Paul Ryan on Single-Payer

As Sam Husseini reports, there is a fair amount of floundering and disingenuousness in Ryan's remarks. It's not the case, for example, that government-run health care has failed wherever it's been tried. The actual track record of government-run health care is good, including in the United States: The VA health care system is highly regarded. Moreover, Ryan's own plan is "patient-centered" only in the sense that it shifts costs onto patients without doing anything to slow medical inflation or end fee-for-service payments.

Also, anyone who thinks that U.S. health care is not rationed hasn't been paying attention. Ryan would state his case more honestly (and accurately) if he said what he apparently believes: De facto rationing by the free market is acceptable, while policy-based rationing by government to assure equal access is not.

Choice?

David Brooks argues that the future of health care comes down to "centralized technocratic" planning or a a free market solution. Health care, he sagely observes, is "phenomenally complicated," then goes on to inform us that providers have more information than patients and that insurance companies "are rapacious and are not in the business of optimizing care."

Brooks then compares what he calls the Affordable Care Act's concentration of cost-control power into a board of fifteen experts with the Republican laissez-faire model, which opposes top-down decision making (at least from the government). Rep. Paul Ryan's proposal to finance U.S. health care with a "premium support system" would replace fee-for-service medicine (in fact, it would not):

Seniors would select from a menu of insurance plans. Their consumer choices would drive a continual, bottom-up process of innovation. Providers could use local knowledge to meet specific circumstances.

Brooks writes with great confidence that this will happen -- presumably due to the Magic of the Market -- without explaining exactly how or why anyone should buy this argument.

Jonathan Cohn points out that the Republican plan has a track record, and that it's not especially encouraging. He argues that Ryancare would effectively eliminate health insurance for elders and summons the 1959 congressional testimony of retired autoworker John Barclay:

We retired workers are very proud of being citizens of the greatest country in the world, but … we cannot think it is the greatest possible country when about 65 percent of the aged do not have any insurance to deal with their needs for hospitalization and medical care. Without such insurance, the retired person must pretty much exhaust any savings he has before he can get free hospitalization. This is a constant source of worry. Many of my acquaintances will not visit a doctor for minor illness because they have no money to pay for drugs. After they exhaust their savings they go on welfare to get medical aid, but then, in many cases, it is too late.

The real difference between Democrats and Republicans on health care is not, Cohn writes, between an idealized free market and Stalinist central planning. Rather,

The most salient difference is that Democrats would preserve Medicare's fundamental guarantee of health benefits at affordable prices. Republicans would not.

Meanwhile, Ezra Klein contests Brooks' claim that

...if 15 Washington-based experts really can save a system as vast as Medicare through a process of top-down control, then this will be the only realm of human endeavor where that sort of engineering actually works.

It happens all the time, Klein writes: Around the world, government-regulated and -planned health care has a excellent track record for controlling costs without sacrificing outcomes.

At The Economist, M.S. dismisses Brooks as well, and focuses on the distortion brought about by the marketing and advertising of drugs and devices. 

As I've written before, Ryancare substitutes ideology for honesty. Brooks sips from this cup of Kool-Aid regularly, rarely if ever pointing out that Ryancare is all in on controlling costs by shifting them to elders. If that's what the country wants, then it's what we should do. But how about being up front about the choice?

Vouchercare

Paul Krugman writes that Vouchercare is not a "new, sustainable version of Medicare." It may be new and I suppose that its adherents can call it whatever they like, but its recipients would not find it especially sustaining.

Vouchercare, a.k.a. the Roadmap for America's Future, would starting in 2022 provide seniors with an average of $11,000 with which to purchase insurance. But there's a catch: That's $11,000 in 2012 dollars. To understand what that means in terms of actual purchasing power, calculate the present value of $11,000 using a discount rate based on historical medical inflation rates (3-5% over the last ten years):

• At 3%: $8,135
• At 4%: $7,431
• At 5%: $6,753

Moreover, Ryancare vouchers are indexed to the general rate of inflation as opposed to the medical rate. The medical rate is historically higher. Suppose that the vouchers grow at an average rate of 3% a year for five years while medical inflation increases at a rate of 4%. Although the payout would be $12,752, the actual purchasing power will have dropped to $7,081. This table shows the declining actual value of the vouchers over 25 years given a medical inflation rate of 4% with the vouchers indexed to 3%:

	Payment	Value
Year 1	$11,000	$7,431
Year 5	12,752	7,081
Year 10	14,783	6,747
Year 15	17,138	6,428
Year 20	19,867	6,125
Year 25	23,032	5,836

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, using the CBO assumptions provided by Rep. Ryan, estimates that by 2080, Medicare benefits will have been effectively cut by 76%. And even that may be optimistic: Medicare currently operates with an administrative overhead of 1-2%. One organization estimates health insurance company overhead to be as high as 31%, all of which is passed on to purchasers in the form of reduced purchasing power.

So, Krugman is right: Vouchercare is not Medicare. It would be one thing if its adherents were forthright about their intent to gradually eliminate the government role as a health insurer for elders. Then we could have an honest debate, albeit one they would lose. But, as happens too often in the health care reform discourse, ideology has once again trumped honesty.

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.