The Health Care Bill: Progress or Retrogression? Becker

Studies show that men and women place a high value on even small decreases in their probability of dying at different ages. Presumably, the same is true of increases in the quality of their lives. This is why, given the rise in incomes over time, and the revolution in the development of blockbuster drugs and the advances in medical technology, the share of national income spent on health care would have risen over time in the US, even if it has had the best health care delivery system. Indeed, the share of income that is spent on health has risen quite sharply over time in every economically developed country, regardless of the nature of their health system.

Clearly, however, the American health system does have many defects, which contributed mightily to the growth of the share of medical spending to 17% of American GDP. Yet when I was recently asked whether I prefer the present healthcare bill to no change in the health delivery system for a decade, I answered “no change”. Even though the American healthcare  system can use many reforms, regrettably the bill that passed the House and Senate is a messy compromise to attract reluctant Democrats that is short on needed reforms. Instead, the bill is filled with many complicated, and generally bad, new regulations, higher subsidies, and greater taxes.

The most important needed reform is an increase the fraction of total medical costs that come from out-of pocket expenses in the form of large deductibles and significant co-payments. Out-of-pocket spending accounts for only about 12% of total American spending on healthcare, whereas the share of out-of –pocket spending is over 30% in Switzerland, a country considered to have one of the better health delivery systems. Partly because of this major difference, health care takes 11% of Swiss GDP compared to the much higher American percentage. As far as I can discover, nothing in the new bill really tries to raise the out-of-pocket share, and some changes would reduce it even further. These include tax credits for individuals and families that earn up to 400% of the federal poverty level (up to about $90,000 for a family of four) that enable them to get coverage through newly created Insurance Exchanges.

Another desirable reform is to reduce the reliance of the American health system on tax-deductible employer-based insurance since tax deductibility has encouraged low deductibles and low co-payments. It has also locked workers with health problems into their current jobs since they may not qualify for insurance at other companies because of these pre-existing health conditions. The bill does propose to phase out tax deductibility for the more expensive plans by 2018, but who knows if that will ever be implemented.

For the most part, however, the bill increases our dependence on employer-based health care by imposing sizable penalties on companies that do not provide their employees with sufficient health insurance. Many companies are already beginning to add to their projected future costs the anticipated increase in the cost to them of insuring their employees. These changes will particularly affect the costs of smaller companies since they are the main ones that do not provide health insurance for their employees. Since smaller companies are responsible for a disproportionate share of additions to employment during recent years, this provision of the bill will tend to reduce the demand for workers and hourly wages.

The US health care market is over-regulated rather than under-regulated. One example is that families in one state are generally not allowed to buy their health insurance from companies located in other states. Another example is the mandates that states impose on insurance companies, such as coverage of the costs of normal birth deliveries. Such coverage has little to do with insurance against unexpected health costs, whereas coverage of extraordinary delivery costs is a desirable protection against unexpected health care risks. The bill generally pushes in the direct of greater regulation, such as the limitations imposed on how much health insurance companies can spend on administrative costs relative to their other costs, the mandated reviews of the premiums charged by health insurance companies, and the mandated provision of health insurance by small companies.

Health savings accounts (HSAs) have been one of the most important innovations in the health care field during the past decade. These accounts require large deductibles, such as $2500, that individuals and families most cover out of their own pockets. Unused portions of the amounts in these accounts can be carried over tax free from any year to future years, and can eventually be phased into their old age pension accounts. HSAs with large deductibles encourage individuals to economize on their normal health care expenses, such as visiting doctors for colds or flu shots that they could get much more cheaply at CVS, Walgreens, and other retail medical clinics. There is little mention of HSAs in the new bill, and certainly no encouragement to their expansion.

The American health care delivery system needs greater transparency and easier access to medical information by consumers. The bill takes a valuable step in this direction by encouraging the development of online medical records and medical histories for all individuals, no matter how many doctors they have seen, or how often they have moved. A few other parts of the bill would also increase information and transparency, but for the most part the bill obscures rather than enlightens consumers about the health area. Many of the most important taxes come early while the additional spending kicks in much later, so that it will appear for a few years as if the new system will cut medical costs. Consumers will get a false impression that they are getting a more efficient medical care system when in fact the new system will turn out to be both expensive and invasive of individual choices.

Proponents of the bill claim it will save hundreds of billions of dollars during the next ten years from cuts in Medicaid and Medicare, but it is far from obvious how such cuts will materialize. Moreover, some changes will clearly increase the costs of these programs, such as the expansion of Medicaid coverage to individuals well above the poverty line, and by additions to drug coverage of seniors under Medicare. I do not see how the bill will lead to Medicare savings since there is no increase in out of pocket payments by Medicare enrollees, and Congress is likely to continue to override any scheduled cuts in payments to Medicare doctors and others. The most likely attempt to cut future Medicare costs will be through greater rationing of health care to the elderly, but lobbying groups for the elderly will fiercely resist these efforts.

Adequate and appropriate coverage for persons with pre-existing health conditions is a challenge for any healthcare system, especially those with private insurance. Although the bill addresses this issue, it makes coverage of pre-existing conditions more difficult in one dimension by expanding rather than contracting employer-based health insurance. The bill prevents insurance companies from dropping individuals if they develop serious sicknesses, and also prevents these companies from imposing limits on how much they will pay to cover an individual’s health costs during any year. In addition, uninsured individuals with pre-existing conditions will be able to obtain health insurance through the new health insurance exchanges run by non-profit companies.

The only truly efficient way to handle the pre-existing condition issue is to try to develop an insurance system in which young adults, who generally have few serious existing medical conditions, can take out long-term healthcare insurance. Long-term health insurance programs have been proposed in the academic literature, but they have been implemented only to a very small extent. Perhaps the bill’s approach to pre-existing conditions is the best that can be expected at this point if nothing is done to wean the system from employer-based tax-deductible health insurance (which at least does provide long term health insurance for employees who stay with the same company for many years).

Although the impact on the costs to taxpayers of the more than 40 million uninsured persons in the US is usually greatly exaggerated, I do support a requirement that everyone has health insurance that covers medical catastrophes. Coverage limited to catastrophes would not be expensive for the uninsured since they are mainly young and are generally in quite good health. They could readily pay the premiums for catastrophic insurance from their incomes. The health care bill does make health insurance compulsory, but it does this in an unsatisfactory way by requiring rather extensive benefits, and by subsidizing coverage for individuals and families with incomes far above the poverty line.

So for all the reason I have given, and many more, no change in the present American healthcare delivery system would be much better than the new bill. The American system has many great strengths and some serious weaknesses. The bill will generally weaken the strengths and strengthen the weaknesses.  

 

 

Comments

[discount scrubs]

Thanks for the post. It was such an astonishing article. The US health care market is even more regulated than it being under-regulated. For instance, is that families in one state are usually not allowed to buy their health insurance from companies located in other states? Furthermore are the mandates that states inflict on insurance companies, such as coverage of the costs of normal birth deliveries. How can you expect the average person to pay for expensive procedures out of pocket? They might have forgotten the power of a free market.

[Physical Therapy Supplies]

Thanks for posting this healthy blog. That's great to maintain our health and body in a well shape. Your blog contain a lots of information for me.

[Zoloft]

I would like to thank you for sharing this great information with us. I am really glad to learn about this because it helps me to increase my knowledge.

[buy humidifier]

Again, the key is to increase;
1. Demand 2. Supply and 3. Savings.

I couldnt agree more, its all there in 3 simple words!

[occupational health and safety training]

Great post! Thanks for sharing. Studies show that men and women place a high value on even small decreases in their probability of dying at different ages.

[dreambox 500s]

Many USCs have the same risks buying houses.US laws are to protect the interests of USCs.You are unreasonable and arrogant to believe that your dissatisfaction with them should influence US lawmakers.It is quite positive that our retrogression may be removed soon.This has happened in past too, but after 6 months the retro. was removed from our category and it may happen again.

[nason]

Are we as Americans now going to allow the government to dictate our lifestyles?
For example: What will stop insurance companies from imposing higher rates to those whom don't exercise; those that consume fast or even fatty foods; those who drive more than 2 hrs daily; those with large breeds of dogs known to be aggressive; those that live in high crime districts; those with lower incomes; those with family medical problem history; those that communicate via cell-phone more than 1 hr daily(may increase chance of brain tumors); teens that text more than 10 times daily (may increase risk of carpel-tunnel syndrome); those that undergo homeopathic remedies?

do u think like this?

[skincare]

Politics is about Interest Groups. Sometimes it's easy to see where we're going, and sometimes not. Health Care is such an issue. In the long run, which you seem to focus on a lot, such a plan as we favor is possible. But we won't get there in a straight path, however much we'd like that.

[fake watches]

And thank you!!

[cycling jerseys]

As others have said, I'm broke as well, so I couldn't donate, but I'm so happy others did :) I love this community. We have such a sense of sisterhood and are so willing to help each other out. Way to go, gqmfs!

[replica watches]

That's alright! And this really is like an online family!!

[armani watch]

Yay! Glad to hear it worked out. :D

[Physical Therapy Supplies]

Thanks for your info. The "cadillac tax" is a good idea too. It is a "sin tax" like taxes on cigarettes and cop-killer armor-piercing bullets (if only!). You have explained everything well. I appreciate that you shared this to us. There is a lot of helpful information within those links.

[buy xanax online]

Holy shit. I can't beleive I actually read that whole thing. How boring.

[Rosetta Stone]

The most important needed reform is an increase the fraction of total medical costs that come from out-of pocket expenses in the form of large deductibles and significant co-payments. Out-of-pocket spending accounts for only about 12% of total American spending on healthcare, whereas the share of out-of –pocket spending is over 30% in Switzerland, a country considered to have one of the better health delivery systems. Partly because of this major difference, health care takes 11% of Swiss GDP compared to the much higher American percentage. As far as I can discover, nothing in the new bill really tries to raise the out-of-pocket share, and some changes would reduce it even further. These include tax credits for individuals and families that earn up to 400% of the federal poverty level (up to about $90,000 for a family of four) that enable them to get coverage through newly created Insurance Exchanges.

[Plumbing]

I find this article very interesting and informative. The discussion was applied very well so that the reader will understand each issues connected to this article.

[air intake]

insurance can be helpful especially if you have a family. Though you're paying much for it, for me it relieved from from any kind of headache when my kid needs immediate medical attention even without cash on hand.

[ben 10]

I'm more than a bit surprised at many of Becker's arguments for the status quo and/or small tweaks of a fundamentally flawed system:

[Starta community]

It is necessary for every company to cover health insurance for all employees. Though it sounds good but professionally it is difficult and even we can say impossible for small companies to pay for large medical problems. I appreciate your post on health insurance. Thanks for sharing.

[Senior Planning NJ]

It’s actually a cool and helpful piece of info. I’m glad that you shared this useful information with us. Thanks so much for sharing all of the good content! I am looking forward to checking out more!

[Medicaid Eligibility]

Pretty impressive article. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed reading your opinions... Learning more about Senior Planning Services or Medicaid Eligibility you may visit http://senior-planning.com/med101.html

[crystal-ship-model]

It all comes down to economics, I suppose, and how business in different countries try to fight their relative cultural baggage, in order to boost productivity, increase political stability, reduce wages, and increase efficiency.

[crystal-medal]

Thanks, Gary. It just occurred to me the euphoria could have been delusional. My estimation as to how high the bullets actually were might have been pure hallucination.

[solar-water-heater-distributor]

This is a very thoughtful piece. Sheds light on a subject that is causing much consternation among the book-loving community.

[solar-water-heater-manufacturer]

I think this is a well deserved EP! I read it twice yesterday, but kept getting interrupted (stupid work!) and had to come back today to read properly and comment.