The New York Times has two recent articles about health care spending, “Good News inside the Health Spending Numbers” and “The Battle over Douglas Elmendorf – and the Inability to See Good News.” These two articles focus on the fact, clearly evident in the chart just below, that the rate of increase in overall health care spending has slowed down since 2009. In fact health care spending has been a constant 17.4% of GDP for the past four years, while it increased by 1.9% of GDP in the four years before that. More precisely, health care spending rose by 3.6% in 2013, down from 4.1% in 2012. It is, of course, very good news that increases in health care spending have dropped dramatically since the recession in 2007-2009, but is it really surprising that this has happened in the midst of so much economic pain, with a very high rate of unemployment as well as stagnant incomes for most Americans? In fact, even in these circumstances, health care spending is still growing at twice the rate of inflation, which has been under 2% during this same time period.
A more realistic view of health care spending has just been presented to the Health Subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce by Marc Goldwein, from the non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a Washington D.C. think tank focused on fiscal responsibility. Mr. Goldwein makes the following points:
Despite the recent slowdown in health care spending, it remains incredibly important that policymakers pursue reforms to reduce future projected health care costs.
Policymakers should focus first and foremost on health care “benders” that would improve incentives in order to slow the overall growth of health care spending.
Policymakers should next look to health cost “savers” which reduce federal costs by better allocating resources within the federal health programs.
Given the aging of the population, health reforms will be necessary but not sufficient to put the debt on a sustainable long-term track.
Slowing down the rate of growth of health care is going to be a huge challenge for our national leaders. I will elaborate on how to do this in forthcoming blog posts.
The New York Times is running a series of articles, “Paying Till It Hurts,” giving many examples of the very high cost of healthcare in the U.S. today. The latest article “As Hospital Prices Soar, A Single Stitch Tops $500”, focuses on the high cost of emergency room treatment around the country.
We spend 18% of GDP on healthcare, twice as much as any other country in the world. It is specifically the cost of healthcare entitlements, Medicare and Medicaid, which is driving our huge deficits and rapidly growing national debt. But to limit the cost of these entitlement programs, we first have to address the more fundamental problem: how to control the overall cost of healthcare in general.
Our current healthcare system, a combination of private insurance and government programs, is very inefficient. The basic problem is that the tax treatment of employer provided health insurance takes away the incentive for individuals to control the cost of their own care. And Obamacare does not solve this problem, because it just extends the present system to more people, rather than revamping it.
There are essentially two different ways to transform our current healthcare system to make it far more efficient. One way is to turn it into a single payer system, like what most of the rest of the world has. This could be accomplished by simply expanding Medicare to everyone. Costs would then be controlled by government regulation which would, of course, include rationing. Given the unpopularity of Obamacare, with all of its mandates and uniform coverage requirements, it is unlikely that Americans would be happy with such a highly proscribed single payer system.
The alternative is to change over to a truly consumer based, market oriented system. This could be accomplished by limiting the present tax exemption for employer provided insurance. For example, the current system could be replaced by a (refundable) tax credit equal to the cost of catastrophic insurance (i.e. insurance with a very high deductible). All other healthcare costs, whether paid for directly by consumers or through insurance, would be with after tax dollars. Subsidies could be provided to lower income people through the Obamacare exchanges. Once such a system is set up and running smoothly, it could fairly easily be extended to encompass Medicare and Medicaid.
Insurance companies selling catastrophic coverage would negotiate with hospitals and other healthcare providers to get the lowest possible prices for their customers. In other words, both insurance companies and providers would compete in the open market to deliver healthcare products at the lowest possible cost.
Something along this line will have to be done and the sooner we get started the better!
Today’s Wall Street Journal has a story “Job Gap Widens in Uneven Recovery”, which shows how unbalanced the economic recovery is. For workers aged 25 and older, unemployment is only 6%, compared to the overall unemployment rate of 7.3%. But for the young, ages 16 – 24, unemployment is 15%. Since the end of the recession in June 2009, wages have risen by 12% for the highest paid 25% of all workers. For the lowest paid 25%, wages have only risen by 6% over this time period.
“Households earning $50,000 or more have become steadily more confident over the past year and a half. Among lower income households, confidence has stagnated. The gap in confidence between the two groups is near its widest ever. That isn’t only bad for those being left behind. It’s also hurting the broader recovery, because it means families are able to spend only on essential items. Consumer spending rose just .1% in September 2013, after adjusting for inflation.”
Unfortunately, this data is entirely consistent with other gloomy economic trends which I have been reporting on recently such as the threat of technology to the middle class, the increased competition from globalization, and the shrinking size of the labor pool because of baby boomer retirements.
The New York Times has a running series of articles on “The Great Divide” and how to address it. Here is a clear cut example of this divide: how older, better trained and more affluent Americans are recovering from the recent recession more quickly than the less well off. This evident unfairness is damaging to the health of our society. The question is how do we address it in an effective manner?
The basic problem is the overall slow growth of the economy, about 2% of GDP per year, since the recession ended in June 2009. There are many things that policy makers can do to speed up this growth if they were only able to set aside ideological differences. The best single action by far is tax reform, for both individuals and corporations, lowering overall rates in exchange for reducing deductions and loopholes which primarily benefit the wealthy.
Here is yet another reason why it is so important to speed up the growth of our economy. How exasperating that our national leaders cannot figure out a way to come to together and get this done!
The latest issue of the Economist shows quite dramatically in the article “Labour Pains” that labor’s share of national income is dropping. In the U.S. workers’ wages have historically been about 70% of GDP. In the early 1980s this figure started falling and is now 64%. Similar declines are occurring in many other countries.
This phenomenon is closely related to what others are observing as I have reported recently. Tyler Cowen’s new book “Average is Over” discusses the threat of technology to the middle class. Daniel Alpert in “The Age of Oversupply” talks about the increase of competition from various global forces. Stephen King’s “When the Money Runs Out” makes the case that “a half-century of one-off developments in the industrialized world will not be repeated.”
Historically the stability of the wage to GDP ratio “provides the link between productivity and prosperity. If workers always get the same slice of the economic pie, then an improvement in their average productivity – which boosts growth – should translate into higher average earnings. … A falling labour share implies that productivity gains no longer translate into broad rises in pay. Instead, an ever larger share of the benefits of growth accrues to the owners of capital.”
A shrinking share of a GDP which itself is slowing down is a double whammy. The only way to address the problem effectively is to deal with the root causes.
First of all, we need to boost overall economic growth by the proven methods of broad based tax reform, especially including much lower corporate tax rates, making regulations less onerous, carrying out immigration reform, and giving special attention to helping entrepreneurs create new businesses.
How can we, additionally, help low skilled and low waged workers move up the ladder? Long term the most worthwhile action is to change K-12 education by putting more emphasis on career education to produce more highly skilled workers. Short term, we should provide crash job training for the estimated three million current job openings in the U.S. which require skilled workers.
Economic inequality in the U.S. is becoming progressively worse all the time. There are fiscally sound ways to address this alarming problem and it is important that they be clearly and forcefully advocated.
In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal columnist David Wessel responds too mildly in “Why It’s Wrong to Dismiss the Deficit” to Larry Summers’ view that we should not worry about the deficit. Mr. Summers says, “Let me be clear. I am not saying that fiscal discipline and economic growth are twin priorities. I am saying that our priority must be on increasing demand.” According to Mr. Wessel, here is the essence of Mr. Summers’ argument:
The deficit isn’t an immediate problem; growth is.
We’ve done enough (about the deficit) already.
The future is so uncertain that acting now is unwise.
Granted that the deficit for fiscal year 2013 is “only” $680 billion after four years in a row of deficits over a trillion dollars each and that interest rates are at an historically low level at the present time. The problem is that the public debt is now at the very high level of 73% of GDP and is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to continue climbing indefinitely. Interest on the debt was $415 billion for fiscal year 2013 which represents 2.5% of GDP of $16.8 trillion. With GDP growth increasing at about 2% per year since the end of the recession in June 2009, this means that interest on the debt is already slowing down the economy and it’s just going to keep getting worse as interest rates inevitably return to higher historical levels.
Growth is very definitely an immediate problem. But increased government spending is the wrong way to address it. The right way to address it is with broad based tax reform (lowering tax rates in return for closing loopholes) to stimulate investment and risk taking by businesses and entrepreneurs. Significant relaxing of the regulatory burden would also help, especially for the small businesses which are responsible for much of the growth of new jobs. So would immigration reform to boost the number of legal workers.
As uncertain as the future is, we can be quite sure that entitlement spending (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) will be going up fast in the very near future as more and more baby boomers retire and the ratio of workers to retirees continues to decline. It would be very risky indeed to assume that economic growth will increase fast enough to pay for increased entitlement spending.
Conclusion: large deficits are a very urgent and immediate problem which we ignore at our peril! Furthermore the best ways of boosting the economy don’t require increased government spending.
Several of my recent posts have been pretty gloomy. “Average is Over,” “What, Me Worry?” and “The Age of Oversupply,” for example. Here’s another gloomy one. The British economist, Stephen King, has an Op Ed column in last Monday’s New York Times, “When Wealth Disappears.”, based on his new book, “When the Money Runs Out.”
Our GDP grew at 3.4% per year in the 1980s and 1990s, then dropped to a growth rate of 2.4% from 2000 – 2007. Since the Great Recession ended it has averaged barely 2% per year. The Democrats say we just need more fiscal stimulus and monetary easing to boost the growth rate. The Republicans say deficit reduction including entitlement reform, slashing regulations and tax reform is what is needed to revive the economy.
“Both sides are wrong,” says Mr. King. “The underlying reason for the stagnation is that a half-century of one-off developments in the industrialized world will not be repeated.” These one-off developments are: the unleashing of global trade after World War II, financial innovation such as consumer credit, expansion of social safety nets which reduces the need for household savings, reduced discrimination which has flooded the labor market with women and, finally, the great increase in the number of educated citizens.
What Mr. King recommends is “economic honesty, to recognize that promises made during good times can no longer be easily kept. What this means is a higher retirement age, more immigration to increase the working age population, less borrowing from abroad (by holding down deficit spending), less reliance on monetary policy that creates unsustainable financial bubbles, a new social compact which doesn’t cannibalize the young to feed the boomers, and a further opening of world trade.”
“Policy makers simply pray for a strong recovery. They opt for the illusion because the reality is too bleak to bear. But as the current fiscal crisis demonstrates, facing the pain will not be easy. And the waking up from our collective illusions has just begun.”
It is obviously time to bite the bullet, lower our expectations, and start doing the hard work needed for even incremental economic progress.
As I discussed in my last post, the Congressional Budget Office has shown very clearly that the U.S. is on an unsustainable fiscal path which must be reversed in order to avoid calamity. We are spending too much money and not taking in enough tax revenue. In a recent Wall Street Journal Op Ed column, the economist Martin Feldstein describes “How to Create a Real Economic Stimulus”. “A successful growth and employment strategy would combine substantial reductions in the relative size of the future national debt with immediate permanent tax rate cuts and a multiyear program of infrastructure spending…….The only way to reduce future deficits without weakening incentives and growth is by cutting future government spending.”
Mr. Feldstein proposes slowing the growth of benefits of middleclass retirees by gradually raising the full benefit retirement age for Social Security from 67 to 70 and also raising the age of Medicare eligibility to the same level. This would create a budget savings of 1% of GDP, or $200 billion, by 2020. Rather than eliminating such popular tax deductions as the one for mortgage interest or the exclusion of employer payments for health insurance, he recommends limiting the amount by which individuals can reduce their tax liabilities to 2% of adjusted gross income. This single change to the tax code would, for example, reduce the 2013 deficit by $140 billion.
In addition to lowering tax rates for individuals, corporate tax rates should be cut from 35% to about 25% in order to be competitive with other industrial countries. We should also adopt the internationally common “territorial” system which doesn’t tax foreign earnings brought back home.
In short, we decrease spending and raise revenue with entitlement reforms and a limit on tax expenditures thereby creating a framework for tax rate reductions and infrastructure spending. These are the sorts of bold measures needed to produce a real stimulus and thereby get our economy back on track!
Take a look at the front page of a new report from the Congressional Budget Office, “The 2013 Long-Term Budget Outlook”. It shows very clearly the huge fiscal mess confronting our country in the near future.
First of all, our national debt has almost doubled as a percentage of GDP in the last five years, from about 38% of GDP at the end of 2008 to 73% today. Although the debt is actually projected to dip to 68% of GDP in 2018, it then begins a steady climb because of increasing interest costs as well as increasing spending on Social Security and government healthcare programs (Medicare, Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act). The debt will be back to 71% of GDP by 2023 and then climb rapidly to about 100% of GDP by 2038.
Notice from the graph that federal tax revenues have just about recovered from the recession and will soon level off at their historical level of about 19.5% of GDP. But federal spending will resume a steady climb, reaching 26% of GDP by 2038. As the gap between revenue and spending gets wider and wider, the national debt grows faster and faster. This is the enormous fiscal problem we are faced with in the next 25 years. The worse it gets the harder it becomes to turn around. It is imperative to address this problem without delay.
In order to reduce the debt from its current level of 73% of GDP down to the historical average of 38% by 2023, Congress would have to pass an additional $4 trillion in spending cuts or tax increases over the next decade. The only way such enormous savings can be achieved is by reining in entitlement spending: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and ACA. I will outline one way to do this in my next post!
Today’s Wall Street Journal has a column by Neil Shah, “Stagnant Wages Crimping Economic Growth”, pointing out that the average hourly pay for non-supervisory workers, adjusted for inflation, has declined to $8.77 last month from $8.86 in June 2009, when the recession ended. It has also been reported recently, e.g. in the New York Times, that U.S. medium household income, now at $52,100, has not nearly recovered from its prerecession peak of $55,500 and is even below its $54,500 level in June 2009, at the end of the recession.
Lower income for workers and households mean lower consumer spending. This is a major reason for our economy’s low annual growth rate of only 2% of GDP since the end of the recession. Of course, the high unemployment rate, currently 7.4%, as well as increasing global competition, contribute to downward pressure on wages. But there is another factor, directly under government control, which is a major contributor to stagnant and declining wages.
Washington Post columnist, Robert Samuelson, in a recent column reprinted in the Omaha World Herald, reported that, from 1999 to 2013, wages and salaries rose 50% (adjusted for inflation) while health insurance premiums increased 182%.
Most health insurance is provided and largely paid for by employers and is therefore an indirect form of compensation. The huge disparity between wage gains and health insurance premium increases in recent years means that wages are being held back by the rapidly increasing cost of health care. The U.S. spends 18% of GDP on healthcare, twice as much as any other country and this is clearly out of line.
The best single thing we can do to slow down healthcare inflation is to remove the tax exemption for employer provided healthcare (and offset it with lower overall tax rates). Employees would then pay taxes on their health insurance benefits as part of their pay. This would have the beneficial effect of making consumers far more conscious of the true cost of healthcare and therefore consumers a strong incentive to hold down these costs.
It is up to Congress to change this provision of the tax code. Let’s insist that they get this done!
Scott Lilly, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, has an Op Ed column in yesterday’s Fiscal Times, “The Choice Congress Won’t Face Up To”. Mr. Lilly admits that we have at least a long-term deficit problem, namely exploding entitlement spending driven by the aging of the U.S. population. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that federal outlays, including entitlements, will be 22.8% of GDP in 2023 while revenues will equal only about 19.3% of GDP, a huge gap. And outlays will continue to rise, because of entitlement spending, reaching 25% of GDP by 2040. This means that the public debt, on which we pay interest, would rise from 73% of GDP today, to 99% of GDP by 2040. As interest rates inevitably return to their historical average of 5%, interest payments on this massive debt will become an increasing burden on the economy.
Mr. Lilly asks the question: How are we going to cut back on entitlement spending when the average Social Security monthly check is $1268 out of which about $350 goes to out-of-pocket medical expenses not covered by Medicare? Congressman Ryan has proposed limiting the growth of Medicare to the increase of inflation + 1%. But the cost of healthcare is increasing much faster than this. And many seniors are living close to the edge.
Thus we reach “the choice which Congress won’t face up to.” According to Mr. Lilly, either we have to make big cuts in entitlement spending or else raise taxes dramatically so that federal revenue increases to about 24% of GDP by 2040. Mr. Lilly makes the far-fetched claim, based on flimsy evidence, that such a large tax increase will not retard economic growth. But let’s set this issue aside for now.
Is there any alternative to increasing taxes so dramatically in order to avoid making big cuts in entitlements? The answer is yes. The above discussion assumes that the cost of healthcare in general will keep on increasing at the current rapid rate, much faster than the increase in inflation. This is the main driver of entitlement costs. The U.S. currently spends 18% of GDP on healthcare which is double the amount spent by any other country. This is what must change. We should abolish, not just postpone, the employer mandate in Obama Care. But even more fundamentally, the tax exemption for employer provided healthcare should be removed (and offset with a rate reduction). This would make consumers far more aware of the cost of healthcare and therefore drive down these costs.
Only after serious attempts are made, such as above, to control costs should any consideration be given to raising taxes.