Okay, here’s another problem, since spend way too much time talking about the mandate… let’s talk basic economics.
The whole initiative is predicated on a few arguments:
- Costs (prices) are too high.
- Insurance companies are “making too much money”
- Millions of people don’t have access to care
- The Health Care people are receiving is poor (oh, wait, it’s not about the actual care…)
So let’s tackle this. The basic problem now comes down to a discussion of supply and demand/economics.
As the system currently works we have two sets of perverse incentives fighting against the consumer (and one of these incentives takes place with the willing, yet unknowing, assistance of the patient)
First, the perverse incentives of the patient:
Currently, the “cost of entry” into the health care system is high (monthly “Insurance” rates) but thanks to low, or no, co-pays, the marginal costs of most health care transactions are quite low.
Given the low costs incurred per visit, and the high “sunk” costs incurred to enter the system, the insureds (patients) who HAVE insurance are incented to go to the doctors more frequently, and to go ahead and get the prescriptions (Hey, it’s only $3 copay at Wal*Mart!)
Of course, this is a mirage. The actual costs of each visit and each prescription are borne by the insurance companies, which then have to recover their costs through increased premiums, which of course has everyone screaming that the insurance companies are “gouging” the customers.
On the other hand, we have a set of pricing incentives that also conspire against the consumer. The ‘care providers” are aware that the patient/customer doesn’t see the actual costs–they only pay the co-pay. So given this we have a series of perversions that are at play:
- Doctors are more able to prescribe tests/medicines, and the like, since they will receive little if any push-back from the patients because of costs. More services with a low marginal cost to the consumer/patient, but a higher total cost, paid by the insurance companies.
- Insurance companies work to lower their costs by negotiating to pay health care providers a fraction (some value less than 1) of the billable rate. Thus the providers are incented to increase their prices the maintain their revenue stream. This increases the costs once again.
So these two twists to the problem work once again to force the insurance companies to have to raise the rates (really on everyone) to cover the payments they are having to make.
Now–as consumers, we see that we are paying a high “sunk cost” as a monthly fee and, rather than view this as traditional insurance (where I am betting against myself) the consumer wants to try to get at least that benefit back out of the “system” (and is encouraged to do so, by “low co-pays”)
Sadly, the whole mess was brought on by our desire to protect everyone and provide some level planning to health care. The “free market” actually would provide better incentives here, placing limits/governors not only on how much people are willing to spend on services, but the prices that people would have to pay. If service providers want to stay in business then they would be forced to price competitively based on the market, and the market would be making the decisions based on the consumers. As it stands now, with the “same co-pay regardless” the consumer has no indication of value, and the market cannot respond. Viagra is as valued as Interferon and as Motrin.
What to do when everything costs the same?