skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The Myth of the Medical Bankruptcy
By
Megan McArdle.
"One of the predictions that was made, with great fanfare, when
Obamacare passed, was that our nation’s bankruptcy epidemic would
finally come to an end. Last week, veteran liberal commentator Norm
Ornstein declared that it had already come to pass.
“Before Obamacare,” he tweeted, “more bankruptcies from health bills than anything else. Now, hardly at all. Do we really want to go back to that?”
Did
medical bills single-handedly account for more bankruptcies than
anything else? No. This is an exaggerated half-remembering of a series
of studies, authored by (among others) Elizabeth Warren, that were
themselves exorbitant exaggerations.
I went into detail
on the problems with the work seven years ago, but the highlight reel
is that these authors have an aggressive tendency to employ any
technique that ratchets the count of “medical bankruptcy” upward, while
not using similar techniques that would tend to ratchet up other
categories and diminish the number of bankruptcies counted as medical,
and to present their results in misleading ways -- so as to obscure, for
example, the fact that by their own accounting, the number of medical
bankruptcies actually fell by hundreds of thousands between 2001 and 2007. Which is why their study tended to be presented in the media as “growing problem” rather than “shrinking threat.”
To
be clear: I don’t believe that medical bankruptcies fell by hundreds of
thousands between 2001 and 2007. I think this conclusion further
suggests just how problematic their methodology is. So does the fact
that in 2011, two of Warren’s co-authors issued a new study
finding that medical bankruptcy hadn’t fallen in Massachusetts after
the passage of Romneycare. These two co-authors are the co-founders of
Physicians for a National Health Care Program, an advocacy group that
supports single-payer in America, and they have a noticeable tendency to
find that -- quelle surprise -- America has enormous problems with
medical bills that can be solved only by a single-payer health-care
system. They have a lot of latitude to get that answer, because it’s
surprisingly hard to know exactly which bankruptcies are medical.
Someone who bought three new cars, and also had a hernia, is probably
going to blame the hernia.
And
we also have to look beyond the bills. The Warren studies tended to get
reported, or remembered, as “medical bills cause more than half of all
bankruptcies.” That’s not quite what they said. Bad health events do
more than land you with big medical bills (which bills can often be
settled for pennies on the dollar, because the collectors know they get
nothing if you file). Getting really sick also cuts your income as you
stop working. If you’ve got debt and no savings, that job loss is going
to be catastrophic.
Unfortunately, the incentives
of both academic journals and the media mean that dubious research
often gets more widely known than more carefully done studies, precisely
because the shoddy statistics and wild outliers suggest something new
and interesting about the world. If I tell you that more than half of
all bankruptcies are caused by medical problems, you will be alarmed and
wish to know more. If I show you more carefully done research
suggesting that it is a real but comparatively modest problem, you will just be wondering what time "Game of Thrones" is on.
So
no, it was never reasonable to think that medical bills, all by
themselves, could explain more than a modest fraction of bankruptcies.
Nor is it reasonable to think that Obamacare single-handedly reduced
those bankruptcies to nothing.
For one thing, the methodology of
Warren et al showed that having insurance had little effect on the
medical bankruptcies; I think that this is yet another reason to
distrust them, but if you’re going to cite their results, you have to
accept the inevitable corollary that Obamacare wasn’t going to help
much.
For another, we have data on what’s been happening with bankruptcies over the last 10 years. The number of bankruptcies right now is slightly higher than it was in 2007.
This is emphatically not the result we would expect if medical bills
had been causing a large plurality of bankruptcies and Obamacare reduced
those bankruptcies to practically nothing.
I do think medical
bills contribute to or cause a significant number of bankruptcies. I
also think that Obamacare must have prevented some medical bankruptcies,
though I couldn’t say how many. Unfortunately, a lot of unrelated
trends have whipsawed bankruptcy statistics around over the last decade.
First the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of
2005 tightened up bankruptcy filing rules, so that a huge number of
people rushed to file right before the rules changed, causing a spike in 2005
and an offsetting trough in 2006. Then, just as bankruptcy filings
should have been reaching whatever their “natural” post-reform level
was, we had the financial crisis. Then we had Obamacare. It’s hard to
tease out the effects of one change when so much is happening all at
once. It seems likely to me -- indeed, almost certain -- that without
Obamacare, the number of bankruptcy filings in 2016 would have been
higher than it actually was. I find it difficult to say whether the
difference is closer to “major public policy problem” or “a series of
unfortunate events.”
But it is possible to say that medical bills
did not cause a majority, or even a large plurality, of bankruptcies.
And that another problem remains substantial: the number of people who
fervently believe something for which there is no good evidence.
1.This
includes business filings, but the difference is trivial, because
consumer bankruptcies make up the overwhelming majority of total
bankruptcies."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.