it comes to making medicine a patient-centered enterprise.  After decades of mistreating veterans, the VHA achieved some successes in the past decade or so, such as adopting electronic medical records and improving on some measures of quality.  Yet serious deficiencies remain.  Today’s Los Angeles Times reports that the VA’s disability system is a nightmare for soldiers and sailors disabled in combat:

John Lamie survived six roadside bombings in Iraq, only to have the Department of Veterans Affairs refuse to accept three months’ worth of medical tests he underwent for jaw and shoulder wounds — tests performed by VA-approved doctors at VA facilities…

Many veterans wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan are being buffeted by a VA disability system clogged by delays, lost paperwork, redundant exams, denials of claims and inconsistent diagnoses. Some describe an absurd situation in which they are required to prove that their conditions are serious enough for higher payments, yet are forced to wait months for decisions.

“You fight for your country, then come home and have to fight against your own country for the benefits you were promised,” said [Clay] Hunt, 28, who served in Iraq and Afghanistan as a Marine Corps sniper.

It took Hunt, who lives in Brentwood, 10 months to receive VA disability payments for his injuries after the agency misplaced his paperwork…

Some veterans wait up to six months to get their initial VA medical appointment. The typical veteran of the Iraq or Afghanistan wars waits 110 days for a disability claim to be processed, with a few waiting up to a year. For all veterans, the average wait is 161 days…

Lamie, 25, an Army combat engineer who risked his life uncovering and defusing roadside bombs in Iraq, declared bankruptcy in April. He is unable to work because of his combat injuries, he said, and VA delays have left him short of cash to support his wife and four children. He gets $311 a month in food stamps.”I did everything the VA asked of me, but they block you at every turn,” Lamie said from his home in Georgia. “They play with people’s lives…They drag their feet, hoping you’ll give up. A lot of people do. Not me.”…

When he volunteered for the Marine Corps, Hunt recalled, a selling point was lifelong medical care if he were wounded.“But then the time comes to get those benefits, it turns into a lifelong battle with the VA to get what you were promised,” he said…

The experience has left [Lamie] drained and disillusioned. He said he couldn’t even look at his old Army uniform anymore.

“I can’t stand the sight of it after what I’ve gone through with the VA,” he said. “I’m not proud anymore.”

ObamaCare will produce similar horrors, and for the same reason: all economic systems serve the people who control the money.  Under ObamaCare and the VA, patients don’t control the money.  The government does.

Returning that money to consumers would put patients first, whether they’re veterans or other civilians. But such reforms won’t mean a thing until we repeal ObamaCare.

If You Like the VA, You’ll Love ObamaCare is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

• Republicans and Democrats are both missing the point of true health care reform: “Health care reform cannot just be about giving more stuff to more people. It should be about actually ‘reforming’ the system. That means scrapping the current bills, and crafting the type of reform that makes consumers responsible for their health care decisions.”

• Alan Reynolds: If people looking for individual health insurance policies were allowed to shop in any state, the number of uninsured could drop by 11.1 million … or more.

• And the winner for the worst idea for health care reform goes to…

• Something you might want to brush up on: The Reconciliation Rulebook.

• In case you missed it, Cato health policy experts live-blogged part of Thursday’s health care summit.

Weekend Links — Health Care Edition is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

Does anyone think that a huge new entitlement program will lead to lower budget deficits? Sounds implausible, yet proponents of government-run healthcare claim this is the case according to the official estimates from the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation.

To use a technical phrase, this is hogwash. This new 6-1/2 minute video, narrated by yours truly, gives 12 reasons why Obamacare will lead to higher deficits – including real-world evidence showing how Medicare and Medicaid are much more costly than originally projected.

By the way, this video doesn’t even touch on the mandate issue, which Michael Cannon explains is not being counted in order to make the cost of government-run healthcare less shocking.

Obamacare Will Be a Budget Buster is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

Cato director of health policy studies Michael F. Cannon will participate in a live online chat today at the New Haven Register. The event starts at 2pm EST and will last for an hour.

We encourage you to submit questions once the event has started. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) will participate in the chat alongside Cannon.

Cato Health Care Expert Michael Cannon to Debate Rep. DeLauro (D-CT) Online at 2pm EST Today is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

The other day, Sarah Palin cited my work in an oped for the Wall Street Journal.  So when the Democratic National Committee savaged her for it, ABCNews.com asked me for comment.  Here’s an excerpt from George Stephanopoulos’ blog:

“Instead of poll-driven ‘solutions,’ let’s talk about real health-care reform: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven,” wrote Palin. “As the Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon and others have argued, such policies include giving all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage; reforming tort laws to potentially save billions each years in wasteful spending; and changing costly state regulations to allow people to buy insurance across state lines.”

Cannon, the Cato expert referenced by Palin, has not had any direct contact with the former Alaska governor or any of her advisers.

He did, however, come to her defense on the Medicare issue.

‘Vouchers would not make seniors less secure, it would make them more secure,’ Cannon told ABC News. ‘Everyone agrees that Medicare cannot go on spending as much money as it does now. The voucher idea allows individual consumers to make their own decisions about what they need and what they don’t need.’

‘Giving Medicare seniors a voucher is the most rational, the most humane way to contain Medicare spending,’ he added.

Asked about the DNC’s charge that Palin’s proposal would leave seniors with pre-existing conditions vulnerable, Cannon, the director of health policy studies at Cato, called it ‘pure uninformed demagoguery.’

Cannon says that under proposals he has developed, bigger vouchers would be given to people with pre-existing conditions as well as to people with low incomes.

Actually, I think what I said was that DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse was engaging in pure ignorant demagoguery.  But whatever.

The DNC is even running an ad claiming that Republicans are trying to “cut” and “kill” Medicare, presumably with vouchers.  Never mind that President Obama proposes to “cut” (i.e., slow the growth of) Medicare spending too.

If Republicans were smart — hey, where are you going? — they would be running ads that say:

President Obama wants government bureaucrats to decide whether seniors get health care.  Republicans are fighting to control health care costs and preserve seniors’ ability to make their own health care decisions and choose the benefits that they value most.  Support Medicare vouchers!

For more on reforming Medicare the right way, click here.

The DNC’s Pure Uninformed Demagoguery is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

Rumor has it that Republicans in the House and Senate will soon decide whether their alternative to the Democrats’ health care reforms will include an “individual mandate” — a legal requirement that all Americans obtain health insurance.

A recent Consensus Group statement shows that the entire free-market health policy community — including scholars from the Heritage Foundation — opposes such a move.

The Cato Institute has published one study arguing against an individual mandate in itself, and two studies critical of its use in Massachusetts. Cato will soon publish additional studies showing how an individual mandate has — as predicted — led to exploding costs and government rationing efforts in Massachusetts, and arguing against its use at the federal level.

Worse, as I explain in this study, an individual mandate is in fact a large leap toward socialized medicine — regardless of the fact that health insurance would remain nominally “private.” Republicans may oppose creating a new government health insurance program. Yet if they are willing to force Americans to purchase insurance, they will effectively nationalize the health insurance industry.

Finally, as I explain in this op-ed, an individual mandate is always accompanied by taxpayer subsidies to people who may (or may not) need aid to comply. The more people who rely on government aid for their health care, the harder life will become for the party of tax cuts. Bill Clinton showed that the best way to defeat tax cuts is to paint them as a threat to YOUR health care. Just in case doing the right thing isn’t reason enough to reject this horrid idea, Republicans should know that by supporting an individual mandate, they will be slitting their own throats.

All for an idea that doesn’t even command support from a majority of the public.

Does the GOP Recognize Socialized Medicine When They See It? is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

I count both Ramesh Ponnuru and Ezra Klein as friends.  (I’m so post-partisan.)  Why, oh why must they force me to choose between them??

Ponnuru had an op-ed in yesterday’s New York Times where he reaffirmed his membership in the Anti-Universal Coverage Club.  Klein responded in a way that’s sure to satisfy his base, but I think he left the reality-based community wanting.  Are you ready for the fisk?

Klein suggests that if “80+ percent of Americans . . . think the system needs fundamental changes or a complete rebuild,” then 80+ percent of Americans must support universal coverage.  Hmmm, bit of a stretch.  In fact, I can recall one poll where nearly one-third of likely Democratic primary voters rejected universal coverage.

Klein suggests that giving consumers the freedom to avoid unwanted state health insurance regulations would mean that Arizonans wouldn’t get coverage for colorectal cancer screening, and that there would be no mammogram coverage in Idaho.  Mmm, that’s good crazy.  I refer my right honorable friend to the episode where The New Republic‘s Jonathan Cohn made a similar claim about mandates for prostate and cervical cancer screening.  I looked up the services covered by the plans made available to the Cohn family by the University of Michigan.  It turned out that six out of the seven available plans cover both prostate and cervical cancer screening — even though Michigan requires insurers to cover neither.  (I offered to wager Cohn a fancy dinner that his family has coverage for both, but I never heard back from him.  Foolish, really, to let me know where he gets his insurance. Klein would never give me such an opening . . . or would he?) What Ponnuru proposes is to let Arizonans and Idahoans and everyone else choose what their health plan covers.   Imagine that: people rationing medical care according to their preferences, rather than the preferences of employers, interest groups, bureaucrats, health policy wonks…  Why Klein clings to such regulations despite zero evidence that they actually increase access to the targeted services is beyond me.

Klein criticizes Ponnuru for proposing to replace the current tax preference for job-based coverage with a tax credit available to everyone, much like John McCain proposed during his (latest) presidential campaign.  Ponnuru cites a study estimating that tax credits would reduce the number of uninsured by 20 million.  Klein counter-cites one study estimating that tax credits would have zero net effect on the number of uninsured, and a second study estimating that those who transition from job-based coverage to the “individual” or “non-group” market would pay an additional $2,000 per year for an identical policy.   Klein’s criticisms sound persuasive — provided you know precious little about the topic.  For one thing, the two studies Klein cites are actually the same study.  Pity, really.  Had Klein found a second study to support his position, perhaps it would not have been quite so flawed as the one he did find.  Here’s what I wrote back in September about that study’s flaws:

Thomas Buchmueller et al. estimate that replacing the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) with Sen. John McCain’s proposed health insurance tax credit would have zero effect on the uninsured. Yet their estimates neither incorporate nor even acknowledge factors that would tend to increase coverage. First, workers who lose ESI would see their wages rise significantly as labor markets force employers to “cash out” those workers.

That effect would help all workers afford health insurance — but particularly older and sicker workers, because they would get cashed-out more.

Second, the authors estimate that non-group enrollment would double, yet they ignore that administrative costs would fall in a thicker non-group market.

So that $2,000 mark-up really wouldn’t be $2,000.  Even if some mark-up remained, workers could reduce their premiums by purchasing less coverage.  Not all that crazy a concept, considering that the tax treatment of job-based insurance encourages people to buy too much coverage.

Then there’s this effect, which would further reduce premiums for healthy workers:

Third, the authors acknowledge that employment-based insurance forces the healthy to subsidize the sick, yet they ignore that the non-group market would reduce premiums for a majority of workers by allowing them to avoid that hidden tax.

The study’s authors also ignored the premium-lowering effects of McCain’s proposal to allow people to avoid unwanted regulatory costs (e.g., mandated benefits):

Fourth, though the Congressional Budget Office estimates that state health insurance regulations increase premiums an average of 13 percent, the authors ignore that McCain’s proposal to let consumers shop nationwide for insurance would further reduce premiums by allowing consumers to avoid that hidden tax as well.

A few random clarifications.  Klein fears living “in a space where insurers could still discriminate based on pre-existing conditions.”  That’s Church-of-Universal-Coverage-speak for, “I want price controls on health insurance.”  Government can outlaw the practice of charging higher premiums to the sick, but it cannot outlaw the reasons behind those higher premiums.  So when government prohibits insurers from competing on price, insurers respond to those underlying reasons by competing to avoid the sick.  Yes, yes, it’s that pious preference for price-controlled premiums that unleashes the beast of adverse selection — and prevents the market from developing innovative insurance products that help sick people pay those higher premiums. Klein fears a world “where millions of Americans will still lack access to health insurance,” because to the devout, access to insurance matters more than access to health care.  Klein fears that when people move from ESI to the individual market, risk pools will get smaller and insurers will get stronger.  Yet risk pools would get bigger, and insurers weaker relative to consumers.  Klein believes we can “ensure that all Americans have health coverage, [and] that their coverage is comprehensive,” and that we can do all that without rationing “access to health services.”  How?  Just “bring down costs in the system.”  Riiiight.

To cap things off, Klein claims that Ponnuru and I think the U.S. health care sector as it exists is “fine.”  I really can’t blame him for arguing with straw men.

In the end, Klein’s case against Ponnuru boils down to the same absurdity I found in Buchmueller and colleagues’ case against McCain:

The McCain plan would eliminate forced subsidies: of the sick by the healthy (via ESI and community rating) and of particular providers by unwilling consumers (mandates for chiropractic coverage, etc.). Buchmueller et al. would have us believe that if we stop robbing Peter to pay Paul, not even Peter would benefit. A more balanced critique might have been more persuasive.

Klein spends a lot more time thinking about health policy than Ponnuru does. But you’d never know it.

Health Policy Death Match: Klein vs. Ponnuru is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

POLICY FORUM – Can the Market Provide Choice and Secure Health Coverage Even for High-Cost Illnesses?

12:00 PM (Luncheon to Follow)

In a study recently published by the Cato Institute, economist John Cochrane argues that the market can solve a huge piece of the health care puzzle: providing secure, life-long health insurance and a choice of health plans to even the sickest patients. The key, Cochrane explains, is to eliminate government policies that force the healthy to subsidize the sick, such as the tax preference for employer-sponsored coverage and other attempts to impose price controls on health insurance premiums.

Featuring John H. Cochrane, Myron S. Scholes Professor of Finance, University of Chicago Booth School of Business Research Associate, National Bureau of Economic Research; Bradley Herring, Assistant Professor, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; moderated by Michael F. Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies, Cato Institute.

Please register to attend this event, or watch free online.

POLICY FORUM – Drug Decriminalization in Portugal

12:00 PM (Luncheon to Follow)

In 2001, Portugal began a remarkable policy experiment, decriminalizing all drugs, including cocaine and heroin.

In a new paper for the Cato Institute, attorney and author Glenn Greenwald closely examines the Portugal experiment and concludes that the doomsayers were wrong. There is now a widespread consensus in Portugal that decriminalization has been a success. The debate in Portugal has shifted rather dramatically to minor adjustments in the existing arrangement. There is no real debate about whether drugs should once again be criminalized. Join us for a discussion about Glenn Greenwald’s field research in Portugal and what lessons his findings may hold for drug policies in other countries.

Featuring Glenn Greenwald, Attorney and Best-selling Author; with comments by Peter Reuter, Department of Criminology, University of Maryland; moderated by Tim Lynch, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute.

Please register to attend this event, or watch free online.

Events This Week is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

It turns out that solving the health care crisis is easy.  There’s never been any reason for the lengthy, divisive, and impassioned debate.  Explains the New York Times:

“Really controlling costs requires just stopping spending,” said Stuart H. Altman, a professor of health policy at Brandeis University.

Gees, it’s no problem then.  Why didn’t I think of that?

The Easy Solution to Rising Health Care Costs is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

At Reason Online, Ronald Bailey reviews John Cochrane‘s recent Cato Policy Analysis, “Health-Status Insurance: How Markets Can Provide Health Security.”

Writing in advance of last week’s health care summit held by President Obama, Bailey explains:

Summit attendees will break into various working groups that are supposed to engage in “outside-of-the-box” thinking. As it happens, they now have some fascinating “outside-of-the-box” thinking on health insurance reform to draw on. Earlier this month, University of Chicago economist John Cochrane published an intriguing policy analysis for the libertarian Cato Institute that looked at how “health-status insurance” can provide health security for Americans. Cochrane claims that with health-status insurance, free markets can solve the vexing problem of how to insure people with pre-existing medical conditions and “provide life-long, portable health security, while enhancing consumer choice and competition.”…

Creating and selling separate health-status insurance policies would mean that medical insurance companies would no longer have an incentive to offload sick people. Instead, because those with pre-existing conditions would have the funds to pay higher premiums, insurers would compete for their business. “Constant competition for every consumer will have the same dramatic effects on cost, quality, and innovation in health care as it does in every other industry,” argues Cochrane.

Health-status insurance also helps delink medical insurance from employment because…a worker diagnosed with diabetes…can switch jobs without worrying about whether or not he can obtain medical insurance…

While Cochrane acknowledges that his proposal is not a comprehensive health care reform program, adopting it would go a long way toward satisfying President Obama’s eight health care reform principles, especially affordability, aiming toward universality, portability, and choice, and being fiscally sustainable. “Health-status insurance can simultaneously give us complete and portable long-term insurance, great individual choice, and cost-containment beyond the dreams of any health policy planner,” concludes Cochrane. Asked if he has been invited to the president’s health care reform summit this week, Cochrane said no, but quickly added, “If I got the phone call, I would definitely be there.” Mr. President, there’s still time for your summiteers to hear about this outside-of-the-box thinking.

“Fascinating ‘Outside-of-the-Box’ Thinking on Health Insurance Reform” is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

When President Obama opened today’s summit on health care  reform at the White House, he said:

In this effort, every voice has to be heard. Every idea must be considered.

Of course, he spoke those words to a room that contained not a single advocate of free-market health care reform.

• No one from the American Enterprise Institute (ranked the #5 think tank in the world for health policy)
• No one from the Cato Institute (ranked #7)
• No one from the National Center for Policy Analysis (ranked #10)
• No one from the Manhattan Institute
• No one from the Pacific Research Institute
• No one from the Galen Institute
• No one from the Heritage Foundation
• The list goes on…

Obama did, however, invite people from left-wing think tanks, including avowed advocates of socialized medicine.  That makes Obama’s pledge of openness a farce, and today’s event a charade.

Or as my colleague Wayne Crews puts it: it’s a ditch, not a summit.

A Ditch, Not a Summit is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog