« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Now That’s Reform: Eight Steps to Better Health Care

We have been deluged with information about the new health care “reform” bill.  We now see that is will not, in fact, save money.  We now know that it will not, in fact, achieve the goal of getting health care for everyone.  It will not provide choices.  It will not stimulate the economy.  It will not provide decent care for the elderly (in fact, it will encourage them to end their lives “with dignity”).

In fact, this “reform” bill seems far less like reform and appears more like a “progressive” wish-list, with a hodge-podge of lobbyist input.

Seeing that this bill is an utter failure from the start, I’ve come up with a list of simple reforms that will do far more to help expand medical coverage and improve care than the government intervention planned by Democrats in Congress and K-Street Lobbyists.  Only one of these ideas is even remotely revolutionary or original in any way, but combined they are a powerful reform using real economics to deregulate the market and bring more choice and opportunity to consumers.

Before I begin, I must ask you to accept this fundamental premise: We cannot effectively provide health insurance for everybody.  Some people simply don’t want it.  Others want it but will choose alternative products and services (as we see today with people who choose mobile phone service and cable television over insurance).  The government cannot afford to provide it, there just isn’t enough money to have that much tax and continue to grow economically.

Once we accept the premise that not everyone who can buy health insurance will, we can move forward.  Until then, we are stuck in a quagmire of wishful thinking and foolish Utopian idealism.

  1. Allow individuals, businesses and groups to purchase health insurance accross state lines, as they now do with most other forms of insurance, credit cards and myriad other services.  This will inject more competition into the market.  It will also reduce the effect of state health care mandates that require insurance policies to cover such things as flu shots and chemical dependence care.
  2. Give individuals the same tax credit on insurance premiums now available to corporations.  There is no reason why the government should be encouraging group coverage over individual coverage, nor should tax policy be harming self-employed entrepreneurs.  So what if it costs the Treasury?  Washington has proved a poor steward of our cash, anyway.
  3. Enact tort reform.  Limit “punitive” damages and “pain and suffering” to $ 500,000 or 150% of the actual damages, whichever is more (after all, if there is negligence, the doctors should not benefit from poorly constructed tort reform).  This should greatly reduce the cost of malpractice insurance, one of the critical overhead costs in our health system.
  4. Legally define the difference between “health insurance” and “health maintenance.”  Insurance is a financial instrument that protects against the unexpected, unlikely or catastrophic.  Maintenance is a payment plan for expected services such as routine tests, immunizations, checkups and doctor visits.  “Insurance” is much less expensive than “maintenance.”
  5. Seek out and eliminate fraud in the Federal and State health programs.  Many of these programs are rife with fraud.  Some estimate the total fraudulent expenditures by government health care programs at 10 percent system-wide.  Newt Gingrich estimates that that $32.7 billion in Medicare payments in 2007 were fraudulent.
  6. Permit individuals to develop tax-free health savings accounts (HSAs) to pay for the out-of-pocket expenses in a high-deductible insurance plan.  Allow a six-month overlap period that permits individuals to use the previous year’s HSA while they save up for the current year.  At the end of the overlap, allow those individuals to keep their money.
  7. End the well-intentioned but foolish laws that require Emergency Rooms to treat all patients, regardless of the condition from which they are suffering.  If the health care professionals determine that the case is not an emergency, those professionals should have the authority to turn those patients away without treatment.  This will end the log-jam in our ERs and quickly reduce the number of people who come in for a case of the sniffles, then never pay their bill.
  8. Permit individuals who are not doctors to establish medical practices, hiring doctors to work them.  No, not a hospital or a Doc-in-the-Box, but a family medical practice.  One of the biggest problems among General Practitioners is that they have spent years studying medicine, not business. Because of this, they frequently make decisions that are completely unrelated to medicine that increase the overhead costs.  Some do a much better job of making business decisions than others, but we all share the costs.  Right now, between the States and Federal laws and regulations, it is virtually impossible (I have heard in fact, but never confirmed, patently illegal) for a non-medical individual to start such a practice.  After all, your family doctor hires nurses and physician assistants; why shouldn’t an entrepreneur be able to hire a family doctor?

These eight legislative steps use the power of fundamental economics to create more competitions and free the marketplace.  They allow many more individuals to be covered, and could perhaps lower health insurance premiums far enough that many could afford private insurance who now depend on government health programs.

Now that’s reform!

COMMENTS

  • David123
  • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

    I see no reason Boy Scouts of America, AARP, the Republican Party, Democratic Party, and Communist Party shouldn’t all be able to set up group insurance policies for their adult members. Let them buy across state lines too, and not just in states they have offices in. Make those policies tax free. That would decouple insurance from employment, and when people lose their jobs they wouldn’t automatically lose their insurance.

    Plus if you are in a good organization they might even take up a collection from the other members and let you slide on your payments for a couple of months while you get another good job. Try getting that done at a job you just got laid off from.

    • http://briansimpson.wordpress.com Brian Simpson

      They are called Association plans. As long as the association isn’t set up with the express purpose of buying insurance, they can do these things. It is done in lots of groups, but most notably in trade groups.

      The thing about them is that they are really tricky to keep together. Membership in an association is in a lot more flux than an employer’s pool. People go in and out every year. This means that there is massive price fluctuations each year. Imagine being someone trying to plan your budget. It doesn’t work. That is one reason why these fall apart.

      The second problem is specific to groups joining an association plan, such as local Catholic high schools banding together (I actually tried to make this happen in St. Louis). As the participants quickly discovered themselves, the healthier groups would get tired of subsidizing the rest of the groups. They would leave. Prices would go up for those that remain. Voila! End of the association plan. {Or for those paying attention, why a government run plan will lead to the end of private insurance.}

      • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

        Their employers pay not only the employee portion (tax free) but also pay an employer contribution that the employee doesn’t see in his gross wages. That’s a subsidy and under the present situation there is no reason for any intelligent person to choose anything but a employer plan.

        It’s a tricky problem to solve. How can the rent-seeking behavior encouraged by the subsidy be addressed without getting rid of the subsidy?

  • http://briansimpson.wordpress.com Brian Simpson

    Why would you want to limit the overlap to 6 months? Unless I am misreading you, this step would be backwards.

    As it is right now, if you have a High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP) coupled with a Health Savings Account (HSA) you contribute pre-tax dollars to the savings account to cover your Out of Pocket (OOP) expenses. These funds that are available in your HSA can be withdrawn tax-free if they are used for a qualifying medical event. There is no time limit on how far back you can go to use those funds.

    The way your suggestion reads, a consumer would only be able to use current year contributions to the HSA in addition to the prior year’s contributions in the first six months of the year. That would significantly limit the amount available if someone happened to have a catastrophic or near-catastrophic event and reached not only their deductible but also their OOP limit.

    Leave this part of the HSA alone.

    On the other hand, HSAs should be vastly improved:

    1) Allow HSA funds to be withdrawn tax-free to cover the insurance premiums.
    2) Increase contribution limits to HSAs to account for coverage of insurance premiums (You may not cover 100% of that year’s premium with the limit, but anything is better)
    3) Remove the new rules that require HSA administrators to certify claims on an HSA. This just adds back much of the administrative costs that HSAs were supposed to save. It is also quite redundant as most HSAs are already using a debit card system. Whenever a debit card is used, a merchant code is transmitted. If someone doesn’t have a medical merchant code, that would be a pretty good sign that the event doesn’t qualify.

    • http://www.fredsnews.com Fred Maidment

      I must admit HSAs are one of the areas about which I am ill-informed. My suggestion to be able to use the previous year’s funds was a reaction to my own plan’s HSA program, which has a “use-it-or-lose-it” clause. I do believe that HSAs are too complex and restricted to be effective, and your suggestions may be preferable. I also believe that HSAs are and could be an even more effective method of limiting the distress of deductibles for major medical expenses.

      In hind-sight, I might have simply written for 6:

      “Simplify Health Savings Account regulations. HSA regulations are complex and confusing, and there are too many administrative and regulatory obstacles to using these programs effectively.”

      • http://briansimpson.wordpress.com Brian Simpson

        It sounds more like you have some version of a Flexible Spending Account or other alternative medical savings account. I’m pretty sure I’m correct in assuming that this is an employer sponsored plan?

        The reason why I say this is because there is very little difference between a HSA and a Roth IRA in terms of how the account functions. This functionality is set by law. If your “HSA” is not acting like this, then it is probably not an HSA.

        • http://www.fredsnews.com Fred Maidment

          …and I did a little more research at work today.

          Please pardon my ignorance.

          Yes, as I have explained in other posts, I have an employer-sponsored plan (if I am forced to pay for maintenance, I might as well get a group discount). And yes, it’s FSA, not HSA.

          There is a reason why I don’t have this type of plan: I don’t expect to have to use it. The probability is very low (though it exists) that I would get some serious illness requiring me to use an FSA, and I don’t want to lose that money at the end of the year.

          If HSAs are more like IRAs, I’ll have to do more research into this. Not only to improve these “diaries,” but also for my own personal needs.

          Education never ends.

          • http://briansimpson.wordpress.com Brian Simpson

            I wrote about how HSAs could be the future for governments that were looking to cut their cost structure (applicable to any group also) here:

            The HSA has been commonly referred to as a

          • JSobieski

            privatize the very large portion of the national health care budget that has already been nationalized—Medicare.

            If you transform Medicare into a government funded HSA, the competition dynamics that would be unleashed would be awesome

          • http://briansimpson.wordpress.com Brian Simpson

            That’s an idea that has been rolling around in my head for a few weeks.

            Reminds me. I need to send an email to a few people to get some input into exactly how this could work.

  • mom2oneson

    I think it depends on different variables like the type of hosptial, the reimbursement they accept and the state they are in if they have to treat non emergencies.
    If they take medicare all patients have to be screened and emergencies/active labor has to be treated/stabilized like the fed law says but I think other situations depend on the state and type of hospital.

    • mom2oneson

      that should be location and type of hosptial. Things might differ in different parts of the same state.