National Review Online
Monday, February 08, 2016
Donald Trump doesn’t know what he thinks about health
care. He has been a periodic advocate of a United Kingdom–style monopoly system
and a periodic critic of such monopolies. He says that we should repeal the
so-called Affordable Care Act and replace it with . . . something. Something
“terrific.”
Well.
When asked by New Hampshire debate moderator Mary
Katharine Ham whether his flirtations with single-payer leave him closer to
Vermont socialist Bernie Sanders than to mainstream Republicans, Trump gave a hilariously
incoherent answer based in one part on banalities and one part on lies — which
is the Trump magic formula. He said that he was the only candidate on stage
free to explore all the policy options because he is self-funded and therefore
not beholden to special interests. Trump is in fact mainly funded by donors,
like the other candidates, but he persists in this lie, brazenly. He also
claimed that the insurance companies are “getting rich on Obamacare,” which
would be news to United, Cigna, Aetna, and others who have taken a bath on
their ACA offerings. (They might have thought they were going to get rich —
it’s nice to have a federal law mandating the purchase of your product — but,
having gone to bed with the devil, they are waking up with a burning
sensation.) Trump also promises a system that would not leave Americans “dying
on the street.”
Trump likes to talk about “deals,” and to tout his
purported expertise as a dealmaker. To the extent that he has communicated
anything that deserves to be called an idea on the issue of health care, it is
in joining in with Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Rodham Clinton, et
al., in calling for government negotiation with pharmaceutical companies over
prescription-drug prices. Trump promises to apply the business acumen he has
brought to the casino racket and his reality-television enterprise to negotiate
better deals on pharmaceuticals.
It is a superficially appealing position: About
two-thirds of Republicans tell pollsters they believe the government should
engage in such negotiations. As things stand, the Department of Health and
Human Services is prohibited from engaging in direct price negotiations with
pharmaceutical companies, a rule that was adopted in the creation of Medicare
Part D, the competitive prescription-drug benefit program. There were three
reasons for that: One, it was a sop to the pharmaceutical companies; two,
Congress and the George W. Bush administration had quite reasonable concerns
that transferring the price-negotiating function from private insurers to the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services would create something like a
price-fixing monopsony; three, the experience of Medicaid suggests that such
negotiations might backfire, with pharmaceutical companies raising their prices
in the private market to create the illusion of steeper discounts for
government buyers.
Barack Obama had campaigned on undertaking such
negotiations, but, in a rare concession to reality, he quietly dropped from the
ACA a provision that permitted them. The idea that a team from the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services is going to sit around a table with the top
brass from Merck and Purdue and hammer out standing deals covering the
thousands of permutations of pharmaceuticals American medical patients receive
is impractical, to say the least. The Obama administration and Mrs. Clinton
have since changed their approach, suggesting that the government become
involved in direct negotiations over the prices of a small number of very
expensive drugs, such as biologics, especially those that do not have very many
competitors.
The belief that a single federal health soviet is going
to come to a better settlement than a large number of insurance companies
negotiating a large number of different deals to serve a large number of
different interests is a classic example of monopolistic progressive thinking,
something for which Trump, who currently styles himself a conservative of some
sort, has a weakness. In reality, one of the reasons private-sector negotiation
has failed to produce large savings is that the private insurance companies
face prohibitions of their own, thanks to federal regulation.
There are six classes of care that are “protected” by
federal regulation, meaning that private insurance plans doing business with
Medicare are obliged by law to cover “all or substantially all” prescription
drugs related to them. Which is to say, the law ensures that insurance
companies are in a weak negotiating position, because they cannot walk away
from the transaction — in the end, they are required by federal law to buy the
drugs. There’s a little poetic justice in that: Under the ACA, insurance
premiums are going up, because consumers are required by law to carry certain
insurance; the insurance companies are in the same position (an unwieldy
federal mandate) vis-à-vis certain pharmaceuticals.
The Congressional Budget Office studied the question a
few years back and concluded that direct negotiations probably would not have
much effect on overall prices. In a report for the National Bureau of Economic
Research, professors Mark Duggan and Fiona M. Scott Morton found that a larger
Medicaid footprint in the market for particular drugs was associated with
higher prices, not lower prices: A 10 percent increase in Medicaid’s share of
the buyers’ market for a prescription was associated with a 7 to 10 percent
increase in the average price of that prescription.
Trump goes astray in the same way that Obama, Sanders,
and Clinton do: in the assumption that what ails American health care is profit. What actually ails American
health care is demographics, with an aging society undermining the finances of
Medicare and the Social Security disability program; defective markets in which
state-by-state insurance licensing prevents the emergence of a national market,
and hence national competition, for insurance services; preexisting regulatory
burdens that all but ensure high prices for health-care consumers;
special-interest concessions written into every program from Medicaid to
Obamacare, paid out as the price of industry support for various federal
interventions. If Trump’s confused answer about “lines around the states” was a
reference to the fractured U.S. insurance market, then he is correct to identify
that as a problem. Beyond that, his strategy seems to consist mainly of
adjectives: wonderful, terrific, etc.
Trump’s error is useful to consider inasmuch as he is not
the only one who imagines the federal government in the role of master
dealmaker in the health-care market. In reality, the main problem isn’t a lack
of deals but a lack of competitive markets, consumer choice, and transparent
prices. Two-party deals between Big Government and Big Pharma are one way to
make that situation even worse than it is.
No deal.
No comments:
Post a Comment