Tag: Health Care

How Much Will Insurance Cost Under Obamacare?

May 28, 2013 Update: California’s just-released prices for ACA coverage are close to my 2012 estimates, with an unsubsidized bronze plan (for a 25 year-old) available for $142/month in Los Angeles.

Health insurance premiums for minimum coverage will likely be around $150/month for 27 year-olds under the ACA, since the ACA includes relatively high-deductible plans under the Bronze plan option.

Now that the dust has settled on the Supreme Court ruling, let’s attempt to answer a simpler question – how much will health insurance cost under the ACA (Obamacare)? Individuals purchasing health insurance via the new health insurance exchanges will be able to select from four plan levels: bronze, silver, gold, and platinum. The law dictates that plans falling into these categories must have 60%, 70%, 80%, and 90% “actuarial value”, respectively. The concept of “actuarial value” dictates that the plan must cover the specified percentage of health care costs for enrolled individuals. Individuals enrolled in a bronze plan can expect their insurance to cover 60% of their health costs, for instance [1].

The Kaiser Family Foundation commissioned a study to determine the structure of plans that might meet the 60% actuarial value standard for the Bronze plan.  The study found that the following individual health care plans might qualify (all plans have a cap of around $6350):

  • A plan with a $6350 deductible and 0% coinsurance
  • A $4350 deductible with 20% coinsurance
  • A $2750 deductible with 30% coinsurance

How much would plans like these cost in 2014? We will focus on adults aged 27 in this example, since young adults more frequently go without insurance, and since young adults can now stay on their parents’ plans until 26. We can shop online for similar plans and get some results for comparison [2]:

  • $67.26 for a $2750 deductible / 30% coinsurance plan in Atlanta for a 27 year-old male
  • $98.21 for a $2750 deductible / 30% coinsurance plan in Atlanta for a 27 year-old female [3]
  • $129 for a $2750 deductible / 30% coinsurance plan in Silicon Valley for 27 year-old men and women
  • $73.22 and $95.07 for a $2500 deductible / 20% coinsurance plan in Chicagoland for a 27 year-old man and woman, respectively
  • $95 for a $2750 deductible / 20% coinsurance plan in Houston, TX for a 27 year-old man
  • $132 for a $2500 deductible / 10% coinsurance plan in Houston, TX for a 27 year-old woman
  • $70.75 and $90.46 for $2500 deductible / 20% coinsurance plan in Hartford, CT for a 27 year-old man and woman, respectively

Here are two market quotes for 63-year old females in relatively expensive markets:

  • $302 for $1200 deductible / 10% coinsurance HMO plan in New York, NY for a 63-year old woman
  • $516 for $3500 deductible / 10% coinsurance PPO plan in Santa Clara, CA for a 63-year old woman

The ACA stipulates that the most expensive policies for older individuals can be no more than 3 times the price of policies for younger adults. The data above show that a 27-year old can get a plan similar to the exchange bronze plan for around $100 per month today, but this is less than 1/3 the cost for older Americans. Using 1/3 of the cost of the plans for older women as a price floor, we get an estimate of $150 per month as the lower limit for plan prices [4].

This estimate is lower than the commonly-cited CBO estimate of $4500 per individual for bronze plans via the ACA exchanges. The CBO estimate is for 2016, and so it builds in two additional years of premium inflation (roughly 15%). The CBO number is also an average across all age groups – since young adults’ plans can cost 1/3 as much as the oldest (non Medicare-age) Americans, 27 year-olds’ plans will be much cheaper than the average. While the ACA should have allowed for more high deductible plans, it’s good to know that the bronze plans do provide for some affordable coverage options within the new health insurance exchanges.

[1] The 60% bronze plan threshold and other thresholds are applied to each plan considering the average expenditures for plan members. Given the deductible and copay structure of a particular plan, it’s possible that the plan spends a higher (or lower) percentage on a particular individual’s care. For instance, if you don’t use your plan at all in a given year, then your plan spent 0% on your care. At the other extreme, if you are diagnosed with cancer, and incur $100k in costs in a year, even a bronze plan would cover  perhaps 90% of that amount.

[2] All plans were found on ehealthinsurance.com on 8/2/2012.

[3] The wide discrepancy between plan prices for men and women will be eliminated by the ACA. For these purposes, averaging men and women’s prices enables us to get closer to a representative price under the ACA.

[4] Since health insurance is more expensive for women, and more expensive for older Americans, we used a 63 year-old woman as the prototype for an expensive risk in the existing private health insurance market. At age 65 virtually all Americans gain entry into Medicare (or Medicaid for seniors), and so 63 is the oldest age for which insurance quotes can reliably be obtained (some insurers won’t write short-dated policies, and no insurer writes non-Medicare policies for 65+ Americans). The average price from the two expensive quotes thus obtained was $409. After adding in 10% in premium inflation between now and January 2014, we get a premium estimate right around $450 per month. By law, one-third of this is the minimum that the exchanges can charge for any adult – and this equals $150 per month.

Posted on by praveenghanta 63

A One-Line Fix For Medicare Spending

My one-line Medicare / Medicaid spending fix:

Medicare should continue to pay 80% of health care costs for recipients’ care below $40,000 per calendar year, but should pay only 50% of health care costs above $40,000 per calendar year.

With the ongoing debt-ceiling debate and political discussions over how to cut spending dominating discourse, I thought I’d chime in with a simple plan to fix America’s long term budget crisis. The majority of America’s future budget deficits are a result of runaway growth in health care spending, despite reductions in Medicare spending put in place with the recently passed health care reform. Paul Ryan and other conservatives propose to fix this by ending the Medicare program, and replacing it with an insurance-voucher scheme. President Obama proposes to control cost growth through the IPAB, a board with the power to control Medicare reimbursement policies.

My plan is far simpler than either, and will preserve Medicare as it exists today for 90% of recipients. How does this plan work? Kaiser Foundation research shows that 90% of Medicare recipients receive less than 40k per year in health care. The remaining 10% of recipients actually spend 60% of the Medicare budget. The proposed change would require these recipients to either shoulder more of the cost of expensive treatments, or to utilize less expensive treatments. Note that Medicare would not leave any recipient high-and-dry, but it would require even cost sharing for expensive treatments.

When faced with higher cost-sharing, many Medicare recipients would opt not to receive the newest cancer drugs, or the latest titanium hip replacement. It’s also quite likely that when faced with this two tier reimbursement structure, many health care providers would change treatments and pricing to stay competitive within the new structure – there’s evidence that today, health care providers charge Medicare what they do simply because Medicare will pay.

How much money would the proposed change save? Assuming that most spending above the $40k mark is eliminated [1], then Medicare and Medicaid might save $200B in the first year alone. This kind of change would also reduce health care cost inflation, since high-cost care would be curtailed significantly. It’s quite likely that this change would completely eliminate Medicare’s unfunded liability, without changing the program significantly for the majority of beneficiaries. But clearly this is too simple and non-ideological a change to stand a chance [2]!

[1] According to CMS, in 2011 total Medicare and Medicaid spending will total $1 Trillion. If my proposal to cut government cost sharing to 50% above 40k eliminated most spending above the 40k line (since many Medicare patients would not be able to pay their increased share above 40k), then the federal government would save half of the money expended above the 40k line. In 2006 the average expenditure for the high spenders in Medicare was $48k – in 2011 this would likely be over $60k per year with inflation and cost growth totaling 5% per year. Assume that the entire 20k per year above the 40 line were saved from using a resume builder online – that would mean that the high spenders’ health care expenditures would be reduced by 33%, reducing total government health care expenditure by 20% (one-third of the 60% spend on these expensive patients).

[2] I should note that this plan would leave some patients with expensive conditions to make difficult choices. By ending the endless spigot of government health care money, 10% of current beneficiaries would have to decide whether they could afford to have certain expensive procedures. But patients, not regulators, would be able to decide – the patients would simply be required to pay an even share for expensive treatment.

[3] In actual implementation, such a plan would have to be phased in. For instance, Medicare could initiate a 1 percentage point reduction in cost-sharing for each of the next thirty years, gradually moving from 80% to 50% for expenditures over the threshold.

Posted on by praveenghanta 13

The End Of Employer-Based Health Care?

The employer penalties in the health care law are low enough that many businesses will drop health coverage. This is a blessing in disguise, as it will lower costs in the long run.

The fiery rhetoric on both sides of the health care debate obscured the details of the actual reform bill. Now that it has become law, policy analysts and journalists have been combing through the bill and issuing predictions on whether it will raise or lower premiums, help or hurt businesses, and generally bring or not bring the Apocalypse. The bill will definitely change how health care is paid for in the United States, but perhaps not in the ways many expect. The following analysis shows that it’s possible that the new law will end the system of employer-based health care entirely!

The Kaiser Foundation has produced a nice summary of the law, including employer requirements:

  • Employers with less than 50 employees face no penalties.
  • Employers with more than 50 employees that provide no health care coverage must pay a tax of $2000 per employee (with the first 30 employees being exempt)
  • Employers with more than 50 employees that do provide care may have to pay a tax 0f up to $2000 per employee if  their employees use the new health care exchange subsidies.

Given these requirements, what are an employer’s options?

  1. Drop Employee Coverage: A company drops its health care plan, paying the $2k per head tax and leaving employees to buy their own plans. The company will save $10,000 per employee on average given the average cost of health insurance [1], and will also save by eliminating benefits administration expenses. The company could give each employee a $9000 raise and still increase profit by $500 or more per employee [2]. Employees will be mad about the loss of benefits, but not too mad as they can get coverage on the exchange using their new income and potentially subsidies.
  2. Keep Employee Coverage: The company will face the administrative burden of supplying vouchers to some employees who would like to opt out, of complying with minimum benefits requirements, and will potentially still have to pay $2000 in fines per employee if its health care plan is deemed insufficient. The company’s use of benefits as a recruiting tool will be diminished once benefits can be obtained on the health care exchange.

Looking at the alternatives, why wouldn’t a company drop its health care plan? Particularly for employers with middle-income employees (who may qualify for federal subsidies), it makes more sense to drop health care coverage and raise wages than it does to continue the status quo. While the employer-based health care tax deduction still exists, for many families its appeal will be neutralized by subsidies available in the new health care exchanges. And since all Americans will be guaranteed access to insurance starting in 2014, benefits will no longer be the employment draw that they are today.

The health care reform bill will thus reduce the share of employer-based healthcare in the US market. This is an excellent change for a couple of reasons: first, it breaks the link between employment and health care, providing more stability to all Americans; and second, it slowly weans Americans off the employer health care tax deduction, which contributes significantly to health care cost inflation. Ironically, the bill’s writers did not intend it to be the demise of employer-based health care. But if this trend does accelerate, the bill may be successful in controlling health care costs. [3]

[1] The average employer contribution for a family insurance plan was $9860 in 2009, according to Kaiser Foundation research. With health care inflation averaging above 4% in recent years, this will rise to roughly $12,000 by 2014. If an employer chooses to pay the $2000 penalty rather than buy insurance for an employee, it can thus save $10,000.

[2] An employer could cancel insurance, saving $10,000 per employee, and then give each employee a $9000 raise. Payroll taxes (7.65%) would add another $688 to this sum, leaving a net profit of $312 per employee if an employer took this approach. Benefits administration expenses would also be eliminated, however, and these savings could be significant. Eliminating a single $40,000 salary HR position at a 200 person company would save another $200 per employee, for instance. So a net profit of over $500 per employee is quite possible – the actual profitability of the move would depend on how much of the health care savings the company chose to pass on in the form of higher wages for its employees.

[3] Why will the shift from employer to direct purchased health care coverage lower costs? First, when you spend your own money, you are more likely to be judicious about it. Second, when tax deductions are replaced with tax credits, the cost inflation effect will drop, since a deduction rises with every additional dollar spent, while a credit does not.

Posted on by praveenghanta 4

What Percentage of US Healthcare Is Publicly Financed?

Public, taxpayer-funded health care spending will pay for for 53% of US health care in 2009. If health care tax breaks are included, this figure rises to 62%.

Of the $2.5 Trillion dollars expected to be spent in the United States on health care this year, what percentage is paid by taxpayers? The Kaiser Family Foundation calculates that 46% of health care spending was publicly financed in 2006, but this number seems to exclude health care for government employees. The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services collects data on health care spending in its National Health Expenditure survey, which can be used to perform a direct calculation on the government share of health care financing. The following table summarizes the 2007 NHE data, the latest year for which a detailed breakdown is available:

Category Amount (2007 $ Billions)
Medicare [1] 418
Medicaid (Including State Funding) 340
Other Public Health Programs [2] 189
Federal, State, and Local Employee Health Care 134
NIH and FDA Budgets [3] 32
Total Public Spending 1113
All Private Health Spending 1018
2007 Total US Health Spending 2131

The 2007 data show that 52% of all health care in the United States is publicly financed. The NHE data also show that from 1987 to 2007, the government’s share of health care financing has risen by ten percentage points, or about half a percentage point per year. This means that in 2009, the public share of health care spending is likely at 53%, or perhaps higher as a result of rising unemployment due to the recession. If health care subsidies (primarily tax exemptions) are included as government financing of health care, they add another $200 Billion to the total, raising the government’s share of health care spending to 62%.

With the government already paying for the majority of US health care, one thing is clear about the current health care reform debate: The debate is not about whether the government will take control of the health care system, as that has quietly taken place over the last 40 years. The real debate is about how the government should distribute its health care spending, and on whether it will be able to rein in endless health care cost growth.

[1] The detailed NHE data split up by source of payment can be found here:

In calculating the numbers in the above table, I used Table 1 in the pdf. I allocated all costs associated with Medicare to the public sector, unlike the table in the pdf, which counts Medicare premiums and contributions as private sector payments. From a standpoint of determining government involvement in the health care system, it makes more sense to count all Medicare dollars as public financing, particularly since paying Medicare taxes is precisely how most of the Medicare system is funded!

[2] According to the NHE pdf, other federal, state, and local health programs “Includes maternal and child health, vocational rehabilitation, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Indian Health Service, Office of Economic Opportunity (1965-74), Federal workers’ compensation, and other miscellaneous general hospital and medical programs, public health activities, Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs, and State Children’s Health Program (SCHIP)” and “Includes other public and general assistance, maternal and child health, vocational rehabilitation, public health activities, hospital subsidies, and state phase-down payments.”

[3] The NIH budget is $30 Billion, and can be classified entirely as health care spending, though it’s often left uncounted. But isn’t research to cure disease health care spending? If it’s not, then what exactly is it? I have also included two-thirds of the FDA budget, as that is the portion related to drug and medical device supervision.

Posted on by praveenghanta 7

The Mystery of Health Care Pricing

Many economists, think tanks, and politicians have been agitating for more consumer-driven health care in the US. They argue that if consumers have to spend their own money for care, they will tend not to waste health care resources, and they will shop around for cost-effective care. The first part of this argument appears valid, as individuals will always spend their own money most carefully. Studies have validated this hypothesis, showing that individuals with high-deductible insurance and health savings accounts (HSAs) tend to spend less than those on traditional insurance.

But are individuals able to shop for health care in a competitive marketplace? Personal experience and numerous reports indicate otherwise. In the US, most health care providers can’t tell you the price of any particular health care service until after it’s been performed! I recently shopped around for a health care service, and called four doctors’ offices in total. One office told me that they “aren’t allowed to provide that sort of information.” Two more offices were flabbergasted, and attempted to ease their way out of the conversation. Only one office was able to answer with an actual price quote.

Why is this so difficult for medical providers? Virtually all chargeable medical services have associated CPT Codes, which are defined by the American Medical Association [1]. Hospitals, labs, and most medical practices have a chargemaster, which is essentially a price list. Even small practices without explicit chargemasters know the rate their doctor charges for his time. When insurers and medical providers negotiate payment structures, they negotiate using the chargemaster rates (and usually Medicare rates) as starting points for negotiation.

The currently proposed health care reform plans have missed this essential element: require all health care providers to publish standardized price lists, and market competition can begin [2]. For doctors, a simple hourly rate should be enough to satisfy this requirement. Hospitals and labs should be required to initially publish online price lists for their most common charges, with the list expanding over time. While this information is irrelevant to patients in emergency situations, the great majority of health care spending is pre-planned [3].

Put another way, why not include a mandate on medical price lists as part reform? The cost of the mandate to providers is extremely low, as the information is available, and publishing the information online eliminates distribution costs. While price transparency is making slow progress, Congress has an opportunity to make this happen, and should do so as part of the health care reform package.

[1] The AMA would likely be a primary opponent of free publishing of CPT code-based price lists, since it derives signicant ($70M per year) income from its copyright on CPT codes. If the government is to open up the pricing market, it may have to break this monopoly by buying the copyright at fair value and putting it in the public domain.

[2] Consider a scenario in which all doctors are required to provide price lists. Since most small practices would find this difficult, they might just quote a maximum hourly charge. One surgeon might quote $1000 per hour, and another $2000 per hour. And there you have it, competition on price can begin, just as it occurs for plastic surgery, Lasik, and other out-of-pocket services today!

[3] According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, roughly 70% of health care expenditures are non-hospital expenses. Since many hospital expenses are planned, it appears that significantly less than 30% of health care expenses are emergencies in which consumers have no choice of provider. According to ACEP, only 3% of health care costs are emergency-related.

Posted on by praveenghanta 0

The Failure of Healthcare IT

You can track a package down to the hour online. You can order a pizza online. You probably manage your finances online as well. You can even pay your taxes online! Why can’t you do almost anything with regard to your healthcare online? Why has the IT revolution failed so miserably in the health care industry?

A 2008 nationwide survey found that only 4% of physicians used a fully functional electronic medical records system (EMR). Health care information is certainly complex, but not any more so than information in many other industries. Integrating medical systems and ensuring seamless transfer of patients’ medical information would yield huge benefits, including fewer medical errors, few repeated tests, and less time spent filling forms. The security of modern IT systems has been tested by hackers again and again, but if it’s safe enough for trillions of dollars of financial transactions, it’s safe enough for medical records as well. So why haven’t EMR and health care IT progressed further?

IT Advance Who Benefits? Who Pays?
Electronic Medical Records Patients Doctors and Hospitals pay for installation, and could lose some revenue due to loss of additional tests, checkups, etc
Medical Record Portability Patients Doctors pay to upgrade systems, could lose revenue as above
Billing System Integration Doctors and Insurers Doctors and Insurers
Online Appointment Scheduling, Email Patients Doctors pay for website and systems, lose time spent on email if not reimbursed

Looking at the table above, it becomes obvious why America’s health care system practically guarantees IT will fail! In almost every case, information technology will cost health care providers money, while primarily benefiting patients (and perhaps payers). Why would any sane business invest in an IT system that has low or negative ROI? If health care were a truly free market, then in some areas IT might flourish, as patients demand conveniences like online appointments and control of their medical records. If US health care were dominated by a single payer, that system would enforce health care IT compliance and integration. But the bizarre no-man’s land of American health care reimbursement makes it difficult to advance IT beyond billing integration between providers and payers.

Can this situation be improved? The Obama administration has decided to get involved by offering carrots initially, followed by sticks later. Time will tell if this approach is sufficient to bring health care into the 21st century.

Posted on by praveenghanta 8

List of Countries with Universal Healthcare

Update 1/21/2013: With the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the ACA (aka Obamacare), and President Obama’s inauguration to a second term today, the US will have universal health care in 2014 using an insurance mandate system.

Thirty-two of the thirty-three developed nations have universal health care, with the United States being the lone exception [1]. The following list, compiled from WHO sources where possible, shows the start date and type of  system used to implement universal health care in each developed country [2]. Note that universal health care does not imply government-only health care, as many countries implementing a universal health care plan continue to have both public and private insurance and medical providers.

Country Start Date of Universal Health Care System Type
Click links for more source material on each country’s health care system.
Norway 1912 Single Payer
New Zealand 1938 Two Tier
Japan 1938 Single Payer
Germany 1941 Insurance Mandate
Belgium 1945 Insurance Mandate
United Kingdom 1948 Single Payer
Kuwait 1950 Single Payer
Sweden 1955 Single Payer
Bahrain 1957 Single Payer
Brunei 1958 Single Payer
Canada 1966 Single Payer
Netherlands 1966 Two-Tier
Austria 1967 Insurance Mandate
United Arab Emirates 1971 Single Payer
Finland 1972 Single Payer
Slovenia 1972 Single Payer
Denmark 1973 Two-Tier
Luxembourg 1973 Insurance Mandate
France 1974 Two-Tier
Australia 1975 Two Tier
Ireland 1977 Two-Tier
Italy 1978 Single Payer
Portugal 1979 Single Payer
Cyprus 1980 Single Payer
Greece 1983 Insurance Mandate
Spain 1986 Single Payer
South Korea 1988 Insurance Mandate
Iceland 1990 Single Payer
Hong Kong 1993 Two-Tier
Singapore 1993 Two-Tier
Switzerland 1994 Insurance Mandate
Israel 1995 Two-Tier
United States 2014? Insurance Mandate

Will the United States join this list in 2014?

[1] Roughly 15% of Americans lack health insurance coverage, so the US clearly has not yet achieved universal health care. There is no universal definition of developed or industrialized nations. For this list, those countries with UN Human Development Index scores above 0.9 on a 0 to 1 scale are considered developed.

[2] The dates given are estimates, since universal health care arrived gradually in many countries. In Germany for instance, government insurance programs began in 1883, but did not reach universality until 1941. Typically the date provided is the date of passage or enactment for a national health care Act mandating insurance or establishing universal health insurance.

System Types:

Single Payer: The government provides insurance for all residents (or citizens) and pays all health care expenses except for co-pays and coinsurance. Providers may be public, private, or a combination of both.

Two-Tier: The government provides or mandates catastrophic or minimum insurance coverage for all residents (or citizens), while allowing the purchase of additional voluntary insurance or fee-for service care when desired. In Singapore all residents receive a catastrophic policy from the government coupled with a health savings account that they use to pay for routine care. In other countries like Ireland and Israel, the government provides a core policy which the majority of the population supplement with private insurance.

Insurance Mandate: The government mandates that all citizens purchase insurance, whether from private, public, or non-profit insurers. In some cases the insurer list is quite restrictive, while in others a healthy private market for insurance is simply regulated and standardized by the government. In this kind of system insurers are barred from rejecting sick individuals, and individuals are required to purchase insurance, in order to prevent typical health care market failures from arising.

Posted on by praveenghanta 503

Medicare Bankrupt in 6-8 Years Without Rationing

Think rationing is impossible in the US? Medicare will soon be bankrupt, and the government will have to spend its healthcare funds in a limited, rationed way.

Medicare’s annual spending exceeded revenue brought in from taxes in 2008, forcing Medicare to begin spending its reserve funds. According to the Medicare Trustees, Medicare’s reserve will be empty by 2017, and Medicare will have to cut benefits or payment rates by 19% to balance its budget [1]. Since the projected date of Medicare’s bankruptcy has been brought forward many times [2], it’s likely that the actual date of bankruptcy may be as early as 2015.

This should come as no surprise to observers of US healthcare policy, since Medicare has limited funds, but nearly unlimited liabilities. Medicare will pay for almost any treatment that a licensed doctor provides, without regard to the effectiveness of that treatment, or its own ability to pay for that treatment.

In the past, politicians have paid for Medicare’s growth through borrowing. That route will be unavailable this time, as US government debt will exceed GDP by next year, and could be over 120% of GDP by 2017. Raising taxes will be difficult as well, since tax revenues will have to be increased just to pay for the existing debt! If Congress and the President fail to curb Medicare cost growth as part of health care reform, the cuts in 2017 will look a lot like California’s budget, where the state was forced to cut $16.1 Billion (18%) from its  in state services across the board.

The current health care reform plans have introduced a variety of cuts in Medicare, which may reduce costs in the short term. But none of the plans under consideration address Medicare’s root problem: Medicare is not allowed to say NO. Rationing health care is not part of the current health care discussion, but it happens covertly today, and it will become the norm. If Medicare is to avoid insolvency, the government will have to decide when some procedures just aren’t worth doing. Seniors should be allowed to pay extra for those procedures, but Medicare will have to limit its responsibility. If you don’t believe me, look at California, where they finally learned that when the money’s gone, it’s gone.

[1] The Medicare Trustees’ Report Summary can be found at: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

The fiscal situation referred to in this post refers specifically to the solvency of the Medicare Part A, the Hospital Insurance (HI) fund. Other parts of Medicare are in slightly better shape, but not by much. In 2017 the HI fund will have revenue for 81% of benefits, but in 2035 it will have revenue for only 50% of benefits.

[2] The Medicare Trustees note that the 2008 Report projected a Medicare HI Fund insolvency date of 2019 – it was brought forward 2 years this year. The solvency calculations also assume that Medicare will cut payments to medical providers based on a Deficit Reduction Act formula – but every year from 2003-2009, these cuts have been rolled back. The likely date of insolvency may move forward by a few more years as a result.

Posted on by praveenghanta 16

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

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