Tuesday, August 31, 2010

For the record

Let's try to add up some of the more notable government interventions in US healthcare:
  • Medicaid and Medicare account for 35 percent of total US healthcare expenditures.
  • More than 20 percent of US hospitals are owned by governments.
  • The Tax Policy Center, run by the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute, conclude that "The current tax treatment of health insurance encourages taxpayers to purchase overly generous health insurance and consequently to consume more health care than they would in an unsubsidized market."
  • A number of US states have passed measures which heavily distort health care markets, ranging from regulations against discrimination against those with pre-existing conditions (the equivalent of purchasing home insurance while it is on fire) to attempts to create universal coverage. Some of the more notable examples include New York, Massachusetts, Maine, Oregon and Tennessee.
  • Many states have licensing regulations that do not recognize licenses from other states. For example, I know for a fact that a physical therapist practicing in Washington DC and licensed in Colorado would have to complete a licensing requirement in California that would take at least six months.
  • A private sector organization known as The Joint Commission operates accreditation programs for a fee to subscriber hospitals and other health care organizations. These accreditations are recognized by a majority of state governments a condition of licensure and the receipt of Medicaid reimbursement, thus granting it the power to deny market entry.
  • Various other government interventions serve to limit the supply of health care professionals, including physicians.
It takes some real cajones to survey the US health care landscape, pre-Obamacare, and declare that the system represents a failure of the free market. Government has created the problem, and more government is held out as the solution. It's an increasingly familiar pattern.

Update: I should have also mentioned the role of state regulations which mandate medical services that insurance must cover, further driving up costs. New Jersey is particularly bad in this regard.

2 comments:

David said...

Maybe instead of "reforming" the health insurance system we should have socialized it like Canada, which experiences better objective health outcomes concerning life expectancy, infant mortality, and rates of preventable death (even when demographically adjusting numbers to compare only white Americans to Canadians) while spending 4 to 5 percent less of their GDP.

Colin said...

Infant mortality:

http://togetrichisglorious.blogspot.com/2009/06/infant-mortality-and-health-care.html

Life expectancy:

http://togetrichisglorious.blogspot.com/2009/05/us-life-expectancy.html

http://togetrichisglorious.blogspot.com/2009/07/more-on-life-expectancy.html

http://togetrichisglorious.blogspot.com/2009/09/uk-life-expectancy.html

Also, to compare white Americans to Canadians doesn't mean the comparison is apples to apples. You also need to control for education and income.