MEDICARE expenditures threaten to crush the federal budget, yet the Obama administration is proposing that we start by spending more now so we can spend less later.
This runs the risk of becoming the new voodoo economics. If we can’t realize significant savings in health care costs now, don’t expect savings in the future, either.
It’s not the profits of the drug companies or the overhead of the insurance companies that make American health care so expensive, but the financial incentives for doctors and medical institutions to recommend more procedures, whether or not they are effective. So far, the American people have been unwilling to say no.
Drawing upon the ideas of the Harvard economist David Cutler, the Obama administration talks of empowering an independent board of experts to judge the comparative effectiveness of health care expenditures; the goal is to limit or withdraw Medicare support for ineffective ones. This idea is long overdue, and the critics who contend that it amounts to “rationing” or “the government telling you which medical treatments you can have” are missing the point. The motivating idea is the old conservative chestnut that not every private-sector expenditure deserves a government subsidy.
Nonetheless, this principle is radical in its implications and has met with resistance. In particular, Congress has not been willing to give up its power over what is perhaps the government’s single most important program, nor should we expect such a surrender of power in the future. There is already a Medicare Advisory Payment Commission, but it isn’t allowed to actually cut costs.
Scholars have been applying comparative-effectiveness research to Medicare for years, and the verdict is not altogether pretty. It turns out that some regions spend more on Medicare than others — sometimes two or three times as much, as documented by the Dartmouth Atlas Project. Yet the higher-spending regions often fail to produce superior health care results.
Robin Hanson, professor of economics at George Mason University, surveys evidence demonstrating the ineffectiveness of many medical expenditures in his 2007 paper, “Showing That You Care.”
If we are willing to take comparative-effectiveness studies seriously, we could make significant cuts in Medicare costs right now. We could cut some reimbursement rates, limit coverage for some of the more speculative treatments, like some forms of knee and back surgery, and place more limits on end-of-life-care.
Those cuts alone will not solve the fiscal problem, but if we aren’t willing to take even limited steps to conserve resources, we shouldn’t be spending any more money elsewhere.
Of course, we have not made such Medicare spending cuts yet, and there are few signs that we will. A Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 67 percent of Americans believe that they do not receive enough treatment and that only 16 percent believe that they have received unnecessary care. If the Obama administration covers more people with government-supplied or government-subsidized insurance, the political support will broaden for generous benefits, their continuation and, indeed, expansion of current expenditures.
Suggested ways to lower costs include an emphasis on preventive care, the use of electronic medical records and increased competition among insurers. But even if these are likely to improve the quality of care, they are speculative and uncertain as cost-saving measures. Keep in mind that while computers were remarkably powerful inventions, it took decades before they showed up in the statistics as having improved productivity in the workplace.
One idea embodied in a bill sponsored by Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, and Senator Robert F. Bennett, Republican of Utah, is to finance new health care programs by taxing health insurance benefits. This makes sense in principle: why should insurance benefits be favored over salary by our tax system? But employer-supplied insurance is a mainstay of the current health care system, and there is no adequate replacement immediately in sight.
IT’S also hard to convince the American public that the solution to insufficient health insurance is to tax health insurance. And such a one-time tax increase would postpone but not eliminate the need to come to grips with ever-rising Medicare costs.
It sounds harsh to suggest that the Obama administration cut areas of Medicare spending, but, too often, increased expenditures and coverage are confused with good health care outcomes. The reality is that our daily environment, our social status and our behavior — including diet and exercise — have more to do with good health than does health care more narrowly defined.
The demand for universal coverage sounds like a moral imperative to “take care of everybody,” but in reality it would make only a marginal difference when it comes to the overall health of the American population. The sober reality is that universal coverage is another way to spend money, which may or may not be a good idea.
The most likely possibility is that the government will spend more on health care today, promise to realize savings tomorrow and never succeed in lowering costs. It is rare that governments successfully cut costs by first spending more money.
Mr. Obama has pledged to be a fiscally responsible president. This is the biggest chance so far to see whether he means it.
