Market-Driven Inflation of Health Care Costs and Spreading Hardships

In a Letter to the Editor of the Wall Street Journal just days ago, John Goodman, president of the conservative Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis, repeats this classic premise of Milton Friedman's economic views:  "capitalism confers its greatest benefits on people at the bottom of the income ladder.  People at the top would have done well under any system. It is people at the bottom who are most liberated by markets." This view of the world has dominated U. S. politics for several decades.  As we saw in our last post, however, free markets in health care are driving up costs at three and four times the rate of cost of living and family incomes.  It is long overdue to hold this theory to account for its actual track record and its impact on people needing health care.



These benchmarks show how flawed and disconnected this economic theory is from reality.

•  There are 46 million uninsured and at least another 25 million under-insured  (generally defined as spending over 10 percent of their annual  income)

•  Even among the more than 150 million Americans with employer-sponsored health insurance, a 2007 report by Families USA found that:
a.  among the 50 million non-elderly Americans who spend more than 10
percent of their pretax income on health care, 4 of 5 are insured
b.  of the 13.5 million in families spending more than 25
percent of their pretax income on health care, more than 3 of 4  are insured

•  A majority of uninsured and underinsured go without necessary health care
because of costs

•  The costs of cancer care are going through the roof at rates much higher than
for general medical care; a 2007 study by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the
Harvard School of Public Health found that nearly one-half of cancer patients
without consistent health insurance coverage use up all or most of their savings,
leaving them short for basic necessities.

•  A 2008 study by the Centers on Budget and Policy Priorities found that 2.4
million elderly Americans have been driven into poverty by medical bills,
despite having Medicare coverage; seniors now  spend 22 percent of their
annual incomes on health care (compared to 15 percent when Medicare was
enacted in 1965). 

•  Medical bills account for about one-half of the 2 million bankruptcies each
year; of those bankrupted, 3 of 4 were employed and insured when they  fell ill.

•  Household debt today is at the highest level since 1933.

•  A 2008 analysis by Deloitte's health research center has found that medical care
now accounts for 16.6 percent of the average American household's income,
more than housing (14.4 percent) and food (13.1 percent).

•  Consumer confidence has fallen to a 28 year low

•  A recent Rockefeller Foundation/Time survey found that 85 percent of
Americans feel that the country is headed in the wrong direction, with a
majority saying that "the American dream is no longer attainable";  80 percent
believe that whatever social contract we have had has deteriorated, and that a
new one is needed.

•  The accompanying graphic shows in brutal detail that the robber baron era
preceding the Great Depression has reappeared with an even wider gap in 2006  
between incomes of the top 0.01 percent and the bottom 90 percent of U. S.
families.

(Source: Thompson, G. Meet the wealth gap. The Nation 14 (12): July 1-15, 2008)

These points make clear how untrue and preposterous the trickle-down theory of economics really is.  It is a cruel hoax.  We are in the second Gilded Age, and conservative market policies fail the public interest.  A recent article in The Nation by John Cavanagh and Chuck Collins of the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies, describes our current predicament in these terms:

" Our top-heavy era has evolved from a heavily bankrolled effort by conservatives and corporations to instill blind faith in the market as the magic elixir that can solve any problem.  This three-decade war against
common sense has preached that tax cuts for the rich help the poor, that labor unions keep workers from prospering, that regulations protecting consumers attack freedom.  Duly inspired, our elected officials have  rewritten the rules that run our economy - on taxes and trade, on wage policies and public spending - to benefit wealthy asset owners and global corporations. To reverse this reckless course, we need to change our
nation's dominant political narrative and restore faith in the critical role that government must play to protect the common good."

In future posts we will address some directions for health care reform which will bring necessary care within reach of all Americans based on medical need, not a disappearing ability to pay in our runaway market-based non-system.
______________________________________________________________________

Adapted from: Do Not Resuscitate: Why the Health Insurance Industry is Dying, and How We Must Replace It, 2008 by John Geyman. With permission of the publisher, Common Courage Press

Buy This Book: http://www.commoncouragepress.com/index.cfm?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Economics

"free markets in health care are driving up costs at three and four times the rate of cost of living and family incomes" is a misleading statement.

Free markets obey the law of supply and demand. There is a lot of demand for healthcare services, and growing due to aging and other factors. On the supply side, there is a limited supply of doctors and hospitals, and of course they want to get paid for their work and to fund other activities like research and the advancement of science. A single payer system would not necessarily alter this in an of itself, but most designs (including medicare or other nationalized systems worldwide) would limit cost growth by restricting the available services and by fixing prices. These decisions would be made centrally, rather than letting the players in a free market make decisions for themselves based on their own personal conditions.

Single payer system proposals in America would trade off this individual liberty to gain a wider, more even appropriation of resources. i.e. socialism. The effect of doing this would create pent up demand (waiting lines, delays, or denials) and reduce the flexibility of suppliers (doctors) by paying them less. This would result in more widely practiced services (preventive care) by less availability of infrequent, specialized care. Also, the attractiveness of the medical profession would decline somewhat, so the pool of doctors would be less skilled. Also, there would be less resources put into niceties like medical research, all else being equal.

The flip side is that access would be expanded (more people would receive some basic services)

However, demand is fundamentally different in healthcare because the person seeking the service is generally not part of the transaction. With a third party system (whether public or private) no individual has much incentive to assess the value of what they are going to recieve vs. what they will pay out because they pay out zero, or a minimal amount. We are careful about what restaurants we go to or don't go to, making sure the quality is adequate for the price we are willing to pay - but people don't generally make those types of value decisions today regarding doctors and hospitals. This is starting to change, though, in the industry.

Squib's Ink...what a mess.

re: "...letting the players in a free market make decisions for themselves based on their own personal conditions...Single payer system proposals in America would trade off this individual liberty to gain a wider, more even appropriation of resources..."

Say what? Players? Did you mean to imply that ill or injured patients are PLAYERS? Patients need health care, not defective insurance products with selective "coverage" and multiple restrictions on their freedom of choice.

Say what? Individual liberty? Insurance company bean-counters override and interfere with the medical treatment decisions made the patient's own direct care health providers. It's the insurers who appropriate the resources, the precious health care dollars paid out in premiums, then skimp on providing care and/or fraudulently deny paying care to make a profit at the expense of sick people. The insurers take away provider flexibility, by refusing to pay for treatment the provider recommends. The insurers restrict the freedom of patients to choose their providers and facilities.

Say what? Decide for themselves? That's exactly what insurers do in the current market-based system. It's the insurance companies that make decisions that are in their own best financial interest, "healthy profits." Patients are held hostage by the current insurance company bureaucracy. Markets are not the way to distribute health care, because that's not their purpose. Insurance companies have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to increase revenues and maximize profits. Many businesses, including the over 1300 private insurers resist any fundamental change in the current system because they recognize that their ability to control their profits, rests with their ability to control the system. The current system works for them, but not for patients.

Private insurers will always have a financial incentive to raise prices or restrict care. Expanding and improving MediCare, (which is a publicly funded, publicly accountable social insurance program), is the only equitable way to providing care to everyone who needs it, not just the wealthy. It is not "socialized" medicine. Professional caregivers can deliver appropriate care based on individual patient need without interference from insurance claims adjusters.

Alan Greenspan just admitted on Thursday that he “made a mistake” in trusting that free markets could regulate themselves without government oversight. Health care is a right, not a commodity; and it should be provided as a not-for-profit, public health service.

Make no mistake about it. We need a fundamental change in our health care delivery system. Profits have no place in health care. We need to restore freedom of choice and return clinical decision making to direct care providers and patients. Only a single-payer, improved and expanded MediCare-for-All, will fix our broken system.

"We commit ourselves to any wrong or degradation or injury when we do not protest against it." Lillian Wald,(1867-1940), American Social Reformer/Founder Public Health Nursing