Originally published Sunday, November 1, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Comments (0)
E-mail article
Print
Share
Guest columnist
Insurance companies don't have to be "bad" for the public option to be good
Insurance companies are not inherently bad, they just need some healthy market competition, writes guest columnist Matthew R. McBrady. The public option now being considered in health-care reform legislation by Congress will bring some much needed competition.
Special to The Times
SOME, including President Obama, have said that a public health-insurance option is necessary to "keep insurance companies honest." However, there's no need to imply that private insurance companies are dishonest. Rather, they're simply not designed to provide the type of low-cost, universal access to basic health-care services that America desperately needs.
Why? Well, there are two fundamental economic problems in the private health-insurance market. The first is overconsumption. A few decades ago, American businesses found out the hard way that by paying their employees' health-care bills, they inadvertently shielded their workers from bearing the associated costs. Employees inevitably ended up consuming too much and health-care expenses spiraled. In fact, the U.S. managed-care industry grew out of employers' attempts to tackle this overconsumption problem.
The second problem is what economists refer to as "adverse selection." While the concept originated in an insight about the used-car market, it is now a fundamental pillar of insurance economics. The idea is simple: Markets work badly whenever sellers know more than buyers (or vice versa).
Consider the plight of used-car buyers, for example. If they offer an "average" price for what they expect is an average-quality car, they'll inevitably overpay. This is because higher-quality car owners will refuse to sell, while lower-quality owners will gladly accept. If buyers lower their offer, even more high-quality car owners will refuse to sell, leading to a vicious cycle.
Economically speaking, the private-insurance market functions just like the market for used cars — and I'm sorry to say consumers are in the position of used-car dealers. That's because individuals know the most about their own health. If insurers set premiums high enough to cover costs for people with "average" health, healthier people will not enroll, while sicker people will find insurance a great deal. Left unchecked, this dynamic leads to ever-rising premiums as healthier people drop out of the market and only sicker people remain.
Private insurance companies, at core, are businesses designed to tackle these economic problems of overconsumption and adverse selection. To limit the former, they invest in restricting access to health-care services — for example, by requiring prior authorization for a number of procedures, refusing to cover others, and setting lifetime limits on benefits received. To tackle the latter, they refuse to cover "pre-existing conditions" and spend enormous sums screening potential customers in an attempt to deny coverage to those most likely to get sick.
It is these activities — not excess executive compensation, dividends, or "marketing" — that eat up between 20 to 30 cents of every dollar in premiums they receive. It is also these activities for which insurance companies are frequently criticized.
Are insurance companies wrong to engage in these practices? Well, as profit-seeking enterprises, the cold logic of the market requires them to do so. Unfortunately, the result is a huge population of uninsured Americans whose only recourse is to seek late-stage and emergency-room care, which contributes to the out-of-control health-care costs that are threatening our economy.
Fortunately, most agree this cycle can be halted with policies that guarantee access to essential health-care services for every American. There is sharp disagreement, however, about who should provide the type of low-cost universal insurance that is required.
While emotions run strong on both sides of the public-option debate, the economics are straightforward. Private, for-profit insurance companies are simply not designed or equipped to provide the type of low-cost universal coverage America desperately needs.
Could private insurers adapt their business models to serve this new market? I would certainly expect so, given the right competition. But without the competition a public option will provide, I wouldn't bet a trillion dollars on it — which is exactly what insurance companies are asking us to do.
Matthew R. McBrady is a former economist with President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers and the U.S. Treasury's Office of Policy Development and Review.NEW - 5:04 PM
A Florida U.S. Senate candidate and crimes against writing
NEW - 5:05 PM
Guest columnist: Washington Legislature is closing budget gap with student debt
Guest columnist: Seattle Public Schools must do more than replace the chief
Leonard Pitts Jr. / Syndicated columnist: The peril of lower standards in the 'new journalism'
Neal Peirce / Syndicated columnist: How do states afford needed investment and budget cuts?

Entertainment | Top Video | World | Offbeat Video | Sci-Tech
nwautos
Are you one of the many hanging onto their old beater? Or do you just love that new-car smell? When did you last purchase a vehicle? Take our poll or....
Post a comment
- Agency set to investigate handling of 911 call about Josh Powell
- Proposal to link Market, aquarium may be too ambitious for Seattle
- Chilling 911 tapes reveal pleas for help to go to Josh Powell home
- UW's Shawn Kemp Jr. makes own way despite familiar name, number | Steve Kelley
- State Medicaid program to stop paying for unneeded ER visits
- NBA's David Stern open to league returning to Seattle
- Prosecutor: Powell's final act ends doubt he killed wife
- Was idea of court-ordered test too much for Josh Powell?
- Local aerospace suppliers say they feel squeezed by Boeing
- California gay-marriage ruling may affect Washington
- Gay-marriage bill passes House, awaits Gregoire's signature
404 - Historic day for gay marriage as another fight looming
341 - Sheriff's office unhappy with 911 dispatcher in caseworker's call
276 - 3 big health insurers stockpile $2.4 billion as rates keep rising
220 - Source: NY, California to sign mortgage settlement
181 - Pac-12 picks ... including the UW game
113 - Lakewood cop accused of taking donations for slain officers' families
106 - Department of Justice owes the Seattle Police Department an apology
79 - Thursday morning links --- and a video!!!
60 - Scouting report: Oregon
56
- State Medicaid program to stop paying for unneeded ER visits
- 3 big health insurers stockpile $2.4 billion as rates keep rising
- Here it is: The secret to stir-fried chicken | Taste
- Local aerospace suppliers say they feel squeezed by Boeing
- Dicks channeled federal money to Puget Sound project his son ran
- 'Gauguin and Polynesia': dazzling mix-and-match | Art review
- Buttoned Up: Nine immutable laws of time management
- Happy Hour: French-accented charm at Gainsbourg
- Gay-marriage bill passes House, awaits Gregoire's signature
- One man's audacious pursuit of sailing history










