December 1, 2003

INDEXED ACCOUNT:

The State of Health Care, in One Easy Number (Rexford Santerre, December 1, 2003, NY Times)

I have compiled a misery index for health care, going back to 1960. As the measure, I took the percentage of Americans without health insurance and added to it the "excess" health care inflation rate — that is, the percentage by which annual increases in medical costs have exceeded general price inflation. As with combined inflation and unemployment, when both of these health care evils simultaneously increase, people are collectively made worse off. [...]

The resulting chart shows the fluctuations in health care misery over the last 43 years, and helps us put today's figures in historical perspective. Clearly, in the early 1960's the index was excessively high. While costs of medical care were largely contained in those days, the problem was that many poor and elderly Americans lacked health insurance (Medicaid and Medicare had yet to be enacted).

From the mid-60's through the 70's the index consistently declined, and for several reasons. In addition to the new government entitlement programs, the percentage of Americans with private insurance rose. This was largely because, as personal income tax rates increased, tax-exempt, employer-sponsored health insurance became more attractive to workers. Also, many commercial insurers that had shunned health insurance markets entered them. They were enticed by a relatively new innovation called "experience rating" — which allowed them to calculate an individualized per-person rate for a company or a small group rather than basing each person's rates on society as a whole. Experience rating allowed these companies to offer consumers lower premiums than the historically dominant carrier, Blue Cross.

The health care misery index bottomed out in 1979 at 5.6 percent. Stagflation may have cost Jimmy Carter the presidency, but it did have one useful byproduct: declining real prices for medical care at a time when a relatively small number of people lacked insurance.

Throughout the Reagan boom, however, the health care misery index rose continually. First, the costs of medical care were rising more rapidly than general price inflation. Second, private enrollment in health insurance plans declined relative to population, in part because President Ronald Reagan slashed marginal tax rates, giving employees and employers less incentive to participate in tax-exempt, employer-sponsored insurance. People began to take on themselves the risks of high medical costs. By 1986, the misery index stood at its highest level since 1969.

Since 1988 the index has become less volatile, ranging from 15 percent to 19 percent annually. The number of Americans lacking insurance has stayed at 13 percent to 16 percent, and the "excess" costs of medical care, while high in most people's estimation, have stayed stable. [...]

Still, I think most people would agree that today's misery index is still too high, especially when compared to the late 1970's. How do we make health insurance more accessible without significantly fueling medical price inflation? I think the Bush administration proposal to offer people and families a tax credit for purchasing private health insurance appears to be a step in the right direction, as it would give a fairer shake to those without employer-sponsored insurance.


Even better than tax credits, alllow every American to open a Medical Savings Account--makling them mandatory for anyone who gets their health coverage via the federal government. This would not only provide universal coverage but return market forces to medicine.

Posted by Orrin Judd at December 1, 2003 11:06 AM
Comments

Wouldn't the Bush plan increase the size of Federal government? If it did, but accomplished bringing some competition to the medical field it might be a good thing. I'm very unsure about this whole issue.

Posted by: Bartman at December 1, 2003 11:28 AM

MSA's are all well and good, but this article is nonsense.

First, let's not just agree that lack of medical insurance translates perfectly to lack of medical care. It doesn't, and never has.

Second, let's look at the price today of providing 1960's levels of care. Really cheap.

Third, look at his explanation of why the number of uninsured increased in the '80s. Lower taxes made wages more attractive than tax exempt insurance plans. In other words, given their druthers, people chose money over insurance. It's hard to see how that choice can be said to contribute to misery.

I suspect that, just as with the much bemoaned imcome inequality, much of the health care crisis is traceable to having a large population of legal and illegal immigrants. Immigrants tend to be younger, poorer and healthier than the native born population, and thus less interested in health insurance. As emergent, catastrophic care in the US is more or less free for the asking, this is not an irrational decision.

Posted by: David Cohen at December 1, 2003 12:29 PM

David, this helps. Thanks.

Posted by: Bartman at December 1, 2003 12:43 PM

Bartman:

In the short term yes, but in the long run it's a way to privatize Medicare, which would be replaced by the MSA you've had building up for 65 years.

Posted by: oj at December 1, 2003 12:54 PM

David:

Almost everyone tends to be healthy when young, which is the beauty of MSA's, you'd have decades of health for your account to build up far beyond what those last decades of ill-health will cost.

Posted by: oj at December 1, 2003 12:56 PM

Plus, didn't I read somewhere that 20-somethings making $50K and over CHOOSE NOT to take the HC option at work?????

Posted by: Sandy P. at December 1, 2003 1:17 PM

The remarkable thing about the article is that everytime the economy went bad, his misery index got better; while when the economy soared, his misery index got more miserable. Shouldn't this have given him pause?

Posted by: pj at December 1, 2003 2:05 PM

Nice catch, PJ.

I'll second (third? fourth?) the notion that MSAs are the way to go. There is a notorious concept in economics known as the third party payor effect, whereby people will spend much more of someone else's (the insurance company's) money than their own, even when a brief reflection will show that the insured will simply pay for it in the end via higher premiums. MSA's are a way to help cancel out this effect.

I recall one employer of mine had a $40 million dollar healthcare surplus one year, instituted a $5 copay for doctor visits (the next best thing to free), and wound up $10 million in the red within 9 months. Oops.

Posted by: Bruce Cleaver at December 1, 2003 3:52 PM

There's another problem: assuming "increases in medical costs" is bad. Sure it is when it's comparing apples to apples, say a standard doctor's office visit. But what about the expensive life-saving procedures that didn't exist 40 years ago? After all, having people die certainly cuts medical costs. How about elective cosmetic surgery, which has gained in popularity over the decades? How about the influx of Canadians and other foreigners who come here for care they can't get at home? All increase costs, but none are a sign of anything too terrible.

Posted by: PapayaSF at December 1, 2003 3:53 PM
« THE REDDING OF AMERICA: | Main | THIS TIME WE WERE SURE STATISM WOULD WORK: »