This from the Wall Street Journal on Sunday:
Groups representing hospitals, health-insurance companies, doctors, drug makers, medical-device makers and labor are joining in Monday’s announcement. According to a letter from the groups, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, they will promise to help reduce the growth of national health-care spending by 1.5 percentage points in each of the next 10 years. “The times demand and the nation expects that we, as health care leaders, work with you to reform the health care system,” the letter says.
Is it possible for these stakeholders to find $2 trillion in excess health care costs over the next ten years?
Are there ice cubes in Antarctica?
During the next ten years, we are on track to spend something approaching $40 trillion on health care in America. The stakeholders need to be proposing something that is more than a rounding error–it needs to actually make a difference toward making entitlements and private health insurance affordable.
According to CMS, the U.S. is projected to spend over $2.5 trillion on health are in 2009—or 17.6% of GDP.
In 1970, U.S. health care spending was about $75 billion—7.2% of GDP.
Health care costs have risen about 2.4 percentage points faster than GDP since 1970.
In 2018, CMS projects that we will spend more than $4.3 trillion on health care—20.3% of GDP.
So, these key stakeholders are going to visit the White House tomorrow and tell us that after 39 straight years of blowing the lid off of GDP they are now going to control costs?
That is if the President and the Congress mandate that everybody buy their health insurance products and therefore get funding to visit their doctors offices and hospitals as well as buy their drugs and devices.
But I would suggest some hard questions:
- What measurable and verifiable benchmarks are the stakeholders willing to set?
- What consequences are they going to suffer if they don’t make a real difference in controlling costs?
I think Ronald Reagan had it right when he was negotiating disarmament with the Soviets—“Trust but verify.”
Is this $2 trillion offer a big deal?
Is it more than just a rounding error in the grand scheme of things?
Is it is measurable, verifiable, and are there are consequences for falling short.
If the answer is “Yes” to each of these elements, then it is scorable.
If the answer is “No” it’s just good PR.
One other thing is clear–the pressure is building on the Congressional Budget Office to agree on some health care reform savings. Recent post: An Open Letter to the Men and Women Over at the CBO–Hang In There!