Healthcare Reform

You are currently browsing articles tagged Healthcare Reform.

How did Obama’s Healthcare Summit go?  It was basically a pile of bad ideas.  Senator Harkin gave the best explanation of what’s truly needed, but I’ll save that for last.

Examples of BAD IDEAS include

Starting over.  John McCain asked to “Go back to the beginning” and Republican Senator Lamar Alexander said ”If we can start over, we can write a healthcare bill.”  The whole start over rhetoric is dumb.  If you don’t like the current proposals, say what you don’t like about them.  If you have suggestions on how to do it better, say them.  Suggesting a “do over” is not helpful.  Even if you think health care in the U.S. is perfect and prefer the status quo, you should stand up and say that rather than asking for a clean slate.

Health Reform will lower the deficit. Expanding federal entitlement programs will NOT lower the deficit.  In the short-run, additional tax revenue and cuts to other programs may decrease the deficit in the very short run, but adding or expanding big government programs never lowers the deficit.

Reforming medical malpractice.  I have documented that the medical malpractice system does not work well (see here and here).  However, malpractice costs are a small share of the overall health care dollars.  If physicians prescribe too many tests and treatments because they wish to avoid being sued, than tort reform could decrease costs more drastically.  However, this issue is more of a partisan one where Republicans can pander to their physician supporters and Democrats can pander to their attorney supporters.

End Waste and Abuse.  This is a laudable goal, but determining what is waste and abuse is difficult.  If you get an MRI for an injury, you may not need the MRI, but it will provide the doctor with some helpful information.  This is certainly not fraud, but it may be waste.  Having Medicare administrators who are far from the hospital floor determine what is wasteful is not as easy as political rhetoric makes it sound.  Further, although there is much waste in the Medicare system, there is much waste when doctors are paid by private insurers as well.  Every President promises to reduce Medicare fraud and waste, but few succeed.

We actually create more diabetes through the food stamp program and the school lunch program.”  - Senator Coburn.  Do poor people buy more unhealthy food?  Yes.  Is it because of these programs?  No.  The poor have less money and fast food is cheap.  Fresh fruits and vegetables are expensive.  Increasing redistribution would allow the poor to eat healthier, but if Senator Coburn wants to mandate that poor people eat healthy, I think that is going too far.  People on food stamps aren’t all of a sudden start shopping at Whole Foods.  The food police are not the solution to health reform.

Here’s where the GOOD IDEAS were:

Incremental Reform doesn’t work.  Senator Wyden said, “The evidence says incremental reform not only does less, it costs more.”

The most sensible comments came from Senator Harkin.  In order to reduce health insurance premiums and Medicare expenses, we need cost control (i.e., rationing).  We need to limit the medical care we make available to ourselves.  Every person should not be able to receive every medical treatment they think will improve their lives.  Determining which treatments to exclude form Medicare or private insurance is full of tough decisions, but they must be made, otherwise health insurance premiums will gobble up more and more of our wages.

Of course, no senator could support rationing care, but that is what Senator Harkin is essence supporting.   Here is a quotation:

Well, quite frankly, if we want insurance reforms you can only do that if everybody is in the pool. You can only get everybody in the pool if you make it affordable for middle class families and others. You can only make it affordable for middle class families and others if you have cost controls.

The full transcript of the summit can be found in three parts (1, 2, 3).  NPR also has some good analysis here.

Tags: , , ,

Health economists and policymakers have lots of ideas of how to improve the health care system.  Yet few of these reforms are implemented.  Why?

Max Hotopf of Healthcare Europa tries to answer this question in the context of Europe’s attempts at healthcare reform.  Below are some of his arguments and my comments.

  1. Decentralization. “In most European countries healthcare policy is effectively left in the hands of regional authorities. Finland takes this to the extreme with primary and secondary care delegated to over 400 municipalities, each with 5,000 to 10,000 people.”  Mr. Hotopf claims that this decentralization makes it difficult to implement health care reform.  I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Hotopf that decentralization makes implementing wholesale healthcare reforms more difficult.  However, I do not necessarily imply that the solution is centralization.  Generally, most economists have found that more decentralized control of government-run institutions is best.  Individuals generally have higher satisfaction with government institutions on a local level than on a national level.  Although these local bodies may suffer from diseconomies of scale, decentralized systems have better information about the needs of their local constituents.  Thus, fixing the “problem” of decentralization will likely create more problems than it solves.
  2. What the public will accept/elections.  Healthcare Europa states that the European public is often against any high profile privatization in the health care system. Further, changes in the political climate can easily derail reform efforts.  For instance, “in the Czech republic, the social democrats took power this month and are utterly opposed to any sort of private healthcare. The privatisation programme in Slovakia has been slung into reverse.”  Despite this fact, I doubt that abandoning democracy for a government of experts is a good idea [Anyone who thinks a government of experts is always good should read The Best and the Brightest about the U.S. involvement in Vietnam.]
  3. Professional bodies have a lot of political power and can overturn reforms.  ”The British Medical Association regularly scuppers government policy, such as the move towards larger polyclinics. It is two years since the Greek courts ruled that stipulations that a doctor has to own over 50% of any diagnostics lab are contrary to EU law. Yet, thanks to pressure from doctors, the Ministry of Health has constantly stalled any attempt to change the law.”  Here I completely agree with Healthcare Europa.

 
The blog post does leave us with some sage advice: “Unless you have an intimate understanding of how private healthcare operators will behave in any situation, you will fail to come up with programmes which will harness their energy and appetite for change.”

Tags: ,