skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Another Problem Obamacare Won't Solve: Health Costs
Great post by Megan McArdle. Excerpt:
"When I talk to smart, educated, well-read people about Obamacare, I
generally hear three major points advanced in its favor: first, that it
means that people with pre-existing conditions will finally be able to
buy insurance for the first time; second, that it prevents young people
from free-riding by going without insurance and then sticking the rest
of us with the bill for uncompensated emergency room care; and third,
that it will allow poor people to go to a regular doctor rather than
relying on expensive, unnecessary ER visits. All three rely on a folk
conception of how the health-care system works that isn’t quite right.
Take
pre-existing conditions. It’s not that this isn’t a problem -- it is.
But it’s not nearly as large as so many people I meet seem to imagine.
In fact, it doesn’t even seem to be as large as health-care wonks
thought, prior to 2010. The health-care law created high-risk pools to
take care of this problem, allowing this group of people to buy
insurance at subsidized rates. It was projected to cover almost 400,000
people, but ended up covering about a quarter of that number -- and in
order to get that many, administrators had to engage in aggressive
promotion and relax the qualification requirements.
In part,
that’s because we already passed a law to deal with pre-existing
conditions, the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act. The law covers a lot of ground, but one of the things it does is
ensure that you’ll be able to keep buying insurance if you already have
it. Even before that, individual policies often had a feature called
“guaranteed renewal,” which allowed you to keep renewing even if you got
sick.
And in many cases the problem for people with pre-existing
conditions was not necessarily that no one would sell them insurance,
but that the insurance people would sell them cost more than they wanted
to pay. That’s a very different problem from “can’t buy it at any
price” -- but the latter is the problem that most people thought we were
solving with Obamacare.
Or look at uncompensated hospital care,
another area where Obamacare was supposed to make a big difference. Like
pre-existing conditions, uncompensated care is a real problem. But it
too, is much smaller than people imagine. The American Hospital
Association estimates that uncompensated care cost $41 billion in 2011.
This in a nation that spends more than $2 trillion a year on health
care. Reducing this cost would make hospitals happy, but it is not going
to noticeably lower health-care costs, or transform American health
care.
And then there are the uninsured people who use the ER, from
whom we hoped to glean fabulous health-care savings. Oregon suggests
that insurance status isn’t the main reason that people are using the ER
for less severe conditions. And if you think about your own life, is
that such a surprise? I have resorted to the emergency room more than
once for something that I theoretically could have gotten treated by a
primary care physician, and insurance was never the driving factor; I
went to the ER because I was traveling far from home, because it was
outside of normal business hours and I didn’t have a regular doctor I
could call, or because I tried to nurse along an infection that turned
severe. The cure for this was not to change my insurance; it was the
myriad urgent care options that are flowering across the U.S.
This is true of most of the middle-class people I know. Why did we assume that the poor were any different?
Obamacare
mostly solved a quite different problem: the fact that health insurance
and health care are expensive. It probably isn’t going to lower costs,
or dramatically alter mortality rates, or turn obese diabetics into
marathoners. On the other hand, it probably will improve the financial
stability of a lot of low-income households, while raising costs (and
taxes) on the more affluent. As Finkelstein said to me: For an
economist, insurance is a financial product, health insurance as much as
life or auto insurance. Auto insurance probably doesn’t improve your
driving much, but it does protect your assets if you’re in an accident.
It may not be what we expected Obamacare to do ... but it’s probably
what we should have expected."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.