Why Reduce Health Care Costs?

One rare point of elite consensus is that the US needs to reduce health care costs. Frightening graphs expose America as a spendthrift outlier. Before he decamped to Citigroup, the President’s OMB director warned about how important it was to “bend the cost curve.” The President’s opponents are even more passionate about austerity.

Journalists and academics support that political consensus. Andrew Sullivan calls health spending a “giant suck from the rest of the working economy.” Gregg Bloche estimates that “the 30% of health care spending that’s wasted on worthless care” is “about the price of the $700 billion mortgage bailout, squandered every year.” He calls rising health spending an “existential challenge,” menacing other “national priorities.” Perhaps inspired by Children of the Corn, George Mason economist Robin Hanson compares modern medicine to a voracious brat:

King Solomon famously threatened to cut a disputed baby in half, to expose the fake mother who would permit such a thing. The debate over medicine today is like that baby, but with disputants who won’t fall for Solomon’s trick. The left says markets won’t ensure everyone gets enough of the precious medical baby. The right says governments produce a much inferior baby. I say: cut the baby in half, dollar-wise, and throw half away! Our “precious” medical baby is in fact a vast monster filling our great temple, whose feeding starves our people and future. Half a monster is plenty.

But when you scratch the surface of these sentiments, you have to wonder: is the overall level of health care spending really the most important threat facing the country? Is it one of the most important threats? There are many ways to raise revenue to pay for rising health costs. Aspects of the Affordable Care Act, like ACOs and pilot projects, are designed to help root out unnecessary care.

I am happy to join the crusade against waste. But why focus on total health spending as particularly egregious or worrisome? Let’s explore some of the usual rationales.

Terrible Tax Expenditures and Suspect Subsidies?

Employment-based insurance gets favorable tax treatment, and much Medicare and Medicaid spending is drawn from general revenues. So, the story goes, medicine’s big spenders don’t have enough “skin in the game.” Once health and wealth are traded off at the personal level (as the Harvard Business School’s Clayton Christensen advocates), people will be much less likely to demand so much care. Government can attend to other national priorities, or individuals will enjoy higher incomes and will be free to spend more.

I respect these arguments to a point, but I worry they partake of the “nirvana fallacy.” If I could be certain that leviathan would repurpose all those wasted health care dollars on infrastructure, or green energy, or smart defense, or healthier agriculture, I’d be ready to end tax-advantaged health insurance in an instant. But I find it hard to imagine Washington going in any of these directions presently.

Giving tax dollars back to taxpayers also sounds great, until one processes exactly how unequal our income distribution is. In 2004, “the top 0.1% — that’s one-tenth of one percent — had more combined pre-tax income than the poorest 120 million people.” To the extent health-related taxes are cut, very wealthy households may see millions per year in income gains; the median household might enjoy thousands of dollars per year. Sure, middle income families will find important uses for those funds (other than bidding up the price of housing and education). But at what price? What if the insurance systems start collapsing without subsidies, and more physicians (who are already expressing a desire to work less) start seeking out pure cash practices? A few interactions with the the very wealthy may be far more lucrative than dozens of ordinary appointments.

Consider the math: billing a $20,000 retainer from each of 50 millionaires annually may be a lot more attractive to physicians than trying to wrangle up 500 patients paying $2000 each—or, worse, getting the money from their insurers. There are about 10 million millionaires in the US; that’s a lot of buying power. One $10,000 score by a cosmetic dentist from such a client could be worth 400 visits from Medicaid patients seeking diagnostic procedures. Providers are voting with their feet, and a Medicaid card is already on its way to becoming a “useless piece of plastic” for many patients. Given those trends, simply reducing health care “purchasing power” generally risks some very troubling outcomes for the very people the health care cost cutters claim to protect. No one should welcome a health care plutonomy, where the richest 5% consume 35% of services, regardless of how sick they are.

Is Anyone Underpaid in Health Care?

Health commentators rightly draw attention to big insurer CEO paydays. Top layers of management at hospitals and pharma firms are also getting scrutiny. Wonks are up in arms about specialist pay. Read more

More Employers Are Adopting Consumer-Directed Health Plans

Photo by liewcf via Flickr

As the cost of health care increases and employers continue to struggle in the bleak economy, many employers are said to be faced with a decision: whether to opt-out of their existing health plans, either by eliminating health benefits for their employees or finding a more cost-friendly alternative. CNN reports that more employers are offering consumer-directed health plans as what is considered a cost-friendly alternative.

CNN states:

More than 51% of U.S. employers now offer a consumer-directed health plan (CDHP), up from 47% last year, according to the latest survey of 489 large U.S. employers from Watson Wyatt, a consulting firm that specializes in employee benefits.

A CDHP is a way of lowering health plan costs of employers by shifting the costs of medical care to individual employees.  The article reports:

Consumer-directed health plans (CDHPs) are typically lower premium but higher deductible health plans. They feature a kind of savings or spending account that helps employees pay their out-of-pocket expenses for covered services, or services that are not covered by a traditional plan.

One form of popular CDHP is Catastrophic Health Insurance– in these plans, often taken out in conjunction  with a tax exempt Health Savings Account (HSA). Under IRS rules, according to Insurance.com “the total out-of-pocket maximum (which includes the deductible and co-payments) for these HSA-linked catastrophic health plans is $5,600 for singles, and $11,200 for families.” In addition, Insurance.com states

Certain pre-existing conditions, such as diabetes and mental health disorders, might mean you can’t qualify for an individual catastrophic health plan without prior qualifying group coverage, or at least that you can’t get coverage for those pre-existing conditions.

Finally, many CDHPs have “lifetime caps” of somewhere between 1 and 5 million dollars. When medical bills surpass these amounts the insurance company is no longer liable.

As the cost of health benefits and health care continues to increase, alternatives to the traditional cost-sharing relationship between the employer and employee are being examined– and understandably so. As for the relative merit of CDHPs and their “catastrophic” brethren, perhaps it depends upon which lens one looks through.

Proponents of CDHPs often cite the increased value in cost conscious “out of pocket” consumer health care choices and the positive affect this “true market” driven approach may have on the cost and quality of care; but the reality of the basis for consumer choice, as Frank Pasquale noted on this blog, is that “brand power has a lot more to do with choices here than objective assessment of outcomes.” In addition, as Professor Pasquale points out, Partners Health in Massachusetts was able to use its power, (market, brand, and sundry), in order to demand “reimbursements up to 30% over what other hospitals receive for identical procedures. Their market share has steadily increased as well, allowing them to stockpile the resources necessary to enter into new markets and threaten the viability of cheaper community hospitals.”

If CDHPs are viewed through the “better than nothing” lens, they obviously have some appeal (But See immediately above); if viewed through the “universal coverage” lens they obviously leave something to be desired. Having said all that, CDHPs may not be a best alternative, but they are becoming– in a woefully ironic twist of the word– a more “popular” alternative.