OP-ED

Saving the Good in Healthcare Reform

Some have suggested piecemeal repeal of the most obnoxious features of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The risk of this approach is comparable to that in cancer surgery: you might not get it all. In 906 pages of arcane statutory language, a lot can be hidden.

I suggest instead that we wipe the slate clean with a total repeal, and then consider reenacting any features that most agree are good. This would be the most efficient method because the list of items is shorter. Much shorter.

The most popular part is probably the elimination of “pre-existings.” You can’t eliminate the uninsurable condition of course, only the insurance company’s ability to deny coverage to people who have it. How would such an isolated law work?

In a free market, coverage for people with pre-existings might well be available, without any law—if insurers could simply charge a premium reflecting their risk, or limit the potential pay-out. The premium, naturally, could be very high. That would be a strong incentive to buy insurance when young and healthy, and resist temptations to spend the premium money on iPods and new cars instead. But for many it is already too late.

The U.S. already has the equivalent of fire insurance for those whose house is burning down. It is called Medicaid. Roll into the emergency room desperately ill, and the hospital will treat you, and probably enroll you in Medicaid—likely after you have spent through any assets and lost your SUV and your home.

To prevent such personal tragedies, how about a law that simply said: “Insurance companies must take all comers, without price discrimination for pre-existing conditions.” This is called “guaranteed issue” and “community rating” (GI/CR).

GI/CR would work well, if insurance were a magical money multiplier (MMM): put $100 in the slot machine, pull the lever, and watch $6 million in medical services pour out. The problem is that if a lot of healthy people who don’t expect to need medical services decline to feed in their premiums, knowing they can always do so as soon as they get sick, premiums will have to escalate rapidly. This is called adverse selection (only sick people sign up), or the death spiral. It has happened every time GI/CR has been tried.

This popular part of ACA is impossible without the hated and unconstitutional individual and employer mandates.

What about doing away with limits on lifetime coverage? Limiting out-of-pocket expenditures? Doing away with copayments? All of these have the same problem: lack of an MMM, such as a money tree or the Philosopher’s Stone that turns base metal into gold. The more we require insurance to pay out, the more money has to be poured in, with the inevitable loss to administrative overhead.

How about “giving doctors incentives to be more efficient”? In a free market, that is called the profit motive. In the ACA, the “incentives” are sticks painted to look like carrots, involving vast new reporting systems, with payments funneled through managed-care mechanisms. The choice is freedom—or ACA bureaucracies. Which of the some 159 new bureaucracies do we want to keep?

What about “affordability” provisions? Since prices are going up, in ACA “affordable” means forcing someone else to pay. It’s a matter of redistributing money from those who earn more than 400% of the federal poverty level (around $88,000) to those who earn less. Americans are divided into winners and losers, guaranteeing constant fights over one’s share of a shrinking pie.

One part everyone might favor is the one about allowing people to keep their insurance plan and their doctor if they like them.

Oh, that’s not in the bill. That was just a Presidential promise. The ACA has rules for “grandfathering” some plans—a good term since they are not expected to have a long life expectancy. ACA also appears to be designed to drive independent doctors out of practice, and it virtually outlaws new doctor-owned hospitals.

If we continue to scour through the ACA looking for isolated good points that will make things better or less costly, rather than worse and more expensive, I predict that our thought experiment will lead to what in mathematics is called the “null set.”

So far I have found no such provisions, zero. Nought, nada, nichts, zilch.

Jane M. Orient, M.D., is an On Air contributor speaking on Healthcare Reform. Dr. Orient has been in solo practice of general internal medicine since 1981 and is a clinical lecturer in medicine at the University of Arizona College of Medicine. She is the author of Sapira’s Art and Science of Bedside Diagnosis and YOUR Doctor Is Not In: Healthy Skepticism about National Health Care. She is the executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

Livongo’s Post Ad Banner 728*90

Categories: OP-ED

20
Leave a Reply

20 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
9 Comment authors
Gary LampmanNateRob TurnerPeterPaolo Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Gary Lampman
Guest
Gary Lampman

Why not kill Insurance Reforms before they can begin. Kill Joy or No Joy? Why not tell everyone to stop whinning and Die already! All of these years you smug profit guzzling manipulators have taunted the uninsured; that Health Care was a Privledge and not a basic Human Right. Now it does become a priviledge that everyone contributes toward as common goal to reduce costs and now the program is demonized as being unprofitable and unworkable! It works for millions of uninsured and uninsurables! The insurance industry handed every element of the bill to your legislators and believe me they… Read more »

Nate
Guest
Nate

“Any state that tries to weaken it will be shooting itself in the foot.”
Weaken what? The already weak mandate? The Obamacare mandate is so weak it is meaningless.

Paolo
Guest
Paolo

“No state has GI without a mandate and a requirement carriers sell policies at healthy individual rates.”
I’m glad we agree. And given that every state will have GI starting 2014, it is pretty evident what should be done with regard to the mandate. Any state that tries to weaken it will be shooting itself in the foot.

Nate
Guest
Nate

I am only disagreeing with the author’s assertion that it is impossible to have GI without a mandate. I think she clearly said you can’t have a GI without a mandate AND Price control. No state has GI without a mandate and a requirement carriers sell policies at healthy individual rates. She clearly said you can have GI if you allow the carrier to charge the fair price of insuring the risk “Why should my taxes or my premiums subsidize the catastrophic care of an uninsured who could have afforded his premiums?” If you lived in MA that is exactly… Read more »

Margalit Gur-Arie
Guest

Nate, allow me to step out of my flaming limo and do answer the Hummer vs. health insurance question with one word: Taxes.
Health care should be financed by taxes. I prefer payroll taxes, but I can live with VAT properly defined. Note that this does not necessarily imply single payer, but it does imply universal mandatory coverage, even for Hummer drivers.
The reason this ACA law is so convoluted and, although a step in the right direction, rather sub-optimal is because essentially it is a half measure, and like all half measures it can create more problems than it solves.

Paolo
Guest
Paolo

“Paolo you took part of what she said, ignored the other part, repeated the part she ignored then disagreed with her over it?” I am only disagreeing with the author’s assertion that it is impossible to have GI without a mandate. This is obviously not true. There are at least 6 states that have been doing this for a while. And if the Republican platform is successful, in 4 years, we will have 49 states doing this. “paolo, what would happen if NY required insurers to sell their NY policies at MA rates without the mandate?” NY insurers would go… Read more »

Peter
Guest
Peter

“All that was accomplished through the ACA was that now the American people believe that the government owes them free healthcare.”
No, most Americans want affordable healthcare. Seniors want free healthcare. But guess who gets what they want – those who actually vote, and/or lobby. Voting percentage of citizens in that last election from 18 to 29 = 11%, over 60 = 34%

Peter
Guest
Peter

“It’s beyound his ability to grasp.” Nate, there is only a funding shortage because the system costs too much – even you should realize that since that’s how you make your living, by beating up on everyone in the system. Don’t like that Medicare is sucking tax dollars faster than FICA deductions, then raise FICA, cut benefits and/or pay hospitals/docs/pharma less. But no, no one, not even Repugs has the balls to do that. No one will cut revenues because that’s where politicians get their donations from, they only want to deny care to those that can’t pay into an… Read more »

Nate
Guest
Nate

paolo, what would happen if NY required insurers to sell their NY policies at MA rates without the mandate?
see the problem now?

Nate
Guest
Nate

in lieu of requirement to buy insurance, a true mandate, you could use public funding as the money tree, vouchers, subsidies, etc but that is the basis of medicaid and it is being slashed, government is transfering Medicaid liability to private insurance already, see the age 26 deps.
Its an option but not
HCR is fundementally flawed

Nate
Guest
Nate

“The current bill is expected to reduce total health care costs by a significant amount unless the health industry can pay off enough congresscritters to change it in their favor. ” No its not, everyone that works in thge industry says this has already increased cost more then it would have other wise and will dramatically effect the system in 2014. This bill will double the healthcare inflation if not changed. As expected the liberals missed the point and the details becuase your blind to facts. No matter how many times you say it people like Peter will never grasp… Read more »

Rob Turner
Guest

With or without the ACA, healthcare providers, payors, and physicians will experience 3 things in the next 3-5 years: 1. More patients than we’ve seen at any point in history 2. Less resources/reimbursement to take care of those patients 3. We will be asked to provide a better outcome than we have in the past despite points 1&2. All that was accomplished through the ACA was that now the American people believe that the government owes them free healthcare. This will be a demand placed on every political candidate now and in the future. Two questions loom: 1. How much… Read more »

Peter
Guest
Peter

The real weakness of ACA is not limiting the incomes or billing practices of Dr. Orient and her colleagues. She hasn’t even investigated the income limitations of the “house burning down” Medicaid. Using an insurance mindset to solve healthcare won’t solve healthcare cost issues, unless you only want to control cost by denying care.
“It’s a matter of redistributing money from those who earn more than 400% of the federal poverty level (around $88,000) to those who earn less.”
No, it’s about redistributing money from private hospitals, specialists, insurance companies and other providers who get rich from other peoples misery.

Paolo
Guest
Paolo

“This popular part of ACA is impossible without the hated and unconstitutional individual and employer mandates.”
Actually, it’s not impossible. Several states like NY, NJ, or VT have had GI with no mandate for years. They simply have more expensive individual insurance than a state like MA where there is a mandate.
For example, in MA a 40-year old male can purchase insurance for himself for $200-$300 / mo. In NY, the same person would pay over $1000/mo.

Margalit Gur-Arie
Guest

The point of the post, MG, is pure and simple propaganda. Fasten your seatbelt because this is going to occur daily until the 2012 elections. The fifty million uninsured are of no concern here. After all, according to Devon, Americans should have the coverage they can “afford”. Can’t get clearer than that. Since most people are healthy at any given moment in time, pitting the “healthy” against the “sick” is also rather brilliant. Almost as good as inciting the “young” against the “old”, because everybody knows that if you happen to be young and healthy on election day, you will… Read more »