Thursday, March 3, 2011

President Obama Endorses Earlier State Opt-Out of PPACA

The ongoing debate over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is about more than whether this provision or that provision is beneficial or damaging to the nation’s economy and health care system. The debate is also about the appropriate role of the federal government compared to that of state governments and individuals. Health insurance, and consequently much of health care, has long been the purview of the states. The PPACA changes that balance considerably.
Enter Senators Ron Wyden and Scott Brown – the former a Democrat the latter a Republican. They are co-sponsoring a bill allowing states to opt-out of many of the more controversial provisions of President Barack Obama’s health care plan as early as 2014 if they meet certain eligibility requirements. (The health care reform law already provides for this opt-out in 2017, but by then states will have invested heavily in implementing the PPACA).
This legislation, one of the few bi-partisan health care reform-related measures put forward in the past few years, just received a politically important boost. Speaking before the National Governor’s Association meeting in Washington, DC today, President Obama endorsed the Wyden-Brown proposal. Were the bill to pass, states could replace the individual and employer mandate, health insurance exchanges and whatever the federal government comes up with as “essential benefits” all health insurance policies must cover. Yet the states would still receive the insurance subsidies and administrative funding they’d be eligible for under the PPACA.
Gaining this privilege to go their own way, however, is no easy task. As described by Kate Pickert in Time’s the Swampland blog, states would need to show their own health care reform approach would:
  • not increase the federal deficit
  • provide insurance to as many people as would the PPACA
  • provide insurance as least as comprehensive as that called for in the PPACA
  • provide insurance that’s just as affordable
Avik Roy at Forbes’ The Apothecary blog has an excellent presentation of the pros-and-cons of the Wyden-Brown legislation. For example, he sites Ben Domenech as observing that “states would have to prove a greater number of people will purchase a product under their alternate plan than would do so under a law requiring them to purchase that product!” However, this may be easier than Mr. Domenech apparently believes. As I’ve pointed out previously, there are other ways to encourage consumers to obtain coverage than a government imposed mandate. The Waiver for State Innovation, as the Wyden-Brown proposal is referred to, doesn’t allow states to return to the status quo. On the contrary, states would still need to put forward comprehensive health care reform. They can just go about it in a different way than that taken by the Obama Administration in the PPACA.
As President Obama said to the Governors when describing the value of moving the state opt-out opportunity to 2014, “It will give you flexibility more quickly while still guaranteeing the American people reform.”
For example, states could set up a system in which consumers are given health insurance vouchers to purchase coverage. Carriers could be required to issue policies to all who apply. To protect their pools from the adverse selection of people waiting until they’re on their way to the hospital to obtain insurance, carriers could be permitted to exclude coverage for pre-existing conditions for as long as a consumer has been without coverage. This kind of approach would do away with exchanges and the PPACA’s approach to the individual mandate. Of course, so would the single-payer approach being considered in Vermont.
A wise man once told me, “You never solve problems, you just replace old problems with new ones.” President Obama is giving states the opportunity to solve – and create – their own problems. Whether any will be able, or willing, to seize this opportunity remains to be seen.

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF EXPANDING COVERAGE

The report identifies three important impacts of expanding health care coverage:
1.    It would increase the economic well-being of the uninsured by substantially more than the costs of insuring them. A comparison of the total benefits of coverage to the uninsured, including such benefits as longer life expectancy and reduced financial risk, and the total costs of insuring them (including both the public and private costs), suggests net gains in economic well-being of about two-thirds of a percent of GDP per year.
2. It would likely increase labor supply. Increased insurance coverage and, hence, improved health care, is likely to increase labor supply by reducing disability and absenteeism in the work place. This increase in labor supply would tend to increase GDP and reduce the budget deficit.
3. It would improve the functioning of the labor market. Coverage expansion that eliminates restrictions on pre-existing conditions improves the efficiency of labor markets by removing an important limitation on job-switching. Creating a well-functioning insurance market also prevents an inefficient allocation of labor away from small firms by leveling the playing field among firms of all sizes in competing for talented workers in the labor market.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS

ABC News, Science Daily and the National Coalition on Health Care

  • The U.S. has the world’s most expensive healthcare system, yet one-sixth of Americans are uninsured. National surveys reveal that the primary reason is the high cost of coverage.
  • Approximately one-third (31%) of adults and a little more than one-half (54%) of children do not have a primary care doctor.
  • Federal spending on healthcare in 2005 alone totaled $600 billion, a massive one-quarter of the federal budget.
  • Someone files for bankruptcy every 30 seconds because of health concerns. And every year, 1.5 million families lose their homes to foreclosure due to unaffordable medical costs.
  • The U.S. spends six times more per capita on the administration of the health insurance system than Western European nations, who insure all of their citizens.
  • The total medical expenditures for the uninsured of nearly $124 billion in 2004 was more than the combined expenditures of the Iraq war and “war on terror” programs.
  • The percentage of adults who receive recommended preventative care and screening tests according to guidelines for their age and sex is only 49%.
  • Each year, the number of Americans who die from medical errors is close to 100,000—more than double the annual number of deaths from car crashes.

    http://www.realtruth.org/articles/090203-005-health.html

Defining U.S. Healthcare


The U.S. is the only developed country, except for South Korea, that does not provide healthcare for all its citizens. What is unique about the U.S. system is that the private element dominates the public one. For example, the Kaiser Foundation reported that 61% of non-elderly Americans in 2006 received insurance through their employers; 14% were enrolled in public insurance programs like Medicaid; and 18% were uninsured. Those over age 65 were usually enrolled in Medicare.
Here is how the system is organized:

Private Health Insurance

Employer-sponsored Insurance: The main way Americans receive health insurance coverage is through their employers. Companies provide this as part of their benefits package. These plans are administered by insurance companies both for-profit (Aetna, Cigna, State Farm, for example), and not-for-profit (Blue Cross/Blue Shield).
Some large companies choose to “self-insure,” that is they pay the health costs directly while choosing a third-party (usually an insurer) to administer the plan. Employer-sponsored plans are financed partly by the employers who pay most of the premium, and partly by employees who pay the remainder.
Individual Health Insurance: This option covers individuals for whom insurance is not provided through their employers, those who are self-employed, and retirees. Plans are provided by private insurance companies. Insured individuals pay the full health insurance premium.

Public Health Insurance

Medicare: This is a program provided by the federal government which covers individuals aged 65 and older, and disabled individuals as well. It is funded through federal income tax, as well as taxes on employers and employees, and premium payments by those enrolled. Medicare covers hospital services, physician services and prescription drug benefits.
Medicaid: This program is designed for low-income individuals and those who are disabled. States are required by law to provide coverage for children, the elderly, the disabled, parents and poor pregnant women. Adults without children are not covered, as well as poor individuals who earn too much. A comprehensive set of benefits is offered by the program, including prescription drugs. However, in spite of this, many of those enrolled still have problems finding providers that accept Medicaid, because of its low rate of reimbursement.
Other Public Systems: These include the Veteran’s Administration (VA), which provides healthcare for military veterans in VA hospitals and clinics, which are government-owned, and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), which covers children whose families earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, but too little to purchase private health insurance.

An Economic Perspective on the Individual Mandate’s Severability from the ACA

http://healthpolicyandreform.nejm.org/?p=13830

The Importance of the Individual Mandate — Evidence from Massachusetts

http://healthpolicyandreform.nejm.org/?p=13572

How Changes in Medical Technology Affect Health Care Costs

http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm030807oth.cfm