There is much debate about whether a health care reform bill should include a government-run health insurance plan, a so-called “public option.” Advocates argue that such a plan can compete fairly with private health insurance, and that this competition would “keep insurers honest.” They also argue that more choices are a good thing.
I fall in the other camp. I think that government cannot compete on a level playing field with the private sector. Government always has advantages because of its sovereign power. I also think that in most markets there is a range of private health insurance plans competing for business, and so the addition of one more plan is not worth the downsides of government involvement. (I believe that competition is flawed because for most people their employer shops for health plans. I prefer a system in which individuals are shopping for health plans.)
The government cannot compete on a level playing field with private firms:
- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had competitive advantages relative to their purely private counterparts. They leveraged those advantages to the gain of their management and shareholders until they collapsed and jeopardized the entire financial system.
- Ford Motor Company was not bailed out. It is now disadvantaged relative to GM and Chrysler, which benefited from government oversight, funding, and effective rewriting of bankruptcy rules.
- Government-provided terrorism reinsurance is preventing private reinsurance from returning to the marketplace.
- Most physician- and hospital-reimbursement structures are based on the methodologies of the largest payor in the market, Medicare.
- Government-run direct student loans are now crowding out the guaranteed student loan program, in which private banks and financing firms offer loans. The government advantage comes from control over small details of the program that give direct loans a competitive advantage.
(I would appreciate further examples if commenters have any. Updates are in green.)
The ultimate fear of having a government-run “public” option is that it will crowd out private health insurance, and that ultimately most Americans will be getting their insurance from the government.
At the same time, I hope that opponents of Kennedy-Dodd and the developing House Democrats’ health care bills don’t miss a critical point. Even if the public option is successfully stricken from this legislation, the Kennedy-Dodd goals will be largely achieved by other parts of the bill.
Separate from the Kennedy-Dodd language that creates a new public option, other language in the bill:
- Gives a government-appointed Medical Advisory Council the ability to determine a standardized package of minimum benefits;
- Establishes three tiers of standardized copayments and deductibles, as well as the total dollar value of benefits included relative to an industry average;
- Mandate relative premiums for people with different risk profiles;
- Gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services authority to set a maximum percentage of administrative expenditures and profits for health plans;
- Requires plans to provide incentives for certain models of delivery of medical care; and
- Gives State “Gateways” authority to redistribute resources among health plans to account for the risk distribution of their beneficiaries.
If the government determines benefits, cost-sharing, relative premiums, expenses, and profits, and can take funds from one health plan and give them to another, then the insurance function is governmental.
The ultimate fear of a public option would be immediately implemented by other parts of the Kennedy-Dodd bill. Health plans would turn into a version of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: they would have (regulated) private profits but public purposes. (A friend points out that the Fannie/Freddie comparison doesn’t work well here. F/F are more about “private profit but public risk.”)
This is a smart tactical move by the authors of the bill. They have a belt (the public option) and suspenders (government control of private insurance). They achieve their policy goal even if they lose the public option.
Killing the public option is essential, but it isn’t enough to prevent government-run health care.