No "Preventive" Health Savings?
by John Goodman
Issue 125 - February 4, 2009
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently lowered the boom on a set
of health reform ideas by confirming what everyone should already have
known anyway: You can't change the practice of medicine with demand-side
reforms.
This is devastating. At least it's devastating if you're a member of the
Obama health team. During the election, Obama's health advisors said
they could save the average American household $2,500 a year through
such reforms as coordinated care, preventive care, evidenced-based care,
pay-for-performance care, electronic medical records and a slew of
similar ideas. The CBO response? These reforms will save about 1% of
what the Obama team projects, and maybe nothing at all. They may even
increase costs!
Before you lament the fact that the CBO waited until after the election
to tell us this bad news, know that John McCain endorsed the same
reforms - as did almost every presidential candidate (without the
ridiculous claims about monetary savings). They also have been endorsed
by what I call the "new consensus" folks: left and right, business and
academic, government and nongovernment, public and private sectors -
including employer groups and third-party payers of all sorts. (I'll
withhold the names out of respect for the families.)
The CBO report will come as no surprise to wonks who know that Centers for Medicare/Medicaid Services (CMS) has
already been trying out all these ideas through pilot projects. As
reported previously, these experiments have been hugely disappointing.
No money is being saved. Contractors are pulling out. And CMS is
considering cancelling some projects in mid-course.
So why did anybody ever think these ideas would work? Because they
already are working in isolated spots, within the third-party payer
system and with systematic regularity outside the system. But where they
work, they are invariably supply-side, not demand-side, innovations.
So why do people cling to an approach to reform that doesn't work?
Because it's impossible for them to do otherwise. Basically, there are
two ways to think about health care: the technical (engineering)
approach and the economic approach. People in the first group invariably
want to tell doctors how to practice medicine. To them, doctors are the
problem. The solution is to induce, incentivize, cajole, bully,
intimidate, coerce, command, etc. doctors into practicing medicine in
predetermined ways.
People in the second group understand that no one person, agency, etc.
knows the best way to produce medical care. Instead, the best ideas come
from the interaction of 800,000 doctors and 300 million patients. To
allow those ideas to emerge, we need to liberate doctors, not impose
more controls on them.
John Goodman is President of the National Center for Policy Analysis.
For the CBO reports see,
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9925/12-18-HealthOptions.pdf and
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9924/12-18-KeyIssues.pdf
|