Originally published Sunday, November 1, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Comments (54)
E-mail article
Print view
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.
E-mail article
Print view
Share
Leonard Pitts Jr. / Syndicated columnist: New York terror trials will restore faith in rule of law
Neal Peirce / Syndicated columnist: It's time to promote development that conserves land and energy
Guest columnist: Ringing the alarm about a threat to homeless youth
Joni Balter / Seattle Times editorial columnist: Our team in D.C. — Locke, Sims and Kerlikowske
Raw Video | Real Salt Lake receives the MLS Cup trophy
Real Salt Lake is handed the 2009 MLS Cup trophy at Qwest Field, November 22, 2009.

Entertainment | Top Video | World | Offbeat Video | Sci-Tech
nwjobs

Post a comment

Michelle Goodman blogs about work/life balance.
How to tell your office you're gravely ill
Post a comment
nwautos

Choosing a new sedan? Weigh the impact of your choice on your wallet and on the planet.
Post a comment
- 'The Road' takes Viggo Mortensen to Mount St. Helens and Astoria, Ore.
- Craigslist adoption ad: A plea by young mother-to-be? A scam?
- Tugboat sinks at Seattle waterfront pier
- Child-support error costs nearly $21,000
- Italian lead prosecutor argues Knox motive was hatred
- Italian prosecutors request life sentence for UW student
- Man shot in chest on E. Union Street in Capitol Hill
- Chase shrugs off loss of CD investors
- Washington state wines make annual best-of list
- Vikings easily beat the Seahawks
- Senate vote clears hurdle
239 - Vikings easily beat the Seahawks
133 - Child-support error costs nearly $21,000
124 - Palin excitement builds in Tri-Cities
123 - Tight Senate vote launches health care over hurdle
122 - Cutting through breast-cancer confusion
90 - Historic health care bill clears Senate hurdle
76 - Game thread
70 - New York terror trials will restore faith in rule of law
62 - Chase shrugs off loss of CD investors
53
- Washington state wines make annual best-of list
- Nonprofits get creative using Twitter and Facebook to make donation easier
- It's possible to recover a life lost to hoarding
- Lynnwood is reinventing itself — again
- Great places to cross-country ski for free (or almost) in the Methow
- 'The Road' takes Viggo Mortensen to Mount St. Helens and Astoria, Ore.
- Child-support error costs nearly $21,000
- Recipes: Sesame Pork Roast, Sour Cream Mashed Potatoes, Gingerbread with Lemon Sauce and more
- Banff: powder, peaks & purity
- Chase shrugs off loss of CD investors









