Category: Health Care

US Doctors Are Overeducated

US medical students study for 8 years prior to residency, compared to 5-6 years of study in the rest of the world. This discrepancy increases health care costs by $25 Billion annually without contributing to quality.

In the UK, medical students study for five years after high school before beginning residency. They can expect to become practicing doctors by their late 20’s. This is true in Australia as well, where it’s possible to become a practicing doctor after less than 10 years of post-secondary education.

In much of Europe, medical students study for 4-6 years before beginning vocational training, and this process is slowly being standardized throughout the EU. Finally, in Japan, Brazil, China, India, and many other countries, medical education involves a 5-6 year degree followed by optional specialty training.

Since medical students in the US have a career path two years longer than in most other countries, their initial salary requirements must inevitably be higher to compensate for two years of extra tuition and lost salary. Using a career ROI calculation, it’s possible to estimate that US doctors must be paid an additional $30,000 per year as a result of this additional schooling [1]. With roughly 800,000 physicians in the US, that amounts to $25 Billion per year in additional compensation!

Why does the US stand almost alone in requiring aspiring doctors to study for eight years before training for another 3-8 years prior to practicing medicine? Is it possible that American doctors are better at their profession as a result? In fact, a small number of accelerated six-year medical programs exist in the US, and these programs have extremely competitive admissions. In a 6 year program, typical Bachelors-level general college education is curtailed while still accommodating a full four years of medical school. This model should become the norm rather than the exception, enabling medical students to enter careers more quickly and with less, thereby saving the entire health care system money!

[1] Using the spreadsheet used to perform Career ROI calculations, we can first adjust the medical student’s career path to shorten it by two years. This will raise the NPV and rate of return. We can then lower the expected salary to the point that the NPV is equivalent to the original NPV – the difference in salary is the salary amount made necessary by the extra schooling.

Posted on by praveenghanta 2

How Much Would Universal Healthcare Cost?

Universal health care would cost $70 Billion for 2009 if enacted using a market-based approach, but this cost will grow rapidly if overall health care inflation is not tamed.

How much would health coverage for all uninsured Americans really cost? Critics maintain that covering all Americans would break the US budget (which is already overstretched), while advocates maintain that covering all Americans can be done affordably. But how much would universal coverage really cost?

The Commonwealth Fund provides a great summary of the costs of proposals under consideration, including Medicare for all, a Building Blocks extension of the current system, and other proposals. Proponents of universal Medicare claim that it will save the US $58 Billion in 2010, since Medicare operates more efficiently than private insurers [1]. Providing universal coverage through incremental changes could cost anywhere between $48B and $120B, according to analyses by the Urban Institute and the Lewin Group, a private health care consultancy. And while Medicare for all would lower total health care spending, it would raise the Federal government’s share of spending by almost $200 Billion per year.

With numbers all over the map, is it possible to come up with a plausible estimate for comparison purposes? Sites like ehealthinsurance.com now make it much easier to get estimates for insurance coverage. Using this data, we can estimate how much basic health insurance coverage would cost for the 45 million uninsured Americans. The experience of Massachusetts, which has implemented universal health care, can also be used to project an estimate for the rest of the country. Since Massachusetts’ health care costs are above US average, this provides a high-side estimate.

Using market insurance quotes, the cost of providing a health insurance with a $1000 deductible and prescription coverage would amount to $2500 per person annually, or roughly $115B per year [2]. This calculation uses different insurance rates for different age groups among the uninsured, based on this demographic breakdown of the uninsured provided by the Kaiser Foundation. In Massachusetts’ experience, covering each uninsured individual costs roughly $3400 per year. Covering all 45 million uninsured Americans at this rate would cost $150 Billion per year.

The midpoint of these estimates is around $130 Billion per year. To get a final estimate, money currently spent on uncompensated care must be subtracted out, since there is no uncompensated care in a universal health care system. Approximately $58 Billion will be spent on uncompensated care in 2009 [3], and subtracting this figure out leaves roughly $70 Billion in annual expenditure required for universal health care.

While $70 Billion per year sounds like a lot of money, it’s actually less than many estimates. It looks increasingly likely that some kind of health care reform will be passed in 2009, and that money will be found to pay for it for the moment. The bigger question is, how will it be paid for tomorrow? Unless health care cost growth is pulled into line with inflation, no one has that answer.

[1] Medicare doesn’t have to perform medical underwriting, and it doesn’t have to spend money on advertising, sales, or shareholder dividends, so its overhead should be lower than private competitors, if it can maintain efficiency. Critics counter that Medicare suffers from high fraud rates precisely because it is a government bureaucracy without competition to force it to raise efficiency and tighten controls.

[2] Here is the rough cost estimate for each demographic group, taken from quotes on ehealthinsurance.com:

0-19: $100/month  (20% of all uninsured)

20-29: $150/month (29% of all uninsured)

30-44: $200/month (27% of all uninsured)

45-64: $400/month (24% of all uninsured)

Using these numbers, we calculate a weighted average cost per person of $213 per month, or $2556 per year. That’s $115 Billion for 45 million people.

[3] In 2004, uncompensated care expense was estimated at $40.7 Billion. Since health care spending (in nominal dollars) has grown at 7.5% per year during this decade, the adjusted number for 2009 is approximately $58 Billion. This assumes that uncompensated care is growing in line with health care costs as a whole.

Posted on by praveenghanta 16

Lowering Healthcare Costs: Supply and Demand

Most discussions around healthcare these days focus on covering all Americans, and on lowering healthcare costs. President Obama has recently focused on the second issue, noting that ballooning healthcare costs could cripple the federal government’s finances and kill economic growth. But how can healthcare costs be reined in? In the partially private US healthcare system, prices are still somewhat subject to the law of supply and demand. Healthcare prices (and therefore costs) can thus be lowered by either reducing demand or increasing supply. Here’s a quick list of ideas:

Increasing Supply:

1. Increase the number of medical professionals. Unemployment among healthcare professionals remains near 1%, far lower than any other field. Increasing the number of medical, dental, and nursing school seats in the US will increase supply over time, creating more balance in the healthcare work force and driving down wage increases.

2. Shorten the length of medical school. Doctors in the UK and other countries finish their medical education in six years or less before going on to training programs (residency), while US doctors spend eight years between college and medical school. Accelerated six year medical programs exist in the US, and there is no evidence that their doctors’ education suffers as a result. Shortening medical, dental, and pharmaceutical programs to six years will increase the supply of practitioners, and decrease the starting salaries they demand since their schooling and debt burden are lower.

3. Doctors aren’t needed for routine healthcare. Nurse practicioners, midwives, pharmacists, and other medical providers can provide much of the routine care needed. National laws (or at least guidelines) making it easier for these practitioners to do their jobs will further increase the supply of qualified medical professionals, driving down prices.

4. Warranties on Medical Care. While pay for quality has been heavily discussed, it is quite difficult to measure and implement in practice. It’s far easier to require warranties on procedures, so that medical providers must provide care free of charge when issues as a result of mistakes during a procedure. Medicare could put this in place, incentivizing the industry to move towards higher quality.

Decreasing Demand:

1. Measure cost effectiveness of treatments within Medicare. As long as Medicare pays for healthcare by quantity, without any regard for cost-effectiveness, expensive and marginally effective treatments will continue to drive health care inflation. Patients should be given the option to pay for treatments that are not cost-effective, should they desire.

2. End employer health care tax deduction. As I’ve previously discussed, this $250B+ subsidy inflates demand, causing price increases for all, including those without insurance. Removing this subsidy would decrease health care spending by up to 10% [1], and could provide funding for other initiatives including universal health care or deficit reduction.

3. End tax breaks on medical goods and services. Sales taxes are generally not levied on healthcare products like the $285B pharmaceutical industry, providing them with a $20B subsidy relative to other goods [2]. Property taxes and income taxes are not collected on many not-for-profit hospitals, though some generate significant income and serve very few uninsured patients. Ending these subsidies would further reduce demand and prices.

4. Enact consistent end-of-life guidelines for Medicare. 27% of Medicare spending (almost $100B) is incurred for patients in their last year of life. While higher costs towards the end of life are expected, there are wide variations in spending in different regions of the US. Enacting a consistent set of guidelines which emphasizes palliative care would help decrease end-of-life healthcare demand.

Why doesn’t this list mention the approaches typically touted like electronic medical records, administrative efficiencies, and the like? Unfortunately, while efficiency improvements would result in one-time reductions in cost, they would not change the supply-demand fundamentals of the US healthcare delivery system. The solutions mentioned above would address these issues, creating permanent decreases in healthcare costs while potentially expanding availability.

[1] $250B is slightly more than 10% of healthcare spending in the US today, so eliminating this subsidy would reduce spending by that amount at most. In practice, the reduction would be somewhat less, since falling prices would cause some offsetting increase in healthcare consumption.

[2] Assuming a 7% sales tax (most states’ sales tax is higher), 7% of $285B is roughly $20B.

Posted on by praveenghanta 1

Healthcare Bubble

Dot com bubble. Real estate bubble. Commodities bubble. Healthcare bubble? How can the US healthcare system be a bubble when tens of millions are uninsured and more people fall through the cracks daily? The media, public, and politicians alike have been more concerned with the inadequacies of the system than with its rapid growth. US healthcare spending has grown enormously, exceeding the rate of inflation for decades to become the largest sector of the US economy. The United States now spends over 16% of its GDP on healthcare, almost double the average for developed nations.

Perhaps Americans just demand the best and priciest healthcare, with the most modern technology and treatments. Other insurance prices are on a steep rise, including home, accidental and auto insurance. If Americans paid for healthcare themselves, this would simply represent a rational spending choice. But the federal government now incurs 60% of all healthcare spending, meaning that taxpayers, and not individuals, pay for most of our healthcare. Medicare, Medicaid, and other direct government healthcare accounts for 46% of healthcare spending, while tax breaks on healthcare subsidize another 10-15% of healthcare spending [1].

At current growth rates, government healthcare spending will exceed the entire Federal budget by 2050 [2]. Total spending on healthcare will near one-third of GDP by 2030. It’s unlikely that the US can devote 1/3rd of all productive capacity to healthcare without crippling other sectors of the economy and reducing overall economic growth. The healthcare bubble thus dwarfs all previous bubbles in size, since the technology, real estate, and energy sectors are all so much smaller.

How will the bubble pop, and what will its effects be? Since most healthcare spending is federal, the bubble will pop when the government can no longer afford its healthcare outlays. The US has been able to borrow freely by issuing debt for many decades, but this will eventually end once our debt exceeds GDP. With the current downturn, government debt may actually exceed GDP by 2015 [3]. Thus the reckoning may come sooner than many expect.

Will healthcare reform contain costs and deflate the bubble gradually? Most reform plans focus more on increased coverage than on cost control, so they may exacerbate the problem. Eventually the hard choices will have to be made, and they will include some combination of reducing Medicare benefits, cutting provider reimbursements, openly rationing government health care, and limiting the tax break on health insurance. I just hope that some of the hard choices are made before we are collectively up against a fiscal wall.

[1] $200 Billion in taxes are foregone as a result of the employer-based healthcare tax deduction, equivalent to 10% of all healthcare spending. When this subsidy is included the government’s share of healthcare spending rises to 56%. This analysis does not include the exemptions on property taxes and sales taxes that healthcare providers receive; adding these subsidies in would likely drive the government’s share of health care spending over 60%.

[2] The CBO predicts that Medicare and Medicaid will account for 14% of GDP by 2050. This figure doesn’t include healthcare spending through the VA system, SCHIP program, and other federal healthcare programs, which total $100 Billion in spending today. If these programs also grow commensurately, total government spending may near 18% of GDP in 2050, roughly equivalent to total government revenue.

[3] This projection of public debt growth shows that US government debt will exceed gdp by 2050. This only takes into account debt held by the public, however. Gross government debt is already above 65% of GDP, and may grow to 75% by the end of 2010 as a result of the recession and stimulus spending. With deficits of $500B+ per year possible for several year, US total government debt could exceed gdp in less than 10 years.

Posted on by praveenghanta 13

US Healthcare Reform: Possible Choices

The United States’ health care system is a patchwork of private care, Medicare for seniors, Medicaid for some of the poor, and emergency-only care for the 47M uninsured. Both presidential candidates insist that change is needed, with increased coverage and decreased costs as primary goals. Neither candidate mentions how public dollars will be rationed, though government resources are limited.

Here’s a list of a range of health care systems in place around the world, with the most market-oriented systems listed first, and the most government controlled systems listed last. The future of American health care will mostly take the form of one of the middle options, as both extremes appear politically unpalatable.

US Health Care System Choices:

Health Care System Description Found Where
Traditional Free Market Little government intervention, patients pay health care providers directly. Those without financial means rely on charity hospitals or receive no care. India, many developing countries
Public Senior Care + Semi-Free Market The government provides health care for seniors, while others rely on a regulated private health insurance market (whether purchased individually or through an employer). United States
Public Care for Children and Seniors The government provides health care for seniors and children, while others rely primarily on the private health insurance market (whether purchased individually or through an employer). Barack Obama’s health care plan approximates this
Mandatory Health Insurance The government requires that all individuals purchase health insurance, and provides subsidies to assist the poor and unhealthy in purchasing coverage. Massachusetts, Hillary Clinton’s Plan
Dual Public-Private System The government provides health care for all residents not enrolled in private care, and provides incentives for employers to provide health care and for individuals to purchase care. Individuals may also pay extra to supplement their basic government plan. Australia
Single Payer, Private Premium Care The government provides health care for all residents, and individuals can choose to pay extra for premium health care services (like private rooms, experimental treatments, etc). France, other European countries
Single Payer Only The government pays for all health care, and does not allow private market health care transactions. Canada
Posted on by praveenghanta 2

America’s Broken Universal Health Care

The United States provides universal health care. Sound laughable? It’s true: all individuals in America, whether citizens, immigrants, or tourists, are entitled to government subsidized care in the event of medical emergency. While the uninsured may not be able to get a routine doctor’s appointment, they are guaranteed life saving surgery and medical intervention, regardless of cost. Indeed, care for indigents can occasionally run into the hundreds of thousands per year, as they repeatedly return to the emergency room for treatments of illness caused by chronic diseases like diabetes. The US spends roughly 75 billion annually on treating the nation’s 40+ million uninsured; the situation among alcoholics in Seattle has become so absurd that they are being given housing and routine medical care, since this decreases the cost of treating them in emergency situations.

Perhaps it is no surprise then that America spends a larger percentage of its GDP on health care than almost any other nation, and yet it lags on a wide range of health indicators, including overall life expectancy. How did such a situation emerge? Largely by accident, it turns out. In 1986, the EMTALA was passed by Congress, denying hospitals the right to refuse critically ill patients. Federal and state governments partially reimburse providers for costs incurred for this treatment through Medicaid and Medicare. Unfortunately, critical care is provided without any cost-benefit analysis whatsoever; it is considered a criminal act to withhold treatment from elderly, terminally ill patients, even if it would extend their life by a matter of weeks.

As US healthcare costs continue to spiral upward at rates often double and triple that of overall inflation, the situation becomes increasingly untenable. But what are the alternatives to America’s current system?

1. Remove required treatment burdens from hospitals, leaving the burden of care to individuals, charities, and local and state government.

2. Provide routine medical care to the uninsured, eliminating the treatment gap for the uninsured.

3. Require all Americans to buy insurance, or to pay a healthcare tax to pay for the implied insurance provided by emergency rooms.

4. Begin to consider rationing publicly funded health care based on cost-benefit analysis, taking into account a procedure’s likelihood of success, its cost, the patient’s age, and other factors.

Option 1 is politically infeasible for an industrialized nation, and is included only for completeness. Providing routine medical care to the uninsured, as in option 2, would expand America’s current system to be more similar to European systems of comprehensive universal public health care. Nations like the UK and Canada ration non-critical care within their systems in order to control costs; the very notion of health care rationing is anathema in the US currently, making public dialogue on public universal care close to impossible. Australia, meanwhile, has a hybrid healthcare system which includes public insurance for all while enabling private care to co-exist, potentially providing a model for US healthcare reform.

Massachusetts has begun a program similar to that outlined in option 3, in which all residents without insurance are required to purchase insurance or pay a tax to subsidize the emergency coverage that all residents receive. Poor residents are provided with assistance to pay for an insurance policy, enabling all residents to acquire coverage. This system provides the benefit of extending coverage across the population, while forcing everyone to contribute, thus averaging out costs across healthy and less healthy individuals. Since the system provides a net increase in medical coverage, however, it will result in increased costs over time.

This brings us to option 4, the unspeakable in the American health care dialogue: rationing. In practical terms, medical decision-makers find it difficult to discuss the notion of saving $100,000 by not performing a procedure, even if it has a 1 in 1,000 chance of success. Cost-benefit based rationing of care is not a solution to the problems of health care access. Rather, it is an eventuality that will have to be confronted, as public expenditure on health care cannot forever grow faster than the economy. Until then, America’s broken universal healthcare system will continue to plod along, destined to hit the wall when we just can’t find another dollar to keep 95 year-old vegetables alive another minute.

Posted on by praveenghanta 1