Healthcare Installment #9. Please start with post of 08/25/09.

Nationalizing / Socializing vs. Privatizing Health Care

In basic terms, "nationalizing" healthcare means having the government as the single payer that reimburses services provided by private providers. Private enterprise still runs the service sector. "Socializing" healthcare means the government owns the healthcare facilities and its employees (doctors, nurses) are on the government’s payroll. Failure to distinguish between the two leads to a lot of confusion about the extent of the government’s involvement in healthcare. To make matters worse, both can be referred to as "universal" healthcare. For example, Medicare is a nationalized system for post 65 yr. olds who can go to virtually any private provider. The Veterans Administration healthcare system is a socialized system – veterans go to a VA hospital. Some foreign countries have nationalized systems and some have socialized ones which complicates comparisons.

Persons advocating nationalized or socialized care have probably not read the newspapers in countries with those systems. Those papers report complaints about the problems inherent in such systems. Healthcare appears better on the other side of the border, regardless of which side you stand on. The more healthcare is "free," the more it will be used and the more difficult it can be to get. Private, for-profit practices spring up to fill a void in nationalized countries the way free clinics fill an opposite void in a private healthcare country. "Free" systems end up adding copayments.

It helps to keep in mind when making comparisons with other countries, the economic and political positions of those countries. The United States is the world’s leading democratic country, and as such, shoulders the burden for the defense of democracy. Whether or not you agree with U.S. policies, it nevertheless spends much more than other nations to extend an umbrella of protection over other democracies and to protect itself because it is the primary target of terrorists. Countries not devoting as much to national defense are able to use tax dollars/pounds/euros/yen for healthcare.

The move toward "N/S" healthcare (our term for nationalized and socialized) is driven in part by dissatisfaction with private healthcare insurance companies who control coverage payments. For-profit insurance companies, however, are not always the villains when they deny payment for certain types of healthcare. The insurance company serves all its members in two ways. The obvious one is by covering the cost of healthcare for members. The other is controlling the price the member pays for the insurance. Individually, we all want maximum payments for our bills. Collectively, we all want lower costs for our premiums. The two are not easily compatible. The insurance company is in the uncomfortable position of allocating the limited premium dollars to its members which inevitably means some limitations for some members. Many of these are spelled out in the policy and some are determined on a case-by-case basis.

While some premium dollars turn into profits for the insurers, it may not be a significant factor in the total cost to the consumer. For example, Healthcare Service Corporation (which operates Blue Cross Blue Shield programs in four central states) earned a profit of less than five cents on its premium dollar in 2008. This is not a remarkable level of profitability for any firm. Cutting the cost of operations of insurers by using simpler, standardized, industry-wide, electronic processes might achieve more cost reduction than arguing for lower levels of profitability. Cutting the salaries of the top executives in insurance firms is an example of administrative cost reduction. Unfortunately, while individual compensation packages may look large for a single person, the savings achieved is likely to be only a drip from the IV bag in terms of total costs.

Any time we join a group insurance pool for added protection against risk, we give up some of our individual control over the decisions for members of that pool. The policy lays out those limitations. It does not matter if the pool is government insurance or private insurance. Policy provisions are the rules governing pay outs regardless of whether they are administered by government bureaucrats or corporate bureaucrats. While private insurers have a profit to protect, government administrators are known to be unbending adherents to rules and regulations to avoid favoritism. In the end, one hardly seems better than the other. Persons who want complete coverage for all forms of healthcare will only get it by belonging to an insurance pool with very high premiums.

Coming to grips with the fact that a lifesaving treatment is cost prohibitive (from a societal point of view) when an individual’s life hangs in the balance is a problem many people would rather avoid than address, but it is central to the cost of healthcare. Economically speaking, who decides what care is given and received is determined by the combination of individual wealth and/or the policies of an insurance provider. The only way to keep your healthcare fate completely in your own hands is to have the money to pay for it yourself. Lobbying for the government to mandate total healthcare for everyone shifts the economic burden to the entire society through taxation, but that may be a tax burden too great for the society to bear for the benefits it receives. Medicare, as it currently operates, will not be able to sustain itself after 2019 according to a 2007 report by the Medicare Trustees.

Those who advocate for increased government involvement in healthcare bring pros and cons into the debate. A single-payer system such as Medicare offers some "systematizing" benefits that reduce administrative costs. However, any government program is subject to "corruption" by public and political pressures in a way no private plan is. An example of this is the addition of the prescription benefit to Medicare by Congress without any adjustment to the federal budget to pay for it. In short, to please the public, Congress added more debt to be paid in the future by the taxpayers. President Obama said exactly this in his town hall meeting in Colorado in August 2009.

When the government becomes a larger and larger participant in the healthcare marketplace as an insurer, it exerts pressure on the other insurers. One view is that this pressures private firms to hold down their costs. That may be true. Unfortunately, pitting private enterprise against government may not be a fair game because of inherent differences in the cost structure of each.

Increased government involvement in health insurance is the proverbial slippery slope. If instead of competing successfully with the government, private insurers fail, the government becomes the dominant insurer/purchaser. The market now has a monopoly purchaser of services who can dictate terms to the providers. This is called a "monopsony." Eventually the private providers work only for this one customer. At that point, it seems unnecessary to separate the insurer from the providers and in the name of efficiency, the government takes over the suppliers. At this point, "nationalized" healthcare becomes a "socialized," government paid, government run enterprise. Private suppliers exist on the fringe providing services to those individuals with the personal financial resources to buy their own supplemental care. This scenario is what opponents of expanded government dread. In it they see the rise of big government and the death of personal control of healthcare. The inability to predict this future makes proving or disproving this possibility nearly impossible and stymies the resolution of the healthcare problem.

In the free enterprise system, the role of government is to regulate the marketplace, not to be a participant in it. Virtually every entitlement program (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) costs more than projected when it was passed, grows with the addition of more benefits over time, and either leads to increased taxes or debt. Social Security, when passed, set 3% as the tax on personal wages and employers effective in 1948. Today that rate is 6.2%. Tennessee’s version of Medicaid (TennCare) began in 1994 with a budget of $2.6 billion. Ten years later it cost $8 billion – about one-third of the entire state budget. The number of insured parties remained fairly constant around 1.3 million persons, or about 1 in 4 residents. In 2005, the program went through massive change because of its unsustainable cost. Good intentions created mixed effects on the road to expanded healthcare.

Gains in administrative costs achieved in N/S healthcare systems, can be negated by the political expansion of benefits. We end up spending more than we save. For that reason, more direct government intervention in healthcare does not seem like a long-term, cost-effective solution. Finding ways to increase the efficiency and reduce the costs of private healthcare would seem to be a way to achieve the gains without the political problems.