Abolishing the middleman won't make health care a free lunch

Mar 22, 2007

  1. Sam
    Offline

    Sam Founder Administrator

    Posts:
    1,532
    Likes Received:
    58
    Tyler Cowen, my favorite Economist, has a great article in the Times today. The basic gist is that a single-payer system wouldn't actually save overhead costs, as it has it's own overhead and economic implications.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/b...ec7d18fcf&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss



    Proponents of single-payer national health insurance note that private health insurance has overhead costs of 10 to 25 percent of expenditures. Medicare, by contrast, has overhead costs of about 2 to 3 percent, and socialized European health care systems generally have low overhead costs as well. That is why single-payer supporters claim that we can save money by substituting government for private insurance. But this would shift overhead costs, not reduce them.

    The monitoring, marketing and overhead costs of private insurance are what allow more expensive medical treatments through the door. It is precisely because competing insurance companies spend money evaluating the appropriateness of claims that they are willing to pay for so many heart bypasses, extra tests, private hospital rooms and CT scans.

    Medical insurance, whether private or government, is always going to be faced with a fundamental problem: patients and doctors will try to get the most out of any system. When they aren’t paying directly, patients will seek extra care and doctors will be happy to oblige. To deal with that problem, health care systems can offer services indiscriminately and write off the resulting losses, spend money on monitoring, or limit services and prices. An analogous problem is faced by retail stores: they must either put up with theft, hire security to limit theft, or carry lower-value items.

    Just as some items are harder to shoplift than others, so some medical services are less prone to overuse. European systems are relatively good at providing prenatal care or mending someone hit by a car. Few people would try to get these services unless they were really needed. No one but an expectant mother, for instance, will show up for a prenatal checkup; nor would excess prenatal checkups cost a great deal. The unwillingness of European systems to spend on overhead means they will do best specializing in these kinds of services.

    Health insurers cannot just offer expensive tests, technologies, hospital rooms and surgeries for older patients for the taking. Doctors will too often recommend these services and receive reimbursement, even to the point of financial abuse. Medicare has this problem to some extent.

    When it comes to these discretionary benefits, European systems are more likely to make people wait for them, more likely to make the service inconvenient or uncomfortable, or simply not make the services available in the first place. All of these features discourage those who don’t really need care, and, of course, some people simply go elsewhere and pay out of their own pockets. Either way, the overhead costs have been shifted onto patients and their families.

    On average, European systems are relatively good for the young, who are generally healthy and need treatment for obvious accidents and emergencies, with transparent remedies. European systems are less effective for the elderly, the primary demanders of discretionary medical benefits. American society has the reputation of paying less heed to the elderly than Europe does, but when it comes to medical care it is the other way around.

    American citizens could, if they wanted, replicate many features of Canadian and European systems, but in the private sector. They, or their employers, could join stringent but cheap managed care plans. Health maintenance organizations were popular 15 years ago, but Americans didn’t like being told that they couldn’t have a treatment, or that they would have to wait. That experience showed that Americans are willing to pay for insurance company overhead costs, if it means they sometimes get more in return.

    Private insurance also provided earlier access to prescription drugs — an expensive yet effective form of medical care — for 20 years or more before Medicare did. The competition among private insurers may appear wasteful, but over time it stimulates better and more complete coverage.

    Nor are Canadian and European health care systems as cheap as they look. Measuring health care expenditures as a share of national income does not count waiting costs or the lack of availability of many advanced technologies and treatments.

    Furthermore, the lower reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals in Canada and Western Europe save less than first impressions suggest. Bargaining down health care prices won’t change the reality that real resources must be devoted to produce care. The true social cost of a doctor is not the doctor’s wage, which is simply money passing from one hand to another; the true cost is what the doctor could have produced doing something else. Higher doctors’ wages in the United States reflect, in part, the higher return to skilled talent in the more entrepreneurial American economy.

    As long as lifestyle, diet, attitude, social standing and exercise are the major determinants of personal health, the expensive American emphasis on discretionary treatment will not always seem sensible. Many people just don’t benefit that much from medical care. Look at the life expectancy around the Mediterranean — it is high but not because of wonderful health care.

    But as populations age and the value of medical technology grows, the overhead costs of private insurance will prove an increasingly wise investment. For all its high immediate expenses, the American health care system is looking toward the future rather than the past. In the long run, the hidden and indirect costs of single-payer systems are harder to measure and thus are ultimately harder to control.

    Middlemen and marketing costs have long been viewed with suspicion by critics of commerce. But these practices are usually signs of market sophistication, not waste. The gains from abolishing private insurance and its overhead costs are an illusion. TANSTAAFL, or “There Ain’t No Such Thing as a Free Lunch.”

    Tyler Cowen is a professor of economics at George Mason University and co-author of a blog at www.marginalrevolution.com.
     
    Sam, Mar 22, 2007
    #1
  2. johnrocks
    Offline

    johnrocks Guru

    Posts:
    430
    Likes Received:
    0
    I also love the writings of Thomas Sowell of the Brookings institute and Walter Williams also of George Mason who in my opinion is a genius!!
     
  3. somarco
    Offline

    somarco That Medicare Guy

    Posts:
    28,775
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    State:
    Georgia
    When you ask, no one seems to know where this 3% figure for Medicare & (up to ) 30% figure for private vendors comes from.

    The fact is, Medicare does not adjudicate nor pay claims. All they do is determine eligibility and establish DRG's.

    Carriers via contract adjudicate & pay the claims. You know, those guys that scarf up 30% of the revenue for themselves.

    Medicare saves money by refusing to pay for most end of life care, continuously shifting the burden of routine care to the covered participants, and squeezing the providers to the point that many are no longer accepting new Medicare patients. This is especially true for PCP's, many of whom are converting to concierge services.

    Medicare for 65+ isn't working. Medicare for all will be a disaster.
     
    somarco, Mar 22, 2007
    #3
  4. johnrocks
    Offline

    johnrocks Guru

    Posts:
    430
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think all the people involved are money hungry..My mom will be 86 next month and she goes to her podiatrist to get fitted for diabetic shoes. I have examined those shoes,they look like they came from Payless but Medicare was hit for 600 bucks. Providers may not "feel" like they are being compensated fairly. But in a govt. run program who decides what is fair. Certainly not free enterprise at work!!
     
  5. Sam
    Offline

    Sam Founder Administrator

    Posts:
    1,532
    Likes Received:
    58
    These Democrats are really starting to scare me. It sounds so crazy, but I really think they are going to give it a shot. Hillary keeps talking about health care for all...
     
    Sam, Mar 22, 2007
    #5
  6. johnrocks
    Offline

    johnrocks Guru

    Posts:
    430
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was listening to talk radio today and Shawn Hannity's program was on. I caught the tail end of the caller but he was a so called health expert talking about the need for a national type risk pool for health insurance. He stated that the lobbyist's kept the states insurance laws to favor the companies. That for example health insurance for a family of 4 in New Hamphire costs a little over $3000 per year but in New Jersey it was over $13000. Of course he didn't mention any variables such as age, health conditions,smoker etc. He believes that if you have a national set of risk pool rules that a family of 4 everywhere could have health insurance for around $3500 per year.

    This all sounded good until I got to thinking;if you looked at other types of costs such as housing you would find a 3 bedroom 2 bath home in New Hamphire is probably less expensive than a comfortable one in Jersey. Is a doctor visit in Concorde the same as in Newark? There are so many variables that it can't possibly be that simple. I think they tried this before and it failed.. It's called communism!
     
  7. natem2112
    Offline

    natem2112 Super Genius

    Posts:
    112
    Likes Received:
    0
    I ordered a copy of a book co-authered by Greg Dattilo & Dave Race from the AHIA association, it was cheap, (about a $1.00 per paperback) and I thought it might be a good lead generator.

    Once I delved into the book, the authors really pointed out what people are talking about with healthcare in the US.

    No, they don't go into every intimate detail and what is the best way to fix everything, but they bring up eveything that needs to be brought up, and at the same tine suggesting practical ways to fix it.

    The title is: "What really ails the US health care system"

    I think it will be a good starter for discussions for your clients and prospects.

    Here's a link for the book for NAIFA & AHIA members.
     
  8. salpro22
    Offline

    salpro22 Guru

    Posts:
    1,954
    Likes Received:
    25
    State:
    Texas
    Looks like an interesting book. Only shame is that you have to buy $25 at a time.
     
    salpro22, Mar 26, 2007
    #8