By Robert VerBruggen
Monday, October 28, 2019
A lot of the Democratic presidential candidates are
rushing as far to the left on health care as they can. But some in the “center
lane” are advocating what they claim is a more moderate approach: finishing
what President Obama started and creating a “public option,” meaning an
insurance policy provided by the government that purportedly “competes” with
private plans. Obama and some of his allies pushed hard to include this in the
original Obamacare law, but they got only 58 of the 60 votes they needed in the
Senate.
The next time they have a Senate majority, the Democrats
will likely try to pass it through a process that requires just 51 votes. This
is a lot less alienating to moderate Democrats than Medicare for All ever will
be. So even if one of the lefty candidates becomes our next president and
enjoys a sympathetic Congress, the public option might prove to be the most
politically plausible big-ticket reform.
Let’s take a trip down memory lane and re-explain the
problems with this approach. This is a special treat for me, since I first
joined National Review in 2008 and spent a lot of time editing
articles about Obamacare over the next few years, a period in which we ran
plenty of pieces about the public option.
At first glance, the concept may seem harmless enough.
Conservatives, after all, are always pointing out how inefficient the
government is. One imagines that if a government-run insurer competed on equal
terms with private businesses, it wouldn’t be able to keep up. Think the DMV,
except facing private competition. But this ignores the economics of the
health-care market and the might of the government within it.
More than a quarter of the country’s health-care spending
is already covered by the federal government, largely through programs that
directly insure patients. And since the government has such powerful control
over what will be paid for millions of people’s health care, it can simply
underpay providers on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. As the health-care expert
Robert Laszewski recently noted, “Medicare pays close to half the price
commercial insurers pay hospitals and pays about 20% less than commercial
insurance pays doctors.” A study commissioned by the hospital lobby, for what
it’s worth, estimates losses in the tens of billions of dollars each year from
treating patients covered by Medicare and Medicaid.
This means that people on private insurance
“cross-subsidize” people on government plans: To some (much-debated) degree,
providers charge the former more so they can afford to take Medicare and
Medicaid rates to treat the latter. Some doctors also limit the number of
government-insured patients they’ll see.
That’s one of the biggest problems with giving Medicare
to all: It drastically cuts payments by eliminating these cross-subsidies. It
is, in effect, a huge bet that health-care providers will simply keep operating
with tons less revenue. I am sympathetic to the idea that many hospitals charge
high rates just because they have market power in their local areas and can get
away with it, but that doesn’t mean all hospitals, especially the struggling
rural ones, could weather rate cuts so severe.
And the same problem rears its head when you provide a
public option “to all who want it.” The only way this product will be
attractive to patients is if it forces providers to accept low rates to hold
down premiums. That’s why public-option proposals typically require all
providers who take Medicare to accept the public option too. (Back in 2009,
various estimates held that public-option premiums would be 10 to 30 percent
lower than private ones.) And if it goes that route, the public option hammers
providers and does not compete with private plans on equal footing.
As Laszewski puts it: “How would you like to run a
business and have the government show up with a competing product and use its
unilateral power to pay the suppliers you both need half as much as you do?”
Another major problem with a public option is that,
unlike a private insurer, it’s unlikely to go bankrupt and disappear if it
loses money. As James C. Capretta has written, “there’s no particular reason why
a publicly run product couldn’t experience ongoing losses, so long as the law
provided for direct or indirect taxpayer subsidization. The Medicare program
itself is funded heavily by taxpayer subsidies.”
On the other hand, if a public option really catches on —
and the provider lobbies aren’t able to kill its growth — it leads to the
single-payer system that moderates claim they don’t want. Not only does it
normalize the idea of government health insurance for the masses, but as more
people join the public option, providers have to charge the privately insured
even higher rates, driving up their premiums and increasing their incentive to
join the state-run plan.
This has been an open secret for years and played a role
in the original debate over Obamacare. As Rich Lowry recounted in 2009: “A
single-payer activist confronted liberal lion Barney Frank with a camera,
demanding to know why he didn’t support single-payer. Frank shot back that he
favors such a system, only he realizes Obamacare’s public option is the best
way to get from here to there.” The same year, The American Prospect ran
a piece explaining how the concept bridged what was politically feasible in
Congress with the energy on the activist left, which “could live with the
public option as a kind of stealth single-payer.”
In 2009 and 2010, there were enough truly moderate
Democrats to keep the public option from becoming law. The next time Democrats
take over, the dam might break, and then we’ll really be in for a ride.
No comments:
Post a Comment