The New York Times: A Real Choice on Medicare

The New York Times editorializes on competing plans for the future of Medicare:

We know it is not how most people want to spend their time, but Americans need to give a close reading to the Democrats’ and Republicans’ plans for Medicare reform. There are stark differences that will profoundly affect all of our lives — and clear political choices to come.

Click here for the complete editorial, which lays out the differences and similarities between the Democratic and Republican plans for the nation's 46-year commitment to old age health care:

President Obama wants to retain Medicare as an entitlement in which the federal government pays for a defined set of medical services. The Ryan proposal would give those turning age 65 in 2022 “premium support” payments to help them buy private policies. There is little doubt that the Republican proposal would sharply reduce federal spending on Medicare by capping what the government would pay at very low levels. But it could cause great hardship by shifting a lot of the burden to beneficiaries. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that by 2022 new enrollees would have to pay at least $6,400 more out of pocket to buy coverage comparable to traditional Medicare.

It's an open question as to whether either proposal is the right one. Congressman Ryan's proposal would, as the Times points out, reduce spending on Medicare. It would do little, however, to reduce spending on health care as costs would simply be passed from the government to the elderly.

Unless their use is mandated and heavily regulated, the insurance vouchers are likely to be practically worthless. Individual health insurance is sold on the basis of experience-rated premiums, meaning that the claims experience of the relevant group dictates the price of an individual premium. No group requires medical care more than the elderly, and their premiums will reflect a pool consisting only of the elderly. The CBO estimate for 2022 reflects only the first year of Rep. Ryan's plan. By design, in subsequent years the value of the vouchers increases at less than the rate of medical inflation; over time, they will purchase less and less insurance. Thus, even if premiums don't go up, coverage will go down at the time of life when people need it most.

What about President Obama's proposal? Economist Laurence Kotlikoff argues that we have already passed the point of no return regarding Medicare, and that even well-executed reforms will be too little too late. Given the proven power of medical, pharmaceutical, and insurance lobbyists and given Congress' unwillingness to turn Medicare reform over to an independent commission, it's easy to imagine that many if not most reforms will be hobbled right from the starting gate.

At the end of the day, the best way to reform Medicare may be to eliminate it as a vehicle dedicated to elder health care (as the Republicans propose) and put in its place either a single program of basic benefits that covers all Americans or strong incentives to individual states to tailor universal coverage to their needs and sociopolitical culture.

Country Profile: Australia

Population 20,000,000 (primarily urban)

Form of Government Parliamentary democracy

Economic System Capitalist

Health Care Model National Health Insurance (Medicare)

GDP $890B

% GDP spent on health care 9.7

Per capita income $38,420 (2006, adj US $)

Health care expense per capita $3,528

Health care expense per capita normalized to income of 50K $4,591

Life expectancy (m/f) 79/84 (as of 2006)

Healthy life expectancy (m/f) 71/74

Overview

• Goals: Equity, efficiency, and quality
• Tax funded
• Ready access
• Generally cost-effective, good outcomes
• High level of public support
• Concerns about long-term sustainability due to rising costs
• Disagreements about funding and accountability between national and state governments
• Waiting lists for elective surgery
• Disparities in urban and rural care
• Continuing poor health of indigenous population

Structure

The Australian health care system is a mix of public funding and public and private care. The national government's role is limited to funding and formulating health policy on a population basis. States provide additional funding, provide public hospitals, and have great authority in administration of health policy. Localities are primarily concerned with providing environmental health services. The private sector supplies the majority of general practitioners and specialists, a number of private hospitals, diagnostic services, and supplemental insurance.

Because of the division-of-power structure of Australia's democracy, the national government and the state governments must achieve consensus in matters of health policy. (Australia has six states.) Clinical practice is largely self-regulated, although licensing and accreditation is required of most providers.

Financing
The public-private financing breakdown is two-thirds/one-third, with the national government paying nearly half of health costs, collected through general taxation and a mandatory Medicare levy of 1.5% of personal income. The majority of consumer expense is for uncovered pharmaceuticals.

Delivery

Treatment is largely free and unlimited, although public hospital services are prioritized. Two-thirds of Australia's doctors are general practitioners in private practice; in addition to providing primary and preventive care, these doctors perform minor surgery and serve as referral gatekeepers to the rest of the health care system.

70% of the hospitals that provide secondary and tertiary care are public. Combined with cost pressures, improvements in surgical technique and patient management has reduced the average length of stay in recent years. The chief complaint about Australian secondary care is about lengthy waits for elective surgery, a function of the prioritization of services.

Australia's national and state governments have combined to deliver a robust public health program that has had notable success in reducing coronary disease, the AIDS/HIV infection rate, cigarette smoking, and the mortality rate from traffic accidents. Australians enjoy a high level of immunization vaccination that has reduced the level of infectious disease, although not entirely.

Challenges
As with virtually all developed nations, Australia's health care system faces financial pressure brought about by budget constraints and medical inflation. Health care services in Australia are not well integrated, and debate is ongoing regarding the proper balance of public and private insurance. The health inequalities experienced by indigenous Australians are so protracted and severe that the World Health Organization calls them "intractable."

Overall
Australia has three basic goals for its health-care system: Equity, efficiency, and quality. Progressive taxation protects equity, although there are concerns that a two-tier system could develop. The mixed national-state governance compromises efficiency and also renders reform difficult. In recent years, quality has emphasized measurement of health outcomes, which have improved as reflected in Australia's long life expectancy.

WHO ranking 32 (US 37)

Click here to learn more about Australia's health care system.