Posts Tagged Economy

Thoughts on the Healthcare State of the Union

I will give the President his due – he is a magnificent speaker, on par with Clinton, Reagan, Kennedy and Lincoln as one of the greatest orators in American history. However, the task before the country is to reorganize almost 20% of the United States economy in 90 days to preserve our economic stability, so extraordinary oratory is not enough. With that, a few thoughts from a healthcare businessman, not a politician, on tonight’s speeches:

  • Is it possible for Republicans to be more tone deaf than to have a cardiac surgeon from Louisiana give a response to the President’s address? Maybe they thought Dr. Kevorkian would give a rebuttal. Is malpractice reform really the best Republican idea? At best, it is a 1% solution to the issues before us. As to rationing, it already happens, even if subtle ways. Cardiac surgery is not one of those subtleties – cardiac surgeons are not famous for performing bypasses on indigent patients.
  • President Obama spoke for almost an hour and talked almost exclusively about health insurance reform. Does it concern you to think that it takes an hour tonight, in addition to most of August, to talk about insurance reform? Insurance reform is the easy issue for the American citizens – perhaps no other issue in the history of polling is so heavily slanted as it is against the insurance industry. If it takes all year to address the low-hanging fruit, how will Congress ever understand healthcare delivery? For a guess, see the first bullet above.
  • As to the insurance reform suggestions, it sure sounds poll-tested – no caps on lifetime coverage (who pays for that?), no denials for pre-existing conditions, etc. Do Congress and the White House really think that the insurance companies will fail to pass the proposed taxes and incremental costs onto the policyholders?
  • We will discuss in much more detail next week our “747 concept”. For now, we beg the White House to expand their search for examples of what is right and replicable about healthcare value. Professor Nicholas John Spykman once said, “Geography is the most fundamental factor in the foreign policy of states because it is the most permanent. Ministers come and ministers go, even dictators die, but mountain ranges stand unperturbed.” The theory of geography as destiny applies to healthcare, too, as does demography. Intermountain Healthcare has done some really innovative things, and Brent James, M.D. is well-regarded, but much of Intermountain’s success is due to a largely homogenous, if not teetotalling, population.
  • When did the cost of health insurance for Congress become the benchmark for “affordable”? Is that compared to plans for union members?
  • The President firmly stated that the public option has to be self-sustaining from premiums? History suggests how that works – lower premiums=fewer benefits. The public example is CoverTN; the private examples are often fined by insurance regulators for misleading consumers on the amount of the benefit. History also suggests that government sponsored plans are subject to lobbying for increased benefits, which usually become unfunded mandates. If the public option has to pay for itself from premiums, and Congress establishes minimum benefits, then premiums increase, right?
  • In speaking on healthcare for an hour, the President mentioned value only once.
  • In speaking on healthcare for an hour, the President never mentioned individual behavior or personal responsibility, except for the proposal to require everyone to obtain healthcare coverage like auto liability coverage. Anyone notice that was one of the three times (the others being malpractice caps and no federal funding of abortion) that the Democratic side of the chamber sat on their hands?
  • The President called out Alabama as the example of a state in which a single insurer dominating a market, with the clear inference that less payer competition is worse for Americans. The Hospital Value Index™ study suggests just the opposite of what the President stated  – higher value markets are usually characterized by less competition on the payer side, whereas lower value markets are often characterized by more competition on the payer side.
  • Finally, the President finished with a predictable appeal to Senator Kennedy’s legacy. Two things come to mind: First, watching Speaker Pelosi glowing while hearing the stirring tribute to Senator Kennedy was ironic, given that she appears to have failed to grasp his legislative genius. History suggests that Senator Kennedy would take as much ground on healthcare reform as he could get this year, and return next year to fight for more. That stands in stark contrast to Speaker Pelosi’s stance that there is no bill without a public option. Second, as to the President’s remarks regarding Senator Kennedy’s appeal to morality, if we have learned anything in this country, isn’t it that morality as the foundation for government policy is built upon sand? Wasn’t morality the underlying justification for the idiocy regarding death panels? We might be better off if both parties left morality to the church, as the separation of church and state suggests.

So, now the hard work begins. The good news is that there are 747 hospitals that are exemplars for healthcare reform, and next week, Washington will know who they are.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

, , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

A Call for Sacrifice by the People, for the People

I had the opportunity to spend a few minutes with a United States Congressman yesterday and discuss healthcare reform. From that discussion, as well as numerous media accounts, I think it is clear that the American people are frustrated in a deeply authentic way with what is happening, or not, in Washington D.C.

Is healthcare reform central to the long-term fiscal and economic health of the United States? I am sure it is – $37T (present value) of unfunded Medicare liabilities is simply unfathomable. Yet today’s healthcare debate in Washington, D.C. is focused on “just” $1T.

Maybe the American people don’t understand the intricacies of healthcare reform, and maybe they don’t even care. However, I believe that they are smart enough to know that fixing a problem as big as healthcare will require that everyone make sacrifices.

Maybe the American people do know in their hearts and in their expanding guts that they are to blame, and maybe they want to be inspired by someone who can help them to remedy their mistakes. Maybe the American people know there is no free lunch on healthcare reform, and maybe they know that they could skip a meal or two anyway. Maybe they are really angry because the Government of the People is not being candid with the People.

Maybe the anger and anguish of August is that the American people know that the medicine of healthcare reform does not come in grape or bubblegum flavors or in a tablet that dissolves on the tongue. Maybe they know the medicine will be very hard to swallow, and maybe it will make some people sick. Maybe they simply want leaders in the White House and Congress to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

What if they are prepared for that? What if, as citizens of the greatest nation in the world, they just need to be asked?

Have we had the discussion of whether healthcare is an unalienable right? No. Should we? Probably. Will we? Probably not.

Even so, in the history of this great nation, when called to sacrifice for the greater good, the American people have proven to be without peer. Do we still have it in us? Do we possess the character of the “Greatest Generation”?

I am not certain, but I won’t ever know unless someone calls the question. Where are the leaders? When will they call for sacrifice by the People, for the People, and for this great nation?

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

, , , , ,

No Comments

Is It Worth It®: The Contrast between Higher Education and Healthcare

The Wall Street Journal published an article entitled Weighing Price and Value in Picking a College (subscription required) on July 15 about the difficult choices and trade-offs some families are making about higher education. Putting aside that we believe that price is an element of value, the article prompted me to think about both the parallels and contrasts between education and healthcare.

The following quotation was particularly interesting to me:

“Even when the economy picks up, some of this new price-consciousness is likely to endure. The engines that have enabled college costs to soar – easy credit, home-equity loans and growth in savings – have stalled. Total college costs are already up 67% in the past decade at private colleges and 84% at public four-year universities, based on College Board data, and graduates’ wages haven’t kept pace.”

Four thoughts come to mind:

  • Over the past decade, healthcare (together with health insurance) and education are the only two parts of the economy that have been able to generate 5-10% annual price inflation.
  • Price-consciousness is enabled by price transparency. The price of higher education is completely transparent, whereas the price of healthcare is almost completely opaque. I always find it curious when healthcare executives tell me that price does not matter, but they refuse to reveal the price.
  • The engine that has allowed healthcare costs to soar is the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored healthcare, which contributes to price opacity. The emerging focus on value in higher education is market-driven, whereas the strong lobbying efforts against taxing healthcare benefits will require government intervention for value-based purchasing in healthcare.
  • Paradoxically, cost is opaque in most consumer value analyses, whereas in hospitals, cost is public information. For example, the consumers referenced in the WSJ article have zero information about the actual cost of the education they are considering, only the price. Similarly, I don’t have any information about the cost of producing a plasma television or a gallon of milk. However, information about the cost of treating a patient with congestive heart failure is available, if not readily accessible.

Is It Worth It®? From the stories in the WSJ article, it appears that many people are deciding that the price of higher education, particularly Ivy League schools, is not worth it. Because price is transparent, I anticipate that colleges and universities will increasingly be forced to defend the value proposition of $50,000+ tuition. On the other hand, healthcare consumers will not become price-sensitive unless Congress taxes employer-sponsored healthcare benefits. When Americans are forced to pay for healthcare at the point of service with after-tax dollars, they will begin to demand information about price. When Americans begin to understand the price of healthcare, they will start to consider its value.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

, , , , , ,

1 Comment

Healthcare Reform: The New York Times vs. The New York Times

On occasion, I wonder if the editorial page of The New York Times believes that its audience is comprised of the demographic that the rest of the paper touts to advertisers. With respect to healthcare issues, the Op/Ed page is in stark contrast to its healthcare team of Reed Abelson, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Robert Pear and Jackie Calmes.

Compare the following:

  • HELP Is on the Way, an opinion piece published today by Paul Krugman, the economist and Nobel Laureate. The crux of his assertion is that the Senate HELP Committee was unfairly derided in mid-June when it released it first draft proposal; all the Senate HELP Committee had to do was finish drafting the bill, and, magically, the cost of the bill was reduced to $597B. I quote:  “The budget office says that all this would cost $597 billion over the next decade. But that doesn’t include the cost of insuring the poor and near-poor, whom HELP suggests covering via an expansion of Medicaid (which is outside the committee’s jurisdiction). Add in the cost of this expansion, and we’re probably looking at between $1 trillion and $1.3 trillion.” Oh, right, $600B for health reform that does not cover the cost of insuring the poor and the near-poor, which I thought was the point for people like Krugman. Not to worry, “much of the expense can be offset with straightforward cost-saving measures, like ending Medicare overpayments to private health insurers and reining in spending on medical procedures with no demonstrated health benefits”. I am curious whether the “serious health economists” he references think his prescription is just a little too easy; I am sure what serious healthcare executives think.
  • In contrast, the recurring feature “The Work-Up” reflects a more serious view of the issues before the country. For example, read Jackie Colmes’ article Revisions to Health Bill Are Unveiled by Democrats, which more clearly and accurately describes the Congressional Budget Office’s Analysis of the HELP Bill, or her article Obama and Congress Clash on How to Pay for Health Care. Another example is Reed Abelson’s article Insured, but Bankrupted by Health Crises, which we have posted about before.

I am well aware of the historic difference between reporting and editorials, and I hope that the difference between the two is easily distinguishable in this blog. Even so, healthcare reform is too important for Nobel Prize winning economists to use those credentials to make glib policy arguments. Americans, and particularly the uninsured, deserve better.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

, , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

It’s The Economy Stupid…(and The Mother of All Entitlements)

This is a very, very big week in health care reform in D.C. Among other things, the Senate HELP Committee plans to begin a mark-up of its plan on Wednesday, the Senate Finance Committee may issue their plan, and the House is prepared to flesh out the Tri-Partite (Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and Education and Labor) Plan.

Keep in mind that there are two separate initiatives that have become intertwined.

To quote James Carville, the first, and critical issue, is the U.S. economy. The U.S. could actually go bankrupt – for those of you who doubt it, please remember all the way back to August 2008 when GM, Chrysler, AIG, and Citigroup were privately owned. The unfunded liability for Medicare and Social Security now exceeds $100T ($100,000,000,000,000). Coupled with unprecendented deficits for the forseeable future, “bending the curve” for Medicare is critical to the sheer solvency of the U.S. The health care reform proposals emanating from the Senate Finance Committee are focused on this problem.

The second, but very different initiative, is an entitlement proposal that exceeds the scope of anything in the history of the world. Suddenly, and without any real debate, America has decided to provide health care coverage for all (except for the undocumented aliens, who, of course, used to be known as our forefathers). Don’t get me wrong – I think that health care coverage for everyone is a nice idea, and I think that health care coverage for children is a moral imperative (See “One Man’s Bipartisan Health Care Coverage Plan”). However, the Senate HELP Committee has taken Rahm Emanuel’s admonition not to waste a crisis to heart, and the result is a plan that embeds the Federal government in almost every facet of the health care system.

The flavor of the week in Washington is the Conrad Co-Op Plan, which appears to be financial sleight of hand, Washington-style. As I understand it, the Congressional Budget Office will score a “public plan” option as a federal expense for which revenue (i.e., taxes and reimbursement cuts) must be accounted. Sen. Conrad’s Co-Op would implement the same health insurance exchange/Massachusetts Connector plan as Sen. Kennedy desires; however, since the Co-Ops would be independent not-for-profit entities, the CBO would not have to “score” them.

As you consider what is before the nation, stay focused on what is necessary for the solvency of the country as opposed to a policy ideal of a few.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

, ,

No Comments