Health Insurance Mandates - Dangerous and Immoral Public Policy

Join Lin Zinser, executive director of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (www.WeStandFIRM.org) in an expose of the dangers inherent in socialized medicine and what can be done to prevent it. This program is must-listening for small business owners, political activists, and others concerned with the loss of liberty.

Labels: Insurance, MA

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

Costs soar for Mass. health care law
By STEVE LeBLANC, Associated Press Writer

BOSTON - Two years after the state's landmark health law was signed, the cracks are starting to show.

Costs are soaring and Massachusetts lawmakers are weighing a dollar-a-pack hike in the state's cigarette tax to help pay for a larger-than-expected enrollment in the law's subsidized insurance plans.

...Anyone earning more is required to get health insurance through their employer, on their own, or by purchasing lower-cost plans through the Health Care Connector, the independent state agency overseeing the law.

Businesses are also on the hook. Those with 11 or more full time employees who refuse to offer insurance face $295 annual penalties per employee. Already, 748 employers have failed to meet that threshold and have paid $6.6 million to the state.

Rick Lord, president of the Associated Industries of Massachusetts, said the state must be "very mindful of placing burdens on businesses that don't exist in other states."

...Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute, said the law has been an unqualified failure.

Tanner was critical of the connector authority, a "super-regulatory agency" which has mandated levels of coverage. He also noted the vast majority of the newly insured are receiving subsidized care.

"They said it would get us universal coverage and reduce costs and it's done neither," Tanner said.

The biggest challenge is rising costs.

In 2006, a legislative committee estimated the law would cost about $725 million in the fiscal year starting in July. In his budget, Patrick set aside $869 million, but those overseeing the law have already acknowledged costs will rise even higher.

Labels: Insurance, MA, States

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

Rocky off base on health care proposal

Contrary to the April 6 Rocky Mountain News editorial ("Health care reform for grown-ups"), Sen. Bob Hagedorn's proposed mandatory health insurance is the wrong prescription for Colorado. Massachusetts has already imposed a similar system of mandatory insurance for over a year, and it is failing badly. Like Hagedorn's proposal, Massachusetts requires everyone to purchase health insurance, with government subsidies for low-income residents. But rather than creating a health care utopia, the result has been the exact opposite - skyrocketing costs, worsened access, and lower quality health care.

The Massachusetts system violates the rights of individuals to spend their own health-care dollars according to their best judgment. Instead, individuals are forced to choose from plans approved by government bureaucrats. Special interest groups have loaded these plans with costly required benefits that many people might not otherwise voluntarily purchase, such as in vitro fertilization and chiropractor services. Although Colorado politicians promise not to impose similar expensive mandates, how long do we realistically expect this to remain true?

Due to the skyrocketing costs, the Boston Globe reports, the government will have to "cut payments to doctors and hospitals, reduce choices for patients, and possibly increase how much patients have to pay." Massachusetts is also asking the federal government to make up the shortfall of "hundreds of millions of dollars."

Instead of another massive government program, we should adopt free market reforms, such as eliminating insurance benefit mandates and allowing Colorado residents to purchase health insurance across state lines. These genuine reforms could reduce insurance costs between 20 percent and 50 percent for thousands of Coloradans, without compromising access or quality. The free market is the only moral and practical solution to our current health care crisis.

Paul Hsieh, M.D., is a practicing physician in the south Denver metro area and a co-founder of the Colorado group Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM).

Labels: CO, Insurance, MA, States

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

Universal health care is the wrong prescription

By BRIAN SCHWARTZ
INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE

What good is having medical insurance if you cannot get medical care? Peddlers of "universal health care" - from Hillary, Obama, to 2nd Congressional Democratic candidate Jared Polis - don't get this.

"Universal health care" is false advertising for politically controlled medicine, with government as the "single payer" monopolistic insurer. But having coverage does not guarantee getting medical care.

Since patients prepay through taxes, medical care appears "free." Hence, they have strong incentive to over-consume and providers need not compete on price.

To contain costs, governments restrict your access to life-saving treatment. In countries with such "universal coverage," patients die waiting for treatment.

The Canadian Medical Association Journal reports that in one year, 71 Ontario patients died while waiting for coronary bypass surgery and over one hundred more became "medically unfit for surgery." The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reports that "109 people had a heart attack or suffered heart failure while on the waiting list. Fifty of those patients died."

"Physicians across Canada are in an advanced stage of burnout due to work conditions" which "causes them to retire early . . . or simply leave," a former Canadian Medical Association president told the New York Times. He "attributed much of the problem to technological shortages and the powerlessness doctors feel when patients complain about long waits for treatment."

"Access to a waiting list is not access to health care," wrote Canadian Chief Justice McLachlin when striking down legislation banning private insurance in 2005. Last year, a New York Times headline read: "As Canada's Slow-Motion Public Health System Falters, Private Medical Care Is Surging."

And England? The BBC reports that "up to 500 heart patients die each year while they wait for potentially life-saving surgery." The Times claims that a British woman "will be denied free National Health Service treatment for breast cancer if she seeks to improve her chances by paying privately for an additional drug."

A Daily Telegraph headline reads: "Sufferers pull out teeth due to lack of dentists." Another article says that "doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives."

Consider politically controlled health care in America: Medicaid and Medicare.

Doctors are five times more likely to refuse seeing new Medicaid patients than privately insured patients. Increasing reimbursement rates won’t help much; more than two-thirds of doctors reported being overwhelmed by Medicaid's billing requirements, paperwork, and delays in payment.

ABC News says that "Medicare rules bar cancer drugs for patients," including the privately insured.

"Single payer" advocates cite international comparisons of life expectancy to support their cause. But life expectancy depends on factors unrelated to health care, such as unintentional injury and homicide. Health economist Robert Ohsfeldt found that when accounting for these two factors, life expectancy in America is comparable to that of Canada and England.

What really matters is your chance of surviving a serious illness. The American Cancer Society claims that "U.S. patients have better survival rates than European patients for most types of cancer."

So if politically controlled medicine isn’t the solution, what is? Not a Massachusetts-style "individual mandate," which forces everyone to buy insurance. This is essentially single-payer in disguise. Insurance regulations severely limit competition, so insurance companies are effectively government contractors for politically defined insurance.

The Boston Globe reports that to contain costs, Massachusetts authorities will "probably cut payments to doctors and hospitals" and "reduce choices for patients." Sound familiar?

Instead, we must recognize how government policies have crippled free markets.

Because the tax code deeply discounts employer-provided insurance, you're essentially stuck with your employer's non-portable plans. Hence, insurance companies can afford to be stingy and deny you care; they know that losing you as a customer requires that you change jobs. With government as "single payer" it's even worse: To change insurance providers you must move to a different state or country.

Our current system also encourages thoughtless over-consumption and skyrocketing costs.

The tax code punishes paying for medical care out-of-pocket and rewards buying insurance. So "insurance" has become prepaid medicine, and patients over-consume like business travelers dining on their company's expense account.

Further, legislation mandating minimum benefits makes insurance unaffordable for many. Consider: Colorado law compels widowed wives to pay higher premiums for prostate screening, maternity, and marital therapy.

Some Colorado legislators recognize this injustice. Just as businesses incorporated in other states can operate in Colorado, Coloradans should be able to buy affordable policies from insurance companies that meet less damaging regulations of another state.

While "universal health care" may provide health insurance, it doesn't guarantee health care. The uninsured are not the problem, but the symptom of the real problem - government meddling in personal choices of how we care for ourselves and our families.

Brian Schwartz, an optical engineer in Boulder, is a guest author for the Independence Institute. His free-market proposal to the Blue Ribbon Commission is at WhoOwns You.org.

Labels: Canada, CO, Insurance, MA, Medicaid, Medicare, OpEd, UK

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

Mandating health care coverage is a costly mistake

The March 28, 2008 article, "Health Coverage Gets New Push" quotes State Senator Bob Hagedorn as supporting a plan to force all Coloradans to purchase mandatory health insurance, because it would be "immoral" to "sit on our hands and do nothing."

Unfortunately, the solution proposed by Senator Hagedorn is also deeply immoral and impractical. The state of Massachusetts has already imposed a similar plan of mandatory health insurance on its residents for over a year now, and it is failing badly. Like Senator Hagedorn's proposal, the Massachusetts plan requires all residents to purchase health insurance, with state subsidies for lower income residents.

But rather than creating a utopia of high-quality affordable health care, the result has been the exact opposite — skyrocketing costs, worsened access, and lower quality health care.

Massachusetts' system of government-mandated health insurance is immoral because it violates the rights of individuals to spend their own health care dollars according to their best judgment for their own benefit. Instead, individuals are forced to choose from a limited set of plans approved by the government bureaucrats.

Predictably, the government-mandated plans have been a huge magnet for special interests seeking to have their own favorite benefit included as a state requirement. These state-mandated plans therefore include numerous benefits that many individuals might not otherwise freely choose to purchase, such as in vitro fertilization, chiropractor services, prostate cancer screening, and maternity benefits. Hence, middle-aged Massachusetts women are forced to pay for prostate cancer screening, even though they have no need for that service.

Because the state-mandated health insurance is so expensive, the government must also subsidize the costs for lower income residents, which merely shifts those costs onto the taxpayers. The state has also created a huge new bureaucracy called "The Connector" to enforce these insurance requirements on individuals and businesses.

Overall, the plan is projected to cost as much as three times as originally estimated. According to the Boston Globe, the Massachusetts state government is now asking the federal government to make up the shortfall of "hundreds of millions of dollars."

Nor has the Massachusetts plan improved access or quality. The Boston Globe also reported that due to the skyrocketing costs, the state government will have to "cut payments to doctors and hospitals, reduce choices for patients, and possibly increase how much patients have to pay."

With such poor reimbursements, physicians are increasingly reluctant to take on new patients. Lee Sampson, a 47-year-old unemployed medical transcriptionist had to call 50 doctor's offices before she could find someone who would take her on as a new patient.

The Massachusetts plan has also had a "catastrophic effect" on the Cambridge Health Alliance, which serves most of the poor and uninsured in the Boston area. The high costs have forced the Alliance to fire staff and reduce services in order to stay afloat — harming the very people the plan was supposedly intended to help.

Colorado should not duplicate the failed experiment in Massachusetts. Their system of mandatory health insurance violates the rights of individuals and providers to contract freely for medical services to their mutual benefit. Instead, the government decides how people can spend their own money, and for what.

The predictable result has been skyrocketing costs, worsened access to health care, and a huge new bureaucracy, just like under any system of socialized medicine. As a practicing physician, I can't think of a more immoral "solution."

Instead, we need free market reforms, such as eliminating insurance benefit mandates and allowing Colorado residents to purchase health insurance across state lines.

These genuine reforms could reduce costs up to 20-50%, making health insurance possible to thousands of Coloradans who otherwise could not afford it, without compromising access or quality. The free market is the only moral and practical solution to our current health care crisis.

Paul Hsieh, MD, of Sedalia is a practicing physician in the south Denver metro area and also a co-founder of the Colorado group Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM).

Labels: CO, Insurance, MA, States

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

Labels: Analysis, CO, Free Market, MA

E-mail Lin Zinser / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

"I calculated that every time I have a Medicare patient it’s like handing them a $20 bill when they leave,” she said. “I never went into medicine to get rich, but I never expected to feel as disrespected as I feel. Where is the incentive for a practice like ours?”

Labels: MA, States

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

Repeal laws raising cost of health insurance

Re: "Health coverage gets new push," March 28 news story.

Democrats like state Sen. Bob Hagedorn, and state Rep. Anne McGihon want to force us all to buy medical insurance - as they define it. But government-mandated insurance does not guarantee actual care. Consider Canada, England and Massachusetts.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reports that "109 people had a heart attack or suffered heart failure while on the waiting list. Fifty of those patients died." The BBC reports that "up to 500 heart patients die each year while they wait for potentially life-saving surgery." The Boston Globe reports that in response to soaring costs, Massachusetts "policymakers could face difficult choices: spend more state money or cut back the two programs by reducing enrollment, cutting subsidies, or eliminating benefits."

Sen. Hagedorn says it's "immoral for us to sit on our hands and do nothing." Hence, instead of passing more laws that kill, politicians should do something that is moral and actually works: repeal laws that make insurance prohibitively expensive.

For example, Colorado House Bill 1327 would allow us to buy insurance plans that meet less damaging regulations of other states. This would make quality, affordable insurance available to thousands of Coloradans.

Brian T. Schwartz, Boulder

Labels: Canada, CO, Countries, Insurance, LTE, MA, States, UK

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

Healthcare cost increases dominate Mass. budget debate
Controlling them said key to keeping universal coverage

When Massachusetts launched its landmark universal health insurance initiative nearly two years ago, the state put off addressing rising costs so it could expand coverage immediately. Now those costs are dominating the discussion as the state faces a recession and pivotal funding decisions that could make or break health reform.

...A larger issue will also come to a head by July 1: the need to secure a new three-year commitment from the federal government to pay for half the soaring cost of insurance subsidies. Massachusetts is seeking up to $1.5 billion, but the Bush administration has been cutting back federal payments to the states.

..."If we don't grapple seriously with the cost of healthcare, the support for reform will erode and the perception will become broader that it is unaffordable," said Jon Kingsdale, executive director of the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector, which oversees much of the reform effort.

Labels: MA, States

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

Labels: MA, States

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

"Universal" Health Care Kills

What good is having medical insurance if you cannot get medical care? Peddlers of "universal health care" — from Hillary, Obama, to Colorado congressional candidate Jared Polis — don't get this.

"Universal health care" is false advertising for politically-controlled medicine, with government as the "single-payer" monopolistic insurer. But having coverage does not guarantee getting medical care.

Since patients prepay through taxes, medical care appears "free." Hence, they have strong incentive to over-consume and providers need not compete on price. To contain costs, governments restrict your access to life-saving treatment. In countries with such "universal coverage," patients die waiting for treatment.

The Canadian Medical Association Journal reports that in one year, 71 Ontario patients died while waiting for coronary bypass surgery and over one hundred more became "medically unfit for surgery." The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reports that "109 people had a heart attack or suffered heart failure while on the waiting list. Fifty of those patients died."

This week the Globe and Mail reported that:

Inside Sylvia de Vries lurked an enormous tumour and fluid totalling 18 kilograms. But not even that massive weight gain and a diagnosis of ovarian cancer could assure her timely treatment in Canada.

She sought treatment in the United States, as do Canadians in need of intensive care and emergency cardiac care.

"Physicians across Canada are in an advanced stage of burnout due to work conditions" which "causes them to retire early... or simply leave," a former Canadian Medical Association president told the New York Times. He "attributed much of the problem to technological shortages and the powerlessness doctors feel when patients complain about long waits for treatment."

"Access to a waiting list is not access to healthcare," wrote Canadian Chief Justice McLachlin when striking down legislation banning private insurance in 2005. Last year a New York Times headline read: "As Canada's Slow-Motion Public Health System Falters, Private Medical Care Is Surging."

And England? The BBC reports that "up to 500 heart patients die each year while they wait for potentially life-saving surgery." The Times reports that a British woman "will be denied free National Health Service treatment for breast cancer if she seeks to improve her chances by paying privately for an additional drug." A Daily Telegraph headline reads: "Sufferers pull out teeth due to lack of dentists." "Doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives," reports another article.

Consider politically-controlled health care in America: Medicaid and Medicare. Doctors are five times more likely to refuse seeing new Medicaid patients than privately-insured patients. Increasing reimbursement rates won't help much; more than two-thirds of doctors reported being overwhelmed by Medicaid’s billing requirements, paperwork, and delays in payment.

ABC News reports that "Medicare rules bar cancer drugs for patients," including the privately-insured. As the population ages and Medicare costs continue to increase, Medicare may further restrict patients and doctors.

"Single payer" advocates cite international comparisons of life expectancy to support their cause. But life expectancy depends on factors unrelated to healthcare, such as unintentional injury and homicide. Health economist Robert Ohsfeldt found that when accounting for these two factors, life expectancy in America is comparable to that of Canada and England.

What really matters is your chance of surviving a serious illness. The American Cancer Society reported that "U.S. patients have better survival rates than European patients for most types of cancer."

So if politically-controlled medicine isn't the solution, what is?

Not a Massachusetts-style "individual mandate," which forces everyone to buy insurance. This is essentially single-payer in disguise. Insurance regulations severely limit competition, so insurance companies are effectively government contractors for politically-defined insurance.

The Boston Globe reports that to contain costs, Massachusetts authorities will "probably cut payments to doctors and hospitals" and "reduce choices for patients." Sound familiar?

Instead, we must recognize how government policies have crippled free markets.

Because the tax code deeply discounts employer-provided insurance, you're essentially stuck with your employer's non-portable plans. Hence, insurance companies can afford to be stingy and deny you care; they know that losing you as a customer requires that you change jobs. With government as "single-payer" it's even worse: to change insurance providers you must move to a different state or country.

Our current system also encourages thoughtless over-consumption and skyrocketing costs. The tax code punishes paying for medical care out-of-pocket and rewards buying insurance. So "insurance" has become prepaid medicine, and patients over-consume like business travelers dining on their company's expense account.

Further, legislation mandating minimum benefits makes insurance unaffordable for many. Consider: Colorado law compels widowed wives to pay higher premiums for prostate screening, maternity, and marital therapy. Sponsors of Colorado House Bill 08-1327 recognize this injustice. Just as businesses incorporated in other states can operate in Colorado, Coloradans should be able to buy affordable policies from insurance companies that meet less damaging regulations of another state.

So remember, the uninsured aren't the problem, but a symptom of political meddling in our most important personal choices.

Labels: Canada, CO, Countries, MA, OpEd, States, UK

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

Labels: Insurance, MA, States

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

BAD MEDICINE
Health care proposals will backfire on state

I want to thank The Gazette for its strong editorial against the ill-considered plan by the Colorado Blue Ribbon Commission on Health Care Reform ("Health care reform: It's a joke," Jan. 31). Their proposed system of mandatory health insurance already has been tried in Massachusetts and is failing. Costs there are already more than three times what was originally predicted, and the Boston Globe reports that it is expected to "cut payments to doctors and hospitals, reduce choices for patients, and possibly increase how much patients have to pay." The California state legislature has also just rejected a similar plan because it will cost too much.

These government-imposed plans violate the rights of individuals to freely choose what health insurance plans are best for them, and, as a result, lead only to rising costs and rationing. If Coloradans value their lives and their health, they will also reject this deadly proposal.

For more information on genuine free market health care reform for Colorado, please see www.WeStandFIRM.org.

Paul Hsieh, M.D.
Sedalia

Labels: 208, CA, CO, LTE, MA, States

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

The subsidized insurance program at the heart of the state's healthcare initiative is expected to roughly double in size and expense over the next three years - an unexpected level of growth that could cost state taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars or force the state to scale back its ambitions.

If the state doesn't get all of the federal funds it is seeking, policy makers could face difficult choices: spend more state money or cut back the two programs by reducing enrollment, cutting subsidies, or eliminating benefits.

Labels: MA, States

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

Labels: MA, States

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

Is Romney's Healthcare Plan Conservative?

...Massachusetts was the first state in the country to impose an "individual mandate," which requires everyone in the state to have health coverage or face some significant penalties. Most employers -- those with 11 employees or more -- also face a mandate: Provide health insurance or pay a fine.

The criticism from other Republicans highlights one of the controversial aspects of the Massachusetts plan, which the state's Democratic legislature wanted in the legislation: Should conservatives support the government’s requiring people to buy health insurance?

The conservative Heritage Foundation does -- or at least providing some indication that an individual can pay his medical bills. Heritage analysts even played a role in developing the Massachusetts plan and is now selling it to other states. But most other conservative groups vehemently oppose both an individual and employer mandate, and it must be emphasized that Romney has not included the individual mandate in his presidential reform proposal.

Democrats Point to Massachusetts Model

Massachusetts' individual mandate has initiated a national discussion among many state elected officials, including California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who also supports an individual and employer mandate. Plus, Democratic presidential candidates New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards have included an individual and employer mandate in their proposals, pointing to Massachusetts as a model.

Defenders claim that without the individual mandate, some people will remain uninsured. And when the uninsured get medical care, they can't pay for it, so those costs are shifted to those who have health insurance, driving up the cost of coverage. Therefore, the reasoning goes, by forcing all citizens to be "responsible" for their own costs (i.e., having health coverage), that will actually lower the cost of health insurance for everyone.

Since conservatives support personal responsibility, these defenders conclude, supporting an individual mandate is a conservative principle.

Ignoring Principles

But this argument ignores some other important conservative principles: one being that we don't like the government's micromanaging our healthcare.

Romney and others like to respond by noting that almost every state requires people to buy auto insurance. True enough, but the auto insurance mandate has been so unsuccessful that millions of Americans buy uninsured motorist coverage to protect themselves against uninsured drivers. The fact is that the auto insurance mandate is seldom enforced in most states, and when it is, the penalties are usually minor.

Not so with the Massachusetts mandate. Those who don't get coverage will face a $219 fine (tax?) for the first year (2008), but that fine will go up to at least $150 per person per month in the following year, according to the Boston Herald.

And that's why some of the other Republicans were chiding Romney: An annual $1,800 for each uninsured person can be a significant penalty on a lower-income family of three or four. So significant, in fact, that the state recently decided to exempt 20% of the low-income uninsured from the mandate.

One reason for that exemption was the cost of the plan. On the plus side, the uninsured are signing up in droves, faster than anticipated, although mostly for the subsidized part of the program. As a result, it appears the plan will have nearly a $150-million budget shortfall.

But wait! The whole justification for forcing everyone to have coverage was to avoid cost-shifting from the uninsured to the insured. And if you exempt 20% of the uninsured, haven't you just undermined the whole effort?

Moreover, expanding the health insurance pool apparently isn't lowering insurance premiums, as supporters have claimed it would. The Boston Globe recently reported: "Striving to hold down costs to taxpayers, a state panel [i.e., the Connector Authority, an unelected quasi-government body that governs the healthcare reform initiative] yesterday approved a range of changes for next year for the rapidly growing subsidized health insurance program. The changes will probably cut payments to doctors and hospitals, reduce choices for patients, and possibly increase how much patients have to pay."

The health plans are facing as much as a 14% increase -- higher than many health policies not associated with the Connector. So Commonwealth Care, the state-subsidized part of the Massachusetts reform initiative for modest-income workers, wants to cut healthcare provider reimbursements by 3% to 5%, according to the Globe.

Acting Like Medicaid

Said Connector Authority CFO Patrick Holland, "There's no justification to be paying more than Medicaid rates."

Wrong. At least one justification for paying more is that patients can actually see a doctor. Medicaid's low reimbursement rates are increasingly making it difficult for patients to see a doctor. The Connector wants to impose that burden on the Massachusetts plan as well. But, hey, if you're going to act like Medicaid, why not just call it Medicaid?

Several months ago, the Globe carried a story about Connector employees' salaries. Half of them made more than $100,000, and the head Connector made $225,000. I have been closely monitoring the papers to see how much their salaries are being cut in order to "keep the program affordable."

And I'm still looking.

The trouble with health insurance reform schemes is that the problems usually don't manifest themselves until a few years, maybe many years, into the new program. By that time the politicians who pushed them through have often moved on to higher office, maybe even President.

But the Massachusetts healthcare reform plan is quickly shedding any pretense of being a market-oriented solution or public-private "partnership" for covering the uninsured. Instead, it is becoming a demanding, heavy-handed, top-down program that demands people have coverage and fines them if they don't.

Mr. Matthews Jr., Ph.D., is a resident scholar for the Institute for Policy Innovation.

Labels: Analysis, Insurance, MA

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

Compulsory Medical Insurance as Collective Punishment

Remember how in grade school, the teacher would punish the whole class for the actions of just a few disruptive students? This is an early lesson in collective punishment, which is usually practiced during wartime or under martial law.

Collective punishment has now arrived with compulsory medical insurance. Known as an "individual mandate," politicians of both major parties have supported it. Compulsory politically-defined insurance is law in Massachusetts, is up for consideration in California and Colorado, and Democratic presidential candidates endorse it nationally.

Politicians peddle compulsory insurance under the guise of "personal responsibility." The story is that the uninsured receive medical care without paying for it. Their freeloading passes costs onto the insured, which increases premium costs. Compulsory insurance, say its supporters, can remedy this problem by forcing both the insured and uninsured to purchase medical insurance - as defined by politicians.

This rationale is flawed. First, freeloading from the uninsured does not significantly increase insurance premiums.

Paying the medical bills for the uninsured adds little to insurance premiums - and certainly less than Colorado's scheme for compulsory insurance. A study published in Health Affairs found that uncompensated care is "only 2.8 percent of total personal health care spending," of which our tax dollars - not increased premiums - fund at least 80 percent.

In Colorado, the Lewin Group found uncompensated care to be less than four percent of total medical spending. The portion of uncompensated care that can correspond to increased premiums is around $200 million annually. This is just $85 per privately-insured resident, or one percent of the average premium.

But the billion-dollar "cure" proposed by Colorado's Commission on Healthcare Reform would cost the insured more than $85. To encourage compliance with compulsory insurance, the Commission's plan includes tax-subsidized premiums and Medicaid expansion. Privately-insured Colorado resident, the tax increase would cost about $400.

Second, holding people responsible would mean punishing freeloaders themselves and allowing providers to prevent customers from skipping out on the bill. This is the exact opposite of compulsory insurance, which forces the innocent to purchase insurance policies determined by political interests, rather than their own needs. This is collective punishment.

What if we applied the rationale for compulsory medical insurance to freeloaders who leave restaurants without paying the bill? This certainly increases prices, but forcing all citizens to purchase "diner's insurance" punishes the innocent.

Third, government controls already punish the innocent - insured and uninsured alike - by making medical care and insurance prohibitively expensive.

The federal tax exemption for employer-provided insurance coddles insurance companies by tying employees to their employer's plans, effectively discounting insurance, and shielding insurance companies from competition. It also drives demand for more comprehensive insurance than would otherwise be purchased. Insulated from medical costs, patients behave like business travelers on a company expense account, so medical providers need not compete on price. Shall we further pamper insurance companies by forcing everyone to purchase their products?

On the state level, medical providers and disease constituencies lobby to force insurance to include benefits that many customers do not need. For example, Colorado law compels widowed wives to pay higher premiums for prostate screening, maternity, and marital therapy. These mandates increase Colorado premiums by 21 to 54 percent, which dwarfs the one percent increase attributable to the uninsured. Colorado's Chief Medical Officer states that 2,500 Coloradans lose insurance for every one percent increase in premiums. Nationally, the figure is 300,000 people. These controls also reduce wages and are responsible for up to twenty-five percent of America's uninsured.

Compulsory insurance further empowers politicians to determine what insurance is best for you. For example, the Boston Globe reports that under the Massachusetts plan, "more than 200,000 people with health insurance would have to buy additional coverage to meet proposed minimum standards under the state's new health insurance law."

When government policies increase insurance costs, the first to drop coverage are the young and healthy. Those remaining in the insurance pool are at higher risk to incur medical expenses, so premiums rise again, which again drives out the healthiest remaining customers. It takes some nerve to support policies that make insurance prohibitively expensive and then make it a crime not to purchase insurance.

Compulsory insurance is based on collective punishment, a perverted form of justice found where troops patrol the streets and spitballs go splat. It punishes both the insured and uninsured for the misdeeds of politicians. Legislators should stop scapegoating the uninsured for the mess they've perpetuated. They should repeal legislation that inhibits the free market from delivering affordable high-quality medical care.

Brian T. Schwartz, Ph.D. is an optical engineer and an aspiring professional policy analyst in Boulder, Colorado. His website is wakalix.com.

Labels: CA, CO, Insurance, MA, OpEd

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

The Right Vision Of Health Care
Yaron Brook 1.08.2008

With the primary season in full swing, the presidential candidates are fighting over what to do about the spiraling cost of health care--especially the cost of health insurance, which is becoming prohibitively expensive for millions of Americans.

The Democrats, not surprisingly, are proposing a massive increase in government control, with some even calling for the outright socialism of a single-payer system. Republicans are attacking this "solution." But although they claim to oppose the expansion of government interference in medicine, Republicans don't, in fact, have a good track record of fighting it.

Indeed, Republicans have been responsible for major expansions of government health care programs: As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney oversaw the enactment of the nation's first "universal coverage" plan, initially estimated at $1.5 billion per year but already overrunning cost projections. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who pledged not to raise any new taxes, has just pushed through his own "universal coverage" measure, projected to cost Californians more than $14 billion. And President Bush's colossal prescription drug entitlement--expected to cost taxpayers more than $1.2 trillion over the next decade--was the largest expansion of government control over health care in 40 years.

Today, nearly half of all spending on health care in America is government spending. Why, despite their lip service to free markets, have Republicans actually helped fuel the growth of socialized medicine and erode what remains of free-market medicine in this country?

Consider the basic factor that has driven the expansion of government medicine in America.

Prior to the government's entrance into the medical field, health care was regarded as a product to be traded voluntarily on a free market--no different from food, clothing, or any other important good or service. Medical providers competed to provide the best quality services at the lowest possible prices. Virtually all Americans could afford basic health care, while those few who could not were able to rely on abundant private charity.

Had this freedom been allowed to endure, Americans' rising productivity would have allowed them to buy better and better health care, just as, today, we buy better and more varied food and clothing than people did a century ago. There would be no crisis of affordability, as there isn't for food or clothing.

But by the time Medicare and Medicaid were enacted in 1965, this view of health care as an economic product--for which each individual must assume responsibility--had given way to a view of health care as a "right," an unearned "entitlement," to be provided at others' expense.

This entitlement mentality fueled the rise of our current third-party-payer system, a blend of government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, together with government-controlled employer-based health insurance (itself spawned by perverse tax incentives during the wage and price controls of World War II).

Today, what we have is not a system grounded in American individualism, but a collectivist system that aims to relieve the individual of the "burden" of paying for his own health care by coercively imposing its costs on his neighbors. For every dollar's worth of hospital care a patient consumes, that patient pays only about 3 cents out-of-pocket; the rest is paid by third-party coverage. And for the health care system as a whole, patients pay only about 14%.

The result of shifting the responsibility for health care costs away from the individuals who accrue them was an explosion in spending.

In a system in which someone else is footing the bill, consumers, encouraged to regard health care as a "right," demand medical services without having to consider their real price. When, through the 1970s and 1980s, this artificially inflated consumer demand sent expenditures soaring out of control, the government cracked down by enacting further coercive measures: price controls on medical services, cuts to medical benefits, and a crushing burden of regulations on every aspect of the health care system.

As each new intervention further distorted the health care market, driving up costs and lowering quality, belligerent voices demanded still further interventions to preserve the "right" to health care. And Republican politicians--not daring to challenge the notion of such a "right"--have, like Romney, Schwarzenegger and Bush, outdone even the Democrats in expanding government health care.

The solution to this ongoing crisis is to recognize that the very idea of a "right" to health care is a perversion. There can be no such thing as a "right" to products or services created by the effort of others, and this most definitely includes medical products and services. Rights, as our founding fathers conceived them, are not claims to economic goods, but freedoms of action.

You are free to see a doctor and pay him for his services--no one may forcibly prevent you from doing so. But you do not have a "right" to force the doctor to treat you without charge or to force others to pay for your treatment. The rights of some cannot require the coercion and sacrifice of others.

So long as Republicans fail to challenge the concept of a "right" to health care, their appeals to "market-based" solutions are worse than empty words. They will continue to abet the Democrats' expansion of government interference in medicine, right up to the dead end of a completely socialized system.

By contrast, the rejection of the entitlement mentality in favor of a proper conception of rights would provide the moral basis for real and lasting solutions to our health care problems--for breaking the regulatory chains stifling the medical industry; for lifting the government incentives that created our dysfunctional, employer-based insurance system; for inaugurating a gradual phase-out of all government health care programs, especially Medicare and Medicaid; and for restoring a true free market in medical care.

Such sweeping reforms would unleash the power of capitalism in the medical industry. They would provide the freedom for entrepreneurs motivated by profit to compete with each other to offer the best quality medical services at the lowest prices, driving innovation and bringing affordable medical care, once again, into the reach of all Americans.

Yaron Brook is managing director of BH Equity Research and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute.

Labels: Analysis, CA, Free Market, MA, Medicaid, Medicare, OpEd

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

Health care, ho!
State should avoid repeat of Massachusetts
THE GAZETTE January 3, 2008

For Colorado Democrats, a regulatory fix of the state's ailing health care system may seem irresistible during the upcoming 2008 legislative session. Imagine the attention major health care reform, or statewide "universal health care," would garner from the media in August, when the country's Democrats converge in Denver for the Democratic National Convention. Colorado could be held up as the example of how it can and should be done. Democratic leaders could be lauded for aiding 792,000 uninsured men, women and children.

House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, as quoted in The Gazette, says Coloradans are tired of waiting on a federal government that "cannot or won't fix" the health care crisis. The Blue-Ribbon Commission on Health Care Reform, appointed by legislative leaders and the governor, will present its recommendations to the Legislature on Jan. 31. The commission plans to recommend that all Colorado residents be mandated to buy insurance that meets minimum standards, and state subsidies would be extended to more of the state's poor.

Before politicians get too ambitious, however, they should take a closer look at the health care reform led by a leading Republican: Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts.

"The majority of the commission favors a government-heavy proposal," says Dr. Paul Hsieh, a Denver physician who has studied the new Massachusetts system. "They're crafting it similar to the Massachusetts model."

A year old, the Massachusetts system is resulting in rationing and shortages of care, and higher costs to taxpayers than originally expected. The Patriot Ledger newspaper tells of Lee Sampson, a 47-year-old unemployed medical transcriptionist. Sampson bought into Commonwealth Care, a state-subsidized insurance cooperative. She had to buy insurance by Jan. 1 to avoid tax penalties and fines.

But Sampson, like a growing number of other Massachusetts residents, is learning that mandatory insurance doesn't mean doctors will treat her. To receive benefits from the plan, Sampson must find a primary care physician. She reported calling 50 doctors' offices within a half-hour drive of her home. All rejected her. Most explained they were overwhelmed and accepting no new patients.

Massachusetts, like Canada, will learn that mandating health care as a universal right results in a demand for services that exceeds the supply. The demand for medical services under the new Massachusetts system has become so great, and so expensive, that state officials are cutting back on the compensation doctors receive for services, while raising patient co-pays. The medical community, struggling with high demand and inadequate reimbursement, is cutting costs by rationing services for patients like Sampson.

Ask Americans if they would enjoy free universal health care, like the Canadians have, and many will say yes. Ask the same folks if they'd like to wait several months for an MRI, a heart scan or chemotherapy -- as Canadians often do -- and they'll give a resounding "no way."

Yet one can't argue that our nation's health care system is well. As reported by The New York Times, health care costs are going up at twice the rate of inflation. With soaring costs come rising insurance rates, which fewer employers and individuals are willing or able to pay. Based on U.S. Census data, 10 million Americans were uninsured 15 years ago. Today, more than 46 million live uninsured.

While it's expedient for politicians to promise a solution in the form of a program, Massachusetts will continue showing us why it doesn't work. Government intervention, in fact, explains the failures of our current system. The IRS code drives most Americans to buy health insurance through employers. That means insurers don't have to compete for consumers, because for most Americans, shopping around for a better deal involves a career change. And because health insurance has been packaged as a "free" benefit from employers, patients have spent the past half-century consuming health care without challenging the price. For those with health plans, "insurance" has morphed into pre-paid service, seemingly paid for by someone else. Imagine a system in which large employers provided auto insurance. Would employees balk at the cost of this "free" benefit, demanding a better price? If the insurance covered routine oil and lube jobs, the way health insurance covers physicals, would consumers demand lower prices from Grease Monkey? Doubtful.

State legislators can't change the morass of federal regulation that has led to a health care system unrestrained by the conventional market forces that control other services and goods. But legislators can improve access to health care by eliminating most of the state controls that prohibit affordable coverage. State law, for example, requires that health insurance plans include coverage for childhood autism -- even for consumers with no prospect of children. Regardless of a consumer's personal needs, any policy he or she buys in Colorado must cover alcohol rehab, mental health and maternity treatments -- to name a few. Why not a law that says all cell phone plans must come with 80-channel cable TV?

Brian Schwartz, an Arvada-based optical engineer, proposed to the Blue Ribbon Commission a market-based health care reform package that mostly involved deregulation. Commission member Linda Gorman fought for it, but others scoffed.

"One commissioner said we already have a free market in health care, and it has failed," Schwartz told The Gazette. "But we don't have a free market. If you're a widow, you have to buy a policy that covers marital therapy, maternity and prostate cancer. You have no need for this, but if you want insurance you're required to buy it. Mandates raise your premium by 20 to 50 percent."

Government, as we're seeing in Massachusetts, can't make health care affordable and abundant. Market forces can and will -- if politicians ever allow them to.

Labels: 208, Canada, CO, Countries, Insurance, MA, OpEd, States

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

Mass. panel approves changes to subsidized residents health plan
By Alice Dembner

Striving to hold down costs to taxpayers, a state panel yesterday approved a range of changes for next year for the rapidly growing subsidized health insurance program. The changes will probably cut payments to doctors and hospitals, reduce choices for patients, and possibly increase how much patients have to pay.

The program is the centerpiece of the state's landmark effort to insure nearly every resident, and there is widespread concern about long-term funding of the initiative because of growing healthcare costs.

Mass. To Cut Payments to Docs & Hospitals
Posted by Jacob Goldstein

Massachusetts’s universal health-care plan is turning out to be more expensive than predicted. Now the state is looking at cutting payments to docs and hospitals next year to make ends meet.

That fiscal reaction, which some critics of the plan warned about, sends a stark message to those of us in the other 49 states. Massachusetts has become something of a model for the national plans proposed by Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, among others.

The state requires everybody to buy health insurance. A subsidized health plan offered to the poor as part of the program has proved more popular than expected, and that’s helping to push costs 20% over what the state had budgeted. The tab could run $619 million for the current fiscal year, $147 million over budget, the Boston Globe reports.

Now the board that oversees the plans has approved cuts of 3% to 5% in reimbursements for to health-care providers caring for those in the subsidized plan. The article suggests the cuts will bring reimbursement in line with Medicaid.

Labels: Insurance, MA, States

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

Success could put health plan in the red

Enrollment in the state's new subsidized health plan is growing so quickly that the state could face a funding gap as large as $147 million by the end of the fiscal year, according to a state projection.

...But the state would have to find ways to pay the insurance bills for so many more people. Options include appropriating more money, using funds allocated to care for those without insurance, or cutting extra payments to certain hospitals that were included in the law mandating insurance.

Thousands balk at health law sign-up mandate

With just seven weeks left until 2008, tens of thousands of Massachusetts residents -- up to 100,000 or more by some estimates -- have yet to sign up for insurance plans created as part of the state's historic health care reform law.

This has left insurers falling far short of expectations for signing up new customers, as countless people -- intentionally or otherwise -- come perilously close to risking fines and escalating penalties if they don't obtain insurance by the end of the year...

Labels