Let’s let employers get out of the medical care business
By Jack E. Lohman
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel online
Posted: July 3, 2005

After spending 35 years in the health care industry, I never thought I’d be supporting more government involvement in medicine. But, clearly, our private system is broken.

Double-digit increases in health care costs are driving manufacturing jobs out of the country. That will continue if the system is not fixed.

Today, more Big Three autos are being made in Ontario than in Detroit. General Motors’ planned cuts of 25,000 jobs expose a trend that has been in progress for years:

GM spends $6,500 per year per employee in the United States for health care. But as it builds more of its cars in Canada, its costs will decrease to an $800 per employee per year tax to help cover that country’s single-payer system.

The sticker price on every GM vehicle includes $1,500 for health care, compared with $186 for Toyota.

What else can we reasonably expect but exodus?

It is by historical accident that employers provide medical coverage, and 40% of business leaders now want out of it. Canada’s single-payer system makes the most sense, although we can eliminate their wait times.

Even with its legendary wait times – which are short to non-existent when urgent procedures are required – Canada’s life expectancy is two years longer than ours, its infant mortality 35% lower, and all with 40% less in costs.

Turning health care administration over to one payer, as Medicare did, would keep the independence of physicians and hospitals and still allow patients full physician selection. It’s just a different way of paying the bill.

It would reduce administrative costs from a typical 30% to Canada’s 8%. Medicare’s is less than 4%. Using Medicare’s rules and fee schedule would ensure fair reimbursement, although increasing its rates slightly would make it fairer and still be less costly than what we have today.

Excessive and unnecessary testing easily adds 25% to our exorbitant health care costs, and that misuse must be curtailed.

One for-profit HMO pays its CEO $7.2 million annually, and he holds $720 million in company stock. That is patient money that is not being used for patient care. Independent physicians and hospitals are not totally free of extravagances, which also drives costs up.

Who would pay for a single-payer system? The same people who are paying for it today: Taxpayers.

We all pay for the present health care system, which costs some $1.6 trillion each year. And 100% of this money comes from we the people, through taxes, premiums, co-pays, deductibles, purchases, employer tax breaks and the other methods we use for collecting money.

When we buy a product, that company adds its health care costs to the price, and we pay at the cash register. What we are really talking about changing is how we collect and use the same money.

At the federal level, the health care, insurance and pharmaceutical industries are doing everything in their power to block progress toward an efficient system. While getting rid of our moneyed political system would fix this and many other societal problems, that isn’t going to happen soon. Politicians like the flow of campaign cash just as it is.

In the meantime, the states can act to keep jobs at home.

We can establish our own single-payer system by contracting with the same company that administers the Medicare system. With the savings, we could replace BadgerCare and Medicaid and cover all Wisconsin families.

It all makes sense for the public, but that may be its downfall.

Jack E. Lohman of Colgate is a former CEO of an independent diagnostic testing facility in Milwaukee and is executive director of www.WiCleanElections.org .

When it comes to providing broad-based social-insurance programs, it’s the government that’s rational and the market that’s dumb
By Jacob S. Hacker
The American Prospect
Issue Date: 05.06.05

Remember those bumper stickers during the early-1990s fight over the Clinton health plan? “National Health Care? The Compassion of the IRS! The Efficiency of the Post Office! All at Pentagon Prices!” In American policy debates, it’s a fixed article of faith that the federal government is woefully bumbling and expensive in comparison with the well-oiled efficiency of the private sector. Former Congressman Dick Armey even elevated this skepticism into a pithy maxim: “The market is rational; government is dumb.”

But when it comes to providing broad-based insurance — health care, retirement pensions, disability coverage — Armey’s maxim has it pretty much backward. The federal government isn’t less efficient than the private sector. In fact, in these critical areas, it’s almost certainly much more efficient.

To grasp this surprising point, it helps to understand how economists think about efficiency. Although politicians throw the word around as if it were a blanket label for everything good and right, economists mean something more specific. Or rather, they usually mean one of two specific things: allocational (or Pareto) efficiency, a distribution that cannot be changed without making somebody worse off; or technical efficiency, the most productive use of available resources. (There’s a third possibility, dynamic efficiency, but we’ll take that up in a moment.)

When the issue is health insurance or retirement security, allocational efficiency is really not what’s under discussion. Nearly everyone agrees that the private market won’t distribute vital social goods of this sort in a way that citizens need. Before we had Social Security, a large percentage of the elderly were destitute. Before we had Medicare, millions of the aged (usually the sickest and the poorest) lacked insurance. If we didn’t subsidize medical care — through tax breaks, public insurance, and support for charity care — some people would literally die for lack of treatment. Market mechanisms alone simply can’t solve this problem, because private income is inadequate to pay for social needs. This is one of the chief reasons why government intervenes so dramatically in these areas by organizing social insurance to pay for basic retirement and disability, medical, and unemployment coverage, and by extensively subsidizing the cost of these benefits, especially for the most vulnerable.

What’s usually at issue, instead, is technical efficiency: Are we getting the best bang for our necessarily limited bucks in these areas? The notion that the private market is, by definition, better at delivering such bang for the buck is the main rationale offered for increasing the already extensive role of the private sector in U.S. social policy. Thus, Medicare vouchers or partly privatized Social Security would supposedly engage the discipline of competition and lead to more efficient use of resources.

Liberals usually retort that social policies have other goals besides efficiency, most notably distributive justice. That’s true enough, and it’s another major reason why we should be profoundly skeptical of unqualified paeans to the private sector. In theory, it might be possible to design social-insurance programs that rely on the private sector but do everything that current programs do. In practice, however, privatized approaches almost invariably change the distribution of who gets the benefits, because they tend to erode common pools and subsidies (indeed, that’s what their advocates often want). Yet there’s no reason for advocates of social programs to cede the ground on efficiency while raising broader concerns of this sort, because in health and social policy, what is most just is also, in a great many cases, most efficient as well.

Broad-based insurance, after all, is not like widgets. In the fiercely competitive market of economics textbooks, multiple sellers appeal to multiple buyers who have good information about the comparative merits of relatively similar products. Competition squeezes out inefficiencies and yields optimal outcomes. But “markets” for social insurance don’t work like this. In particular, information in these markets is both scarce and unequally distributed. This leads, in turn, to all sorts of familiar distortions on both sides of the transaction. Consumers, for example, can saddle private insurers with “adverse selection,” which occurs when only high-risk folks buy insurance. The “moral hazard” problem crops up when people are insured against costs that are partially under their control, and then engage in risky behavior. On the producer side, health-insurance companies can take steps to avoid costly patients, and purveyors of retirement products can gull unwary retirees in order to enrich insiders. All of this is why insurance aimed at achieving broad and necessarily social objectives has never worked well, or indeed at all, without some government support and regulation. And it’s also why it often makes sense for that support to take the form of public insurance.

Notice I say “insurance.” The real issue in the big-ticket areas of U.S. social policy isn’t public versus private services. It’s public versus private insurance. Medicare buys essentially all its services from the private sector, and no one wants that to change. What some want to change is the degree to which Medicare is in the insurance business, and it’s here that all the efficiency advantages of the public sector become clear.

Perhaps the most obvious is the advantage that neither side wants to talk about: compulsion. In the realms of public policy under discussion, however, compulsion is often necessary to make the market work. Think about what would happen if younger and healthier senior citizens were allowed to opt out of Medicare for private coverage: The broad risk-pool of the program would collapse.

Broad programs also have another big advantage: They are ridiculously inexpensive to administer. The typical private health insurer spends about 10 percent of its outlays on administrative costs, including lavish salaries, extensive marketing budgets, and the expense of weeding out sick people. Medicare spends about 2 percent to 3 percent. And Social Security spends just 1 percent. Even low-cost mutual funds have operating costs greater than that.

Here is where critics of social insurance usually pull out their trump card — the claim that social insurance is not just inefficient but unaffordable. Maybe social insurance is, in some sense, efficient; but, these critics argue, its inexorable growth will lead the United States to financial ruin. And it is true that the growth of social insurance isn’t slowed by the usual market brake of consumer willingness to pay. (If it were, as just emphasized, it wouldn’t work.) But that doesn’t mean that there are no brakes at all. If it did, the federal government would now be a leviathan, rather than — as is the case — about as large as it was in the early 1970s. Americans don’t decide individually how much of their income to devote to social insurance. But, through their elected representatives, they do decide — in a rough way, of course — how much of the nation’s income to devote. Spending has trade-offs, in the form of higher taxes and forgone priorities, and those trade-offs are visible in people’s tax bills and everyday lives, and in public debate. Anyone who has followed recent political fights knows that politicians are not evading the rising costs of social programs.

What’s more, the government has another advantage when it comes to holding down costs: It is a powerful negotiator. Medicare pays doctors and hospitals less per service than does the private sector, and its costs have grown more slowly than private health plans over the last 30 years, despite huge technological advances in care for the aged. Medicaid is even more austere (some might say too austere): Its payments are well below private levels, and it negotiates bargain-basement prices on prescription drugs — something Medicare has been barred from doing. The main reason that Medicaid’s costs are rising so rapidly is not that it pays exorbitantly for services but that it covers a lot more children and families than it used to, a good thing in an era in which private coverage has plummeted. Lest government’s use of its countervailing power to hold down prices seems illegitimate, it’s worth remembering that this is exactly what HMOs and other big health plans were supposed to do — but Medicare and Medicaid do it better.

To be sure, public insurance could still dampen what economists call dynamic efficiency, that is, innovation and improvements in quality. But in some areas, like sending out retirement checks, it’s not clear where the innovation will come from, while in others, like micromanaging providers, it’s not clear that the private sector’s “innovations” are really worth emulating. Many of the innovations have to do with discriminating against people at risk of getting sick, micromanaging doctors, and shifting out-of-pocket costs onto patients. Profit-motivated entrepreneurs quickly realize that the most effective way to minimize costs is to get rid of the people most likely to need care. This may be efficient from their perspective, but it’s obviously not efficient for society.

Plus, when it comes to the most basic and important form of dynamic efficiency — namely, quality control and improvement — the public sector is arguably as capable as the private sector, and probably more so. As Phillip Longman has argued in an important Washington Monthly article on veterans’ health care, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has used its central power to create a model evidence-based quality-improvement program. Although the Medicare program still has a long way to go to match the VA, no one disputes that it conducts more rigorous reviews of technology and treatments than private health plans do. Indeed, private plans use Medicare’s criteria for covering treatments as their standard of medical necessity. Information about quality is a classic public good — everyone benefits from it, but few have strong incentives to supply it. A large insurer with extensive data on its patients and considerable power to reshape market practice is arguably best positioned to provide such a good.

And this is simply to focus on efficiency. As noted already, the public sector runs circles around the private sector in terms of equity, the other major rationale for social insurance. If the current functions of social insurance were just turned over to the private market, vast numbers of people simply wouldn’t be able to afford anything as good as Social Security and Medicare. Conservatives like to argue that everything provided in the Social Security package — the annuity, disability, and life-insurance coverage — could just be purchased in the private market. It could, but at far greater cost for most Americans, and many applicants would be deemed “uninsurable.” All of which suggests that the claim that social programs are “inefficient” is often just a politically correct way of saying that they don’t follow the usual market logic of giving the most to those with the greatest means.

Liberals frequently stress the equity argument but buy into the efficiency critique because they recognize, correctly, that the market is usually tremendously efficient. But they shouldn’t accept that premise when it comes to social insurance. Well-functioning markets are indeed efficient for ordinary commerce, but well-designed social insurance is almost always more efficient than its market counterparts when it comes to dealing with the basic social risks that capitalism invariably produces. It’s high time for liberals to say what logic, evidence, and the lived experience of citizens all show: The efficiency attack on social insurance, far from a self-evident truth, is usually an attack on the ideal of social insurance itself — the notion that everyone, regardless of income or likelihood of need, should be covered by a common umbrella of protection. And, ultimately, social insurance is good for the efficiency of society as a whole, not just because it provides much-needed protections at a reasonable cost, but also because it allows people to deal with what FDR once called the “hazards or vicissitudes” of modern capitalism without draconian restraints on the free play of the competitive market.

So the next time someone complains to you about the compassion of the IRS, the efficiency of the post office, all at Pentagon prices, tell them you’d be happy with the efficiency of Social Security, the compassion of Medicare, all at Medicaid prices.

Jacob S. Hacker, a political scientist at Yale and New America Foundation fellow, is the author of The Divided Welfare State, as well as of the forthcoming books The Great Risk Shift and, with Paul Pierson, Off Center: The Republican Revolution and the Erosion of American Democracy.

By Dan Kurland
Charleston Gazette (Charleston, WV)
May 13, 2005

May 1-8 was Cover the Uninsured Week, a time to focus on the broader health-care crisis. Writer Alwin Hawkins sums up the situation fairly well: “Everything I see we can do to fix the problem is either politically, ethically or financially disastrous.” But that’s probably not what you wanted to hear.

Health care is funded in a la-la world of cost-shifting. Uncompensated care is covered by overcharging those who actually pay. Charity care is partially reimbursed by the government. Everyone thinks someone else is paying. No one realizes that whether insurance is based on individual contributions, employer contributions, or government programs, in the end individual citizens pay all health-care costs out of pocket, in higher prices and lower wages, or in taxes. And insurance companies, like casinos, never lose.

Oh, for a while there seemed to be a glimmer of hope. HMOs tried to restore fiscal restraint, and the Clintons, bless their hearts, thought by satisfying everyone they could satisfy everyone. But it just wasn’t that simple. Vested interests just don’t play nice with others. It’s against their nature and their interests.

So here we sit, watching retirees lose pension benefits, the employed endure higher premiums and co-pays, and businesses cut back benefits. Defined contributions replace defined benefits, and why shouldn’t they? Costs have skyrocketed. Why make promises you can’t keep? It’s not business’s fault that prices went up, or that workers want affordable health care.

As more people drop from the lists of the insured, states seek ways to insure the growing number of uninsured. Not by subsidizing insurance, of course. There’s no money for that. Instead they look to low-cost private insurance packages. But low cost implies low coverage. Fewer services, higher co-pays, higher deductibles and lower maximum benefits. Yet everyone benefits: The uninsured are offered coverage, the insurance industry gets a new product to sell, and providers are protected against the rising costs of uncompensated care. Without insurance companies, after all, how would people get health care? (Hint: the public education system.)

As states create new initiatives to insure the uninsured, reduced federal Medicaid funding forces those very same states to uninsure the otherwise Medicaid-insured. There’s a war going on, and tax cuts to save. We must keep our priorities straight.

And keep our values straight as well. People can make up their own minds when they buy a car, why not a heart transplant (read: consumer-directed choice)? They can save for a vacation, why not a bypass (read: health savings account)? Must government always tell us what to do? Smoking, drinking, Big Macs and Barcaloungers. Wait long enough and there’ll be a pill for obesity. We all know it. Trust me. Wait. You’ll see the ad on TV.

We have moved from physician-based health care to pill-based health care, from a needs-based (I feel sick) to a market-inspired (…may last for four hours…) health-care system. We take pills for diseases we never imagined we had, whether there is clinical evidence to support their value or not. Everything is marketing. Once physicians start owning imaging centers, they obviously need volume (patients) to amortize their investment. Economic necessity clearly cannot be denied.

Of course, in time it will all catch up with us. Skyrocketing prices and continuing unhealthy lifestyles will lead to fewer insured and more uncompensated care and increased financial strain on the health-care industry. Providers will be forced to turn away Medicaid patients because below- cost reimbursement policies are sucking them dry. Whoops! That’s already happening! Government will have to step in to save failing hospitals to assure medical care.

When people are dying on the streets — or worse, health-care companies are going south on the stock market — others might actually take to the street and demand something be done.

When providers no longer have economic and political leverage, real changes can be made. We’ll be free to replace doctors with nonphysician health-care providers for preventive procedures, to insist on doctor-pharmacist collaboration in disease management, and to reimburse home care instead of hospital care. We’ll have the will to limit each patient to a single transplant, to ban Cheetos, to forbid Game Boys, and to prohibit low-probability end-of-life care. We’ll be free to legislate that school buses drop our children a half mile from schools to assure they get their exercise, and that all school lunches have two vegetables (not counting ketchup).

At least we won’t have to make the hard decisions. They’ll have been made for us.

Kurland is health action coordinator of Covenant House and creator of the Web site www.criticalreading.com