Progress on Medicaid Reform

Posted on January 29, 2015 by jackheidel

It is widely understood that the rapid increase in spending for entitlements (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) is the main driver of our debt problem. Anything that can be done to get spending for these programs under control is of great value.
The problem with Medicaid is that a fixed percentage of each state’s costs is paid for by the federal government. The more a state spends, the more that is contributed by the federal government which is a disincentive for states to control their own spending. From 1989 to 2013, the share of state budgets devoted to Medicaid rose from 9% to 19%. This upward trend is a problem for both state and federal government and is clearly unsustainable.
One way to change the spending incentive is to turn Medicaid into a block-grant program whereby the federal government contributes a specific amount of money to each state each year and gives states more leeway in designing their own programs. States would then have a much bigger incentive to hold down costs and the flexibility to be able to do it.
Progress is being made in this direction with the use of waivers:

Rhode Island received a waiver in 2009 to try out various cost-saving measures such as wellness programs, co-payments, etc. It has been quite successful and very well received.
Last year Pennsylvania agreed to expand Medicaid to an additional 500,000 people along with a waiver allowing people above the poverty line to be charged premiums of up to 2% of their household income as well as being charged an $8 copayment for use of emergency rooms.
Now Indiana (http://www.wsj.com/articles/indiana-governor-to-expand-medicaid-coverage-1422371729) has agreed to an expansion with a waiver under which beneficiaries above the poverty level would be charged premiums of 2% of income and would be locked out of benefits for six months if they fall behind in their payments.
Additional states such as Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Tennessee, Alabama and Florida are also considering Medicaid expansions and likely will be influenced by the possibility of receiving similar waivers.

Waivers are not as cost effective as block-grant funding but they are an improvement over the existing one-size-fits-all federal rules. If more individual states are able to show that waivers really do work to reduce costs, this will increase the likelihood of implementing a block-grant system.

Status Quo on the Budget Is Not Good Enough II. Look at the Big Picture!

Posted on December 28, 2014 by jackheidel

In my last post, “Status Quo on the Budget Is Not Good Enough,” I discussed a report from the outgoing chair of the Senate Budget Committee, Patty Murray (D-WA), and explained how it epitomizes the lack of progress made on the massive debt problem which has developed since the Great Recession of 2008 -2009.
The basic problem is that Senator Murray’s analysis simply does not recognize the seriousness of our debt problem as shown in the above chart. Right now our public debt (on which we pay interest) is “sitting” at 74% of GDP for a year or two, before it continues its rapid increase. This projection assumes an historically “normal” growth rate of 3% and no new recessions, neither of which assumption is assured. It also assumes that the sequester budget cuts and new top tax rate of 39.6% stay in effect. In other words it is a best case scenario based on current policy.
Breaking it down, the debt will continue to increase because annual deficits will continue to exceed the rate of growth of the economy. The main driver of these increasing deficits is the cost of the health care entitlements of Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare costs will increase rapidly because of the aging of the American people. Medicaid costs will increase rapidly because: 1) more low-income people are being covered by the ACA and 2) since the recession there are more low-income people to be covered. I certainly support expanded healthcare coverage but we have to figure out how to pay for it!
How do we contain the increasing costs of Medicare and Medicaid? We do it by controlling the overall rapid growth (at twice the rate of inflation) of healthcare costs in general, i.e. for private healthcare. How do we do this? See a couple of my recent posts either here or here.
Senator Murray, along with many other progressives, argues that we need more deficit spending in order to stimulate the economy and create new jobs. More jobs are badly needed but more deficit spending is the wrong way to get them. Then how? With tax reform among other things.
Based on the outcome of the 2014 elections, I am optimistic that something along the lines of what I have just described will be tried by the next Congress. We’ll soon find out!

The Reality of Today’s Healthcare: Cost Is Critical

Posted on October 19, 2014 by jackheidel

My last two posts have been devoted to discussing the prospects for a true free-market healthcare system in the U.S. Let’s bring this discussion down to earth with two specific examples.
In Omaha NE, where I live, there are three major hospital systems and one of them, Catholic Health Initiatives, is 30% more expensive than the other two. The major insurer, Blue Cross Blue Shield, has reacted by canceling its contract with CHI, making it out-of-network for Blue Cross policy holders.
As reported in today’s Omaha World Herald, “Non-CHI health clinics, hospitals handling influx,” the Nebraska Medical Center and Methodist Hospital System are seeing a large influx of Blue Cross insured patients. This is exactly what has been expected to happen and will eventually put pressure on CHI to lower its prices in line with the other two hospital systems.
The second example, “Unable to Meet the Deductible or the Doctor” is the title of an article in yesterday’s New York Times. The article reports that 7.3 million Americans are now enrolled in insurance coverage through the Affordable Care Act. However the average deductible for a bronze plan on the exchange – the least expensive coverage – is $5,081 for an individual. This compares to the average deductible of $1,217 for individual coverage in employer-sponsored plans.
Not surprisingly, relatively low-income people obtaining subsidized coverage through an exchange are likely to want a low cost policy. But with a high deductible they will then be hard-pressed to have to pay the full price of routine care out of there possibly meager budgets. This is going to be a larger and larger problem as more and more people obtain coverage through the exchanges.
Since all of an individual’s medical bills should go through the insurer for processing, insurance companies are in a position to, and should be expected to, help control costs by bargaining with providers to make sure that prices are not excessive.
Conclusion: here are two examples of price competition in today’s healthcare market place. This is the reality that more and more Americans are going to have to learn to live with. It is the only way that our excessive healthcare costs can be brought under control.

How Do We Establish A Free Market Healthcare System in the U.S.?

Posted on October 16, 2014 by jackheidel

As I discussed in my last post, it is critical and urgent for the U.S. to sharply reduce the cost of healthcare, both public and private. There are basically two different ways to do this: with either a “single payer” system like most of the rest of the developed world has, or with a more nearly free market system than we have at the present time.
Both Switzerland and Singapore have largely free market systems with universal coverage and they operate at far less public cost, as shown above, than for other developed countries including the U.S. The Singapore model features Catastrophic Care insurance, coupled with Health Savings Accounts, for all citizens, with subsidies for those with low-income. The Swiss model employs exchanges, similar to our own Affordable Care Act, to subsidize, on a sliding scale, health insurance for the low income. In Switzerland only 20% of the people receive an insurance subsidy compared to 85% in the U.S.
The Manhattan Institute’s Avik Roy has proposed a true free market system for the U.S., “Transcending Obamacare: a patient-centered plan for near-universal coverage and permanent fiscal solvency,” which is modeled on the Swiss system. Mr. Roy’s plan sets up universal exchanges to offer insurance, subsidized if necessary, to everyone who does not receive it from their employer.
He proposes that over time Medicare and Medicaid recipients as well as Veterans would migrate into the exchange system. This means that eventually the 30% of Americans (elderly, poor and veterans) who now receive direct government (single payer) support would become part of the exchange system. Mr. Roy’s Universal Exchange Plan is projected to reduce deficit spending by $8 trillion over the 30 year period which it will take to fully phase in the exchanges. This will go a long way towards solving our serious fiscal problems.
Conclusion: both Singapore and Switzerland have high quality, cost efficient free market health care systems which proves that a free market approach is possible. Mr. Roy adapts and expands the Swiss model for the much larger and more complex American market. It isn’t necessarily the last word in healthcare reform but it takes a big step in the right direction.

Is A Free Market Possible in Health Care?

Posted on October 14, 2014 by jackheidel

With a total national debt of $17.8 trillion, of which close to $13 trillion is public debt (on which we pay interest), it is easily understood that the U.S. has a very serious fiscal problem. At the present time the public debt is 74% of GDP and this already high percentage is predicted by the Congressional Budget Office to keep growing indefinitely.
The biggest driver of spending growth going forward is the cost of healthcare. For example just the three programs, Medicare ($492 billion), Medicaid ($280 billion) and Veterans Healthcare ($54 billion), cost a total of $826 billion per year in federal dollars. And these costs are all increasing rapidly. Of course, private healthcare spending, currently about $2 trillion per year, is also growing rapidly. Overall, the U.S. spends 17.3% of GDP on healthcare spending, public and private, almost twice as much as any other developed country.
How are we going to address this enormous cost issue going forward? The Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) doesn’t do it. What it does do is to provide healthcare to more people under our current model of employer provided health insurance with Medicare for the elderly and Medicaid for the poor. It is this model which is broken and must be reformed. Basically we have two choices for how to do this. Either we switch over to a “single payer” system like most of the other developed countries have or we establish a far more efficient free market system.
As the above chart shows, right now we have a composite system and it is just not cost-effective. There are plenty of experts who claim that a free market cannot work in healthcare. For example, the tax lawyer, Edward Kleinbard, in a new book, “We Are Better than This: how government should spend our money” argues that what a free market gives us is: unavoidable controversy for excluded pre-existing conditions, moral hazard for risky behavior, uncertain premiums for permanent insurance, fragmented healthcare markets, monopoly provider organizations leading to price opacity, very high administrative costs, etc.
The Manhattan Institute’s Avik Roy has a different point of view. In his proposal, “Transforming Obamacare,” (http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/mpr_17.pdf) he points out that there are two countries, Switzerland and Singapore, which operate highly regarded free-market healthcare systems at very low public cost. Stay tuned for further discussion!

Income Inequality and Rising Health-Care Costs

Posted on October 7, 2014 by jackheidel

There seems to be a general consensus on the reality of increasing income inequality in the U.S. and even some agreement on its two main causes: globalization and the rapid spread of technology. The slow growth of the economy since the end of the recession has made the inequality problem that much worse.
Not surprisingly, slow economic growth in the past five years has led to stagnant wages for many workers. My last post addressed this problem. The above chart from the New York Times shows that incomes for top wage earners have been rising in recent years while they have been stagnant for middle- and lower-income workers.
But there is more to it than this. In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, Mark Warshawsky and Andrew Biggs point out that, “Income Inequality and Rising Health-Care Costs,” in the years 1999 – 2006, total pay and benefits for low income workers rose by 41% while wages rose by only 28%, barely outpacing inflation. For workers making $250,000 or more total compensation rose by a lesser 36% while wages grew by a greater 35%. This apparent anomaly is explained by the fact that health insurance costs are relatively flat across all income categories, thus comprising a much larger percentage of the total pay package of low-income workers than for high-income workers.
In fact, the Kaiser Foundation has shown that low-wage workers tend to pay higher health insurance premiums, as well as receiving lower insurance benefits, than higher paid workers (see the above chart).
Overall, what this means is that employer provided healthcare is taking a huge chunk out of the earnings of low-income workers which makes income inequality much worse than it would be otherwise. Of course, the cost of healthcare is a huge burden for the entire U.S. economy, currently eating up 17.3% of GDP, twice as much as for any other developed country.
For both of these reasons it is an urgent matter for the U.S. to get healthcare costs under control. Avik Roy of the Manhattan Institute has an excellent plan to do just this as I have discussed in several recent posts.

Three Cheers for Blue Cross Blue Shield Nebraska!

Posted on September 7, 2014 by jackheidel

As I reported in my last post healthcare costs in the U.S. are expected to start climbing rapidly in next few years as the economy continues to recover and insurance coverage expands.
The Manhattan Institute’s Avik Roy has proposed a comprehensive new plan, ”Transforming Obamacare” to achieve, at the same time, both near-universal coverage and stringent cost control for healthcare. Mr. Roy emphasizes the need to regulate hospital system consolidation which is especially responsible for driving up the cost of healthcare.
In Omaha NE, where I live, there are three hospital systems: Catholic Health Initiatives, the Nebraska Medical Center and the Methodist Hospital System. According to the insurance company, Blue Cross Blue Shield Nebraska (OWH 9/6/14), “CHI prices are 10 to 30 percent higher than for the Nebraska Medical Center and Methodist Hospital System.” BCBS insists that CHI cut its prices. As of September 1, CHI hospitals are out of network for BCBS and so patients who are insured by BCBS have to pay higher hospital rates.
“We are ready and willing to meet with them when they propose an agreement that gets serious about the cost issue,” said Lee Handke, a senior vice-president for Blue Cross Blue Shield.
Reports the OWH “Blue Cross’ biggest customers are the region’s employers, whose 560,000 workers and family members supply 80% of Blue Cross’ revenue each year. A big share of these people are CHI customers, too. … Blue Cross has told us (an insurance benefits broker) they understand that they might lose some business over this deal, but they feel that the point they have to make on the cost disparity is more important.”
For one hospital system to charge 30% more than two others for the same services is totally unacceptable. It means that customers for the other two systems are paying higher insurance costs in order to subsidize the system with the higher prices.
In the Omaha market, Blue Cross has the clout and the will to force CHI to lower its prices. But many other communities may not be as fortunate.

It Does Not Add Up

Jack Heidel's blog on fiscal responsibility

Category Archives: health insurance