Showing posts with label US. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US. Show all posts

Sunday, January 6, 2008

Review of four candidates on healthcare

Apparently, the Democratic plans are all similar because they have all taken counsel from MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who is at the center of an group of analysts who agree that the best way forward is with minimal disturbance to current players (Working Californians, July 2007) Others (not including any of the Dem front-runners) prefer a single-payers system. (Huffington Post, October 2007)


Obama's Plan
(in this section, text not in [brackets] is taken directly from Obama campaign materials, found here)
  • Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.
  • Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care. [This plan will be available to all Americans.]
  • Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.
  • National Health Insurance Exchange: The Obama plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, public.
  • Mandatory Coverage of Children: Obama will require that all children have health care coverage.
  • Reducing Costs of Catastrophic Illnesses for Employers and Their Employees: Catastrophic health expenditures account for a high percentage of medical expenses for private insurers. The Obama plan would reimburse employer health plans for a portion of the catastrophic costs they incur above a threshold if they guarantee such savings are used to reduce the cost of workers' premiums.
  • Lower Costs by Modernizing The U.S. Health Care System. [A variety of measures, including mandatory electronic recordkeeping, disease management programs, emphasis on prevention, and incentives for using proven best practices, are purported to reduce an average family's annual costs by "up to $2,500".]
Total Funding Figures
  • $55-60 billion annually, after fully phased in, to be paid for by efficiency improvements and repealing the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250K/year. (Obama Health FAQ)
Jen's Commentary on Obama's Plan
  • Does not mandate coverage. Obama's plan does not require that everyone have health insurance. Though insurers will be required to cover everyone, and the government will provide an unspecified level of subsidy for poor people not covered under Medicaid or SCHIP, economists estimate around 15,000,000 Americans will choose to remain without insurance. (The New Republic June 2007; Cohn blog post)
  • Claims about efficiency gains seem contentious. Jonathan Cohn, who I trust knows more than I do about this, calls the proposal "detailed and well thought-out" in this area (The New Republic June 2007). But the Obama campaign's numbers for administrative overhead in healthcare are at the very highest end of what's out there; and John Mongan has convinced me that replacing medical recordkeeping systems is very hard to do (although I mostly remember arguments about doctor personalities, which may matter less in national policy than in private campaigns). I remain unconvinced that these predictions are realistic.


Clinton's Plan
(in this section, text not in [brackets] is taken directly from Clinton campaign materials, found here)
  • The Same Choice of Health Plan Options that Members of Congress Receive: Americans can keep their existing coverage or access the same menu of quality private insurance options that their Members of Congress receive. In addition to the broad array of private options that Americans can choose from, they will be offered the choice of a public plan option similar to Medicare.
  • Individuals: will be required to get and keep insurance in a system where insurance is affordable and accessible.
  • Insurance and Drug Companies: insurance companies will end discrimination based on pre-existing conditions or expectations of illness and ensure high value for every premium dollar; while drug companies will offer fair prices and accurate information.
  • Reducing Costs: By removing hidden taxes, stressing prevention and a focus on efficiency and modernization, the plan will improve quality and lower costs.
  • Provide Tax Relief to Ensure Affordability: Working families will receive a refundable tax credit to help them afford high-quality health coverage.
  • Limit Premium Payments to a Percentage of Income: The refundable tax credit will be designed to prevent premiums from exceeding a percentage of family income, while maintaining consumer price consciousness in choosing health plans.
Total Funding Figures
  • $110 billion, to be paid for by efficiency improvements and repealing the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250K/year. (Full, detailed breakdown in Clinton Health Plan)
Jen's Commentary on Clinton's Plan
  • The only substantial criticism I found is that even with the mandate, some people -- perhaps ~1.5%, or 4.5 million -- will go uninsured, given realistic levels of subsidies. (Washington Post blog, November 2007)


Edwards's Plan
(in this section, text not in [brackets] is taken directly from Edwards campaign materials, found here)
  • Requiring businesses and other employers to either cover their employees or help finance their health insurance.
  • Making insurance affordable by creating new tax credits, expanding Medicaid and SCHIP, reforming insurance laws, and taking innovative steps to contain health care costs.
  • Creating regional "Health Care Markets" to let every American share the bargaining power to purchase an affordable, high-quality health plan, increase choices among insurance plans, and cut costs for businesses offering insurance.
  • Once these steps have been taken, requiring all American residents to get insurance.
  • Edwards claims he will "use [his] power as president to take [Congress's] healthcare away" (TV ad, cited by factcheck.org) unless his plan is passed. This seems like an empty threat, since Congressional healthcare is provided for by legislation, and the only legal way to revoke it would be with more legislation. Written campaign materials make the weaker claim that he will "submit legislation" to achieve this end (which, presumably, would be voted down by Congress). And Edwards has defended this plan, saying "The most powerful tool that the president has is the bully pulpit. And that means making the case to America, submitting legislation to support exactly what I just said, and then making the case to America in any place--any congressional district or any state where a senator is opposing it--saying `your senator, your congressman is defending their health care at the same time that they're not providing health care for you.'" (Face the Nation, quoted in Mike Kuykendall's blog)
Total Funding Figures
  • Maybe I'm just tired, but I didn't see this on the webpage or in the detailed plan PDF. Elsewhere, "Campaign estimates cost to be $90-$120 billion a year. Would finance the plan by rolling back tax cuts for those earning more than $200,000 a year." (KFF)
Jen's Commentary on Edwards's Plan
  • This appears to me to be esentially the same as Clinton's plan, though less specific (and with the addition of the Health Care Markets, and the Congressional bribe). So, again, the only criticism is that an individual mandate is less likely to provide truly universal care than a single-payer system would be.
  • Announced in Feb 07, Edwards was the first of the candidates with identical plans. Obama announced in May, and Clinton May-Sep. (KFF)


Paul's Plan
(in this section, text not in [brackets] is taken directly from Paul campaign materials, found here)
  • Making all medical expenses tax deductible.
  • Eliminating federal regulations that discourage small businesses from providing coverage.
  • Giving doctors the freedom to collectively negotiate with insurance companies and drive down the cost of medical care.
  • Making every American eligible for a Health Savings Account (HSA), and removing the requirement that individuals must obtain a high-deductible insurance policy before opening an HSA.
  • Reform licensure requirements so that pharmacists and nurses can perform some basic functions to increase access to care and lower costs.
Total Funding Figures
  • not provided.
Jen's Commentary on Paul's Plan
  • This plan seems unlikely to substantially alter the current situation.

Healthcare Background Info

I spent today researching health care in preparation for a discussion about the presidential candidates. Here are my findings.

Healthcare Spending

We're spending a lot, and the spending rate is growing.
- In 2005, the U.S. spent $2 trillion on health care, which is 16 percent of GDP and $6,697 per person. (KFF August 2007)
- Health care costs have grown on average 2.5 percentage points faster than U.S. gross domestic product since 1970. (KFF August 2007)
- Health care costs are also rising in other OECD countries, at somewhat slower rates (KFF January 2007)


Two other surprising figures.
- Almost half of health care spending is used to treat just 5 percent of the population. (KFF August 2007)
- In 2005, nearly half of US health expenditures were public (just under $3,000 per capita). US public health expenditures per capita (in terms of USD PPP) are among the top in the world (behind only Luxembourg and Norway) (OECD)


Where the money goes.

(from KFF)
A note: "Program Administration" here means marketing and billing by health insurance plans. Other administrative costs are included in other categories. One study on 1999 data estimated total administrative costs at $1059 per capita (or almost 31% of total expenditure that year), compared with $307 per capita (for 16.7% of total expenditure) in Canada. (NEJM August 2003) A response in the same journal says this gap is overestimated by 25%. (NEJM August 2003) Also, much of the gap appears to be attributable to Canada's public health insurance program; Canadian private insurers have slightly higher administrative costs than their American counterparts, but make up a much smaller share of the health market.

Potential reasons for increasing health costs.
  • increases in expertise and technology have made more (and more expensive) care possible (KFF August 2007)
  • US population is aging (KFF August 2007)
  • US population's health is worsening (Michael Pollan claimed in a recent interview that our health care spending has been inversely correlated with our spending on food during the last half century)
  • improving insurance coverage encourages higher rates of care access (KFF August 2007)

Potential reasons which are clearly not large factors (at least not directly).
  • medical malpractice suits: Total costs of defense, awards, and settlements is less than 1% of total health expenditure in US. [This figure does not include malpractice insurance costs, which appear to total $2 billion, less than .5% of total health expenditure (Healthcare Financial Management 2002 )]. This is not far out of step with other countries' malpractice costs. (Health Affairs 2005)
  • greater basic access, no queues: The US has less healthcare availability (in terms of hospital beds, doctors and nurses, and MRI and CT scanners per capita) than the OECD median. Procedures for which some countries have queues (i.e. some elective surgeries) account for only 3% of US expenditures. (Health Affairs 2005)


The Uninsured

Total US population: 301,000,000 (CIA World Factbook July 2007)
Uninsured population: 46,500,000 (
Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. "The Uninsured and Their Access to Health Care," Oct. 2007)
Uninsured as proportion of total population: 15.4%
Uninsured as proportion of nonelderly population: 18%

Estimated undocumented immigrant population: 11,500,000 (
Pew Hispanic Center Factsheet April 26, 2006)
Estimated uninsured undocumented population: 7,800,000 (inference from above and below)
Estimated uninsured as proportion of undocumented population: 68% (RAND Corporation November 2005)


(from KFF)

A Problem with Individual Health Insurance Markets

From my somewhat dusty memory of a lecture by Peter van Doren; similar points are made in an article by Paul Krugman. The problem stems from the fact that, unlike in many other insurance markets, many of the costs being insured against in health insurance are known in advance.

Imagine that there is only one health insurance company in the US, offering full-coverage plans to everyone at the average annual health costs per capita (plus a little extra for overhead). These plans cost *a lot* more than the healthiest Americans expect to get back in terms of benefits, so most of the healthiest don't participate. The very sick, on the other hand, are eagerly joining up. Now, the company is charging average rates and providing care for a group with higher-than-average costs.

The company can increase rates, but the same thing will happen -- the healthiest of the old participants now prefer to take their chances in exchange for much lower average costs, while the sickest are eager to participate. This cycle will not end unless the insurance company is allowed to exclude the sickest from buying its coverage. Insurers have no incentive to insure the sick, unless the sick are included in a large, varied population as part of a group plan (in which case their higher costs are offset by healthy participants with lower costs).




General Resources
Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF)
OECD Health data
RAND health
A collection of links to Paul Krugman's NYT articles on health

An econ professor draws and discusses various charts about national health spending.