Facing the Abyss

May 13, 2009

Call it a “fiscal tsunami,” a “fiscal train wreck,” a “fiscal cancer,” a “frightful storm,” or just simply “a looming fiscal crisis.” What we call it matters far less than what we do about it. Projected spending on health care entitlements portends a crisis that without exaggeration has the potential to topple our republic.

  • How Deep is the Hole? Twitter this: $104 TRILLION.  In policy-speak, the net present value of unfunded liabilities for Medicare alone now equals $88.9 trillion*–more than six times the annual output of the entire U.S. economy in 2009 (and, coincidentally, nearly six times the equivalent tab for Social Security, i.e., $15.1T). This unfunded liability is the amount that Medicare will cost U.S. taxpayers over and above what current revenues would provide assuming no statutory changes in the program. Essentially, it is the net amount of money Medicare would need today to cover the gap between all projected spending on future promised benefits and all projected revenues that are dedicated to Medicare (i.e., payroll taxes, Part B and D premiums, and interest earnings on the Medicare Part A Trust Fund). This unfunded liability would either have to be financed through general revenues (mostly income taxes) or future borrowing. [Note to Medicare-for-all enthusiasts: perhaps handing responsibility for the entire health care system to the same folks who created this Medicare fiscal mess is not such a good idea after all? When you're in a hole, aren't you supposed to stop digging?]
  • Why Taxpayers Should Care. To fully address this unfunded liability so that everyone (including all future generations) could be certain of receiving promised Medicare benefits in perpetuity would require each of us to pony up $290,000. Today! [Yes, Scarlett, you can think about this tomorrow, but then the tab will be even higher. Did I mention that with Social Security included, the total actually comes to $339,000? Oh, you wanted to pay off the national debt too? Add another $30,000: for you and Rhett together, that works out to about $738,000. I may be wrong, but I don't think Uncle Sam takes VISA (or Confederate dollars, now that I think about it). Please makes checks payable to U.S. Treasury (and it might be a good idea if you got a receipt)]. That would be a cool $2.2 million for my family of 6 [Admit it: it would be pretty cool if I had that amount of spare cash sitting around to contribute to the cause: it would be even cooler if I had $1.75 trillion just to pay off this year's deficit.], though “only” $956,000 for a typical U.S. household. I can only speak for myself: even leaving aside willingness-to-pay, that greatly exceeds our family’s ability to pay [Note to self: if you would stop making bad "investments" in the Yankees and Blue Devils at Tradesports.com, you probably could afford your share of this tab]. “We have a huge implicit mortgage on every household in America — except, unlike a real mortgage, it’s not backed up by a house,” says David Walker, former U.S. comptroller general, the government’s top auditor.
  • Why Non-Taxpayers Should Care.   With policymakers caught between a rock and a hard place, there’s a serious concern that they might opt to press the Easy button by monetizing our debts.  The resultant price inflation will affect all Americans, not just the ranks of taxpayers.  Inflation effectively is a tax (albeit hidden) that hits poor and elderly families particularly hard.  Ironically, just the massive short-term deficits projected under the Obama administration budget (through 2019) are contributing to the perception that “government is now the most serious source of systemic risk.” Yet these additional deficits are a pittance compared to the entitlements deficits to come.
  • Why Young People Especially Should Care. In more concrete terms, absent reform, by 2078, the average out-of-pocket health expenses of a typical 65-year-old Medicare beneficiary–including premiums for Parts B and D of Medicare and the deductibles and copayments–will absorb 97% of the average Social Security check. For the average 85-year-old, that fraction would be 117%. [Note to GenX, GenY and Millenials: save early and save often. I realize President Clinton's claim that "young people in their twenties think it's more likely that they will see UFOs than that they will ever collect Social Security" may have approximately the same truth value as his assertions about a former WH intern. But for the brightest and best among you, a word to the wise is sufficient.]

The magnitude of this entitlements crisis will make today’s financial meltdown look like a tempest in a teapot, a molehill in a mountain or any other apt metaphor that springs to mind. This “domestic” policy issue also poses threats to our national security to the extent that spending on health care gradually squeezes out our capacity defend ourselves, much less maintain the umbrella of protection that has benefited literally billions of people worldwide.

Heck, I’m parochial and shameless enough to call it a global health crisis, to the extent that spending on this country’s own bloated health care system crowds out our ability to keep bankrolling initiatives such as PEPFAR or the billions we spend annually through USAID. This is a problem that should concern all of us regardless of what policy domains usually preoccupy our attention.

Because above all, it is a moral crisis: the “greatest generation” spawned a generation of Baby Boomers whose legacy in the worst case might be setting into motion the chain of events that led to toppling the greatest nation on earth. At minimum, i.e., even in the “best case” (should we lack the political will to address this), my generation is now on the road of engineering the greatest intergenerational transfer ever seen in the history of the world. “Leaving our children and grandchildren with a burden they cannot possibly manage” is unconscionable. Likewise, making promises to them that the government has no realistic hope of being able to fulfill is outrageous.

Is this what our Founding Fathers risked their lives, their souls, their fortunes and sacred honor to achieve? Would Lincoln think this was worthy of his efforts to save the Union and achieve “a just and lasting peace, among ourselves and with all nations”? We can do better. Way better. If we can’t, we are in deep doo-doo.**

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

* Lest I be accused of cherry-picking the evidence, let me stipulate that yes, yes, the $88.9 trillion figure is over an infinite time horizon. Over a 75-year time horizon, the Medicare hit is “only” $38.2 trillion (2009). ["I knew it!" some of you will shriek. "Figures lie and liars figure." While Mark Twain certainly said liars figure, he actually said figures don't lie, but that's a minor quibble].

Here’s why the infinite horizon figures are the most “fair and balanced” assessment of our plight. If we entirely paid off the $38.2 unfunded liability in Medicare through 2083, we would indeed get through that year without having had to raise payroll taxes or Parts B & D premiums above current statutory levels. The problem is that we will have used the lifetime payroll tax contributions of new retirees in 2083 to help cover all Medicare expenses up to that point. So looking forward to the next 75 years, we would face another mountain of unfunded liabilities representing the mis-match between projected spending and revenues for this new group.

So the only practical way to address this “bear went over the mountain” feature of Medicare (and Social Security) funding is to bite the bullet and pay the $290,000 per person that would eliminate the mismatch between revenue and costs forever, not just 75 years. [Note to Bernie Madoff: your only mistake was trying to do what you did as a private citizen. We should have had the good sense to exploit your unique Ponzi scheme skills by appointing you Social Security director (a win-win situation for all concerned and arguably less of a drain on taxpayers than your jail term is likely to be).]

**Watch the 30-minute video IOUSA for a history of how we got into this mess. Watch this shorter video of just how quickly we are speeding towards fiscal insolvency.

Nerd Alert: Mind-Glazing Health Policy Wonkery Ahead
For those wishing to do their own calculations (or completely skeptical about whether a self-professed health policy skeptic could or should be trusted not to bend the truth):

  • U.S. Population and Households. For simplicity I project the U.S. resident population for July 1, 2009 at 306.9 million based on Bureau of Census monthly estimates from July 1, 2008-April 1, 2009.  In the 2000 Census there were 2.59 persons per household, so I used this to calculate debt burdens for the average household.
  • Unfunded Liabilities, Infinite Horizon. The infinite time horizon estimates of unfunded liabilities for Medicare all are reported in the latest Trustees Report.  Medicare Hospital Insurance, i.e., Part A=$36.4T (Table III.B10); Medicare Supplemental Medical Insurance (SMI), i.e., Part B=$37.0T (Table III.C16); Medicare Prescription Drug, i.e., Part D=$15.5T (Table III.C23).  Total=$88.9T [check my math]. The parallel figure for Social Security is in a different Trustees Report ($15.1T).
  • Unfunded Liabilities, 75-Year Horizon.  The estimates of unfunded liabilities over a 75-year horizon can be derived from the same tables cited above (Part A=$13.4T; Part B=$17.2T; Medicare Prescription Drug=Part D=$7.2T), for a grand total of $37.8T. For the morbidly curious, the 2007 figure was $34.1T according to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation (the $3.7T increase amplifies why waiting to fix this problem is not a good idea). The figure for Social Security is $5.3T.
  • U.S. GDP.  As of March 2009, the Congressional Budget Office estimates 2009 GDP at $14.0T.
  • U.S. Net Worth.  The Federal Reserve Bank releases these statistics quarterly. At the end of 2008, the net worth of U.S. households and non-profit organizations was $51.5T (Table B.100), nonfarm, nonfinancial corporate business was $15.4T (Table B.102) and nonfarm, noncorporate business was $5.5T (Table B.103).
  • Current U.S. Debt. The U.S. Treasury conveniently reports The Debt to the Penny and Who Owns It. I used their figure of $11.3T for the U.S. debt as of May 11, 2009.  But this figure only includes total liabilities of the federal government and fails to account for its assets.  According to the U.S. Treasury Department, these assets amounted to $1,974.7B at  (p. 39) , so I used a net figure of $9.3T.

George Halvorsen | Health Care Will Not Reform Itself: A User’s Guide to Refocusing and Reforming American Health Care: George C. Halvorson: Books

June 9, 2009

George C. Halvorson. Health Care Will Not Reform Itself: A User’s Guide to Refocusing and Reforming American Health Care (Hardcover), Productivity Press; 1 edition (May 27, 2009)

Written by one of the leading authorities in the industry, this book provides a basic primer on the American health care system. Using simple-to-understand language supplemented by insightful anecdotes and examples, the author cuts through the thicket of health care reform rhetoric to offer a step-by-step blueprint for achieving real improvements in health care delivery, as well as putting curbs on growing health care costs. He explains how health insurance works in the U.S. compared with the rest of the world and outlines the barriers to American reform. He also discusses why health care costs are going up so rapidly and sets realistic goals for care improvement.

via Amazon.com: Health Care Will Not Reform Itself: A User’s Guide to Refocusing and Reforming American Health Care: George C. Halvorson: Books.


Illness, medical bills linked to nearly two-thirds of bankruptcies

June 4, 2009

Medical bankruptcy in the United States, 2007: Results of a national study,” David U. Himmelstein, M.D; Deborah Thorne, Ph.D.; Elizabeth Warren, J.D.; Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H. American Journal of Medicine, June 4, 2009 (online). [Full text] [Fact Sheet] [Q&A]

Medical problems contributed to nearly two-thirds (62.1 percent) of all bankruptcies in 2007, according to a study in the August issue of the American Journal of Medicine that will be published online Thursday. The data were collected prior to the current economic downturn and hence likely understate the current burden of financial suffering. Between 2001 and 2007, the proportion of all bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by 49.6 percent. The authors’ previous 2001 findings have been widely cited by policy leaders, including President Obama.

Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by medical problems had health insurance. More than three-quarters (77.9 percent) were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness, including 60.3 percent who had private coverage. Most of the medically bankrupt were solidly middle class before financial disaster hit. Two-thirds were homeowners and three-fifths had gone to college. In many cases, high medical bills coincided with a loss of income as illness forced breadwinners to lose time from work. Often illness led to job loss, and with it the loss of health insurance. More…

Full text of the study is on-line or through the American Journal of Medicine, ajmmedia@elsevier.com , (212) 633-3944.


OSHPP Panel | Explaining the Successes and Failures of Certain Health Policies

June 3, 2009

The Organized Section for Health Politics and Policy is hosting a panel on Explaining the Successes and Failures of Certain Health Policies (Primary co-sponsor:  Division 25, Public Policy) at the APSA Annual Meeting in Toronto, 9.3-6.09.

This panel will analyze the factors that contribute to the success and failure of specific health care policies in the U.S. and other nations.

Chair: (tentatively scheduled)

Discussants: Terry S. Weiner, Union College
Frank J. Thompson, Rutgers-Newark

Papers:

  • Reliable in Their Future: An Analysis of Healthcare Reform Policies in Public Systems. Damien Contandriopoulos, University of Montreal.
  • How Did Change Happen? The Complex Institutions: An Institutional Account of China’s HIV/AIDS Policy Shift, 1985-2007. Wenjue Lu Knutsen, Queen’s University.
  • Governing Biotechnology: Why do Governments Bother? A Comparative Analysis of Public Policies in Reproductive Technology, Embryo Research, and Stem Cells Research. Isabelle Engeli, European University Institute, Florence and Frederic Varone, University of Geneva.
  • Handling the High Spenders: Implications of the Distribution of Health Expenditures for Financing Health CareRaisa Berlin Deber, University of Toronto and Kenneth Lam, University of Toronto.
  • Reviewing and Reassessing the Problem of HIV/AIDS. Anna Persson, University of California, Los Angeles and Martin Sjostedt, University of Gothenburg, Sweden.

Source: OSHPP News. The Organized Section for Health Politics and Policy Newsletter Vol 1 Number 4. May 27, 2009


OSHPP Panel | Health Priorities, Agenda-setting, and Political Tensions: Defining the Public Interest in Health

June 3, 2009

The Organized Section for Health Politics and Policy is hosting a panel on Health Priorities, Agenda-setting, and Political Tensions: Defining the Public Interest in Health at the APSA Annual Meeting in Toronto, 9.3-6.09.

This panel takes a very diverse look at systems’ complex needs to meet health service and population health obligations in the context of differing interest pressures and decision-making frameworks.

ChairMary C. Segers, Rutgers Newark (tentative)

Discussant: Tim Hicks, University of Oxford

Papers:

  • Health Sector Reform in Kazakhstan and Its Implications for Reproductive Health. Alex Danilovich, KIMEP (tentative).
  • State Regulation of Rape Insurance and HIV Prevention in India and South Africa. Lisa Boswell Sharlach, University of Alabama at Birmingham.
  • Priority-Setting in the Korean Health Care System: ‘Credit Claiming’ or ‘Blame Avoidance?’ Minah Kang, EWHA Woman’s University, ROK and Michael Reich, Harvard University
  • Health Policymaking in the Contemporary Czech Republic. Leah Seppanen Anderson, Wheaton College.
  • Local demand for a global intervention: Public policy priorities in the time of AIDS. Kim Yi Dionne, University of California at Los Angeles.

Source: OSHPP News. The Organized Section for Health Politics and Policy Newsletter Vol 1 Number 4. May 27, 2009


OSHPP Panel | Health Policy, Crossing National Boundaries, and Ideological Paradigms

June 3, 2009

The Organized Section for Health Politics and Policy is hosting a panel on Health Policy, Crossing National Boundaries, and Ideological Paradigms (Co-sponsor:  Division 11, Comparative Politics) at the APSA Annual Meeting in Toronto, 9.3-6.09.

The delivery of health care does not stop at national boundaries:  wealth, migration, disasters, epidemics, differential resources, and perceptions of capacity and quality all mean that no nation’s health system is detached from those of others.

Chair: Thomas R. Oliver, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Discussant: Jeremy Youde, University of Minnesota-Duluth

Papers:

  • Cross-border Health Cooperation in Zones of Conflict. William J. Long, Georgia Institute of Technology.
  • Changing Borders: The Complexities of Cross-Border Healthcare in the United States and European Union. Miriam J. Laugesen, University of California, Los Angeles.
  • Public-Private Partnerships in a Globalizing World: The Case of The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. Shelby Hockenberry, University of Delaware.
  • Funding Foci, Cost Effectiveness, and Recipients’ Priorities for Global Health: Are US Foundations More Responsive Than Official Development Assistance? Daniel Esser, Columbia University.
  • Health and Canadian Foreign Policy: Canada’s Menu of Choices to Improve Global Drug Access. Dr. Jillian Clare Kohler, University of Toronto.

Source: OSHPP News. The Organized Section for Health Politics and Policy Newsletter Vol 1 Number 4. May 27, 2009


OSHPP Panel | System Effects, Path Dependence, and Health Policy

June 3, 2009

The Organized Section for Health Politics and Policy is hosting a panel on System Effects, Path Dependence, and Health Policy (Co-sponsor:  Division 25, Public Policy) at the APSA Annual Meeting in Toronto, 9.3-6.09.

National, regional, and local political culture, history, and path dependence have profound effects on systems’ policymaking about what health services to deliver, and how.

Chair: Edward A. Miller, Brown University

Discussants: Jeremy Green, Yale University
Terry S. Weiner, Union College

Papers:

  • Bridging International and National Regulatory Policymaking on Medical Devices: A Comparison of the EU, Japan and the U.S. Christa Altensetter, City University of New York.
  • Access to Care vs. Access to Coverage: Explaining One State’s Policy Choices. Mary A. Clark, Tulane University.
  • Transitions between Private and Public Health Insurance Plans: Why it happens and What are Peoples Experiences? Colleen Grogan, University of Chicago.
  • New Governance In Action: The Renewed War On Cancer In The United States And European Union. Thomas R. Oliver, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
  • The Crisis of the Divided Welfare State: Surprising Lessons from France. Marc E. Smyrl, Universite De Montpellier.

Source: OSHPP News. The Organized Section for Health Politics and Policy Newsletter Vol 1 Number 4. May 27, 2009


OSHPP Panel | Comparative Political Economy of Health

June 3, 2009

The Organized Section for Health Politics and Policy is hosting a panel on Comparative Political Economy of Health (Primary co-sponsor:  Division 11, Comparative Politics) at the APSA Annual Meeting in Toronto, 9.3-6.09.

This panel explores comparative political economy of health in the OECD countries, with special attention to topics of inequality, institutional diversity, and both cross-national and sub-national differences in access to care from a political economy perspective.

Chair: Julia Lynch, University of Pennsylvania

Discussants: Suzanne Chapman, Harvard University
Mathhew Harding, Stanford University

Papers:

  • Territorial Health Inequalities in EuropeJulia Lynch, University of Pennsylvania.
  • Death and Politics: How Partisanship and Inequality Shape Health in the OECD. Marcus Alexander, Harvard University.
  • Diffusion and Democratic Politics:  The Rise and Fall of the National Health Service Model. Katerina Linos, Harvard University.
  • Poor Health at High Cost? The Effects of Wealth and Institutions on Mortality in Advanced Democracies. Matthew Harding, Stanford University and Carlos LaManche

Source: OSHPP News. The Organized Section for Health Politics and Policy Newsletter Vol 1 Number 4. May 27, 2009


OSHPP Theme Panel | Health System Complexity and Change: Measuring the Politics of Delivering Care

June 3, 2009

The Organized Section for Health Politics and Policy is hosting a Theme Panel: Health System Complexity and Change: Measuring the Politics of Delivering Care at the APSA Annual Meeting in Toronto, 9.3-6.09.

This Theme panel uses comparative perspectives to illuminate health system complexity and forecast system capacity to assure access to what has become generally regarded as the right to health care.

Chair: Sue Tolleson-Rinehart, UNC Chapel Hill

Discussants: Mark A. Peterson, UCLA
Sue Tolleson-Rinehart, UNC Chapel Hill

Papers:

  • Rational Historical Institutionalism:  Post-War Health Policy in Sweden and the UK Tim Hicks, Oxford University.
  • Health Care in Crisis: The Drive for Health Reform in Canada and the United States. Antonia Maioni, McGill University, and Theodore Marmor, Yale University.
  • Close to Home:  The Impact of Media Attention on Public Health Outcomes. Patricia Strach, Harvard University and Erika Franklin Fowler, University of Michigan & Wesleyan University.
  • Health Care Reform: The Politics of Physician Autonomy and Compensation. René McEldowney, Auburn University.
  • The Political Determinants of Health: A Cross-National Study. Simon Wigley, Bilkent Univeristy.

Source: OSHPP News. The Organized Section for Health Politics and Policy Newsletter Vol 1 Number 4. May 27, 2009


The Commonwealth Fund | Issue Brief: The Massachusetts Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector: Structure and Functions

May 30, 2009

Amy M. Lischko, Sara S. Bachman, and Alyssa Vangeli, The Massachusetts Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector: Structure and Functions, The Commonwealth Fund, May 28, 2009. Full text of issue brief.

The Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority is the centerpiece of Massachusetts’ ambitious health care reforms, which were implemented beginning in 2006. The Connector is an independent quasi-governmental agency created by the Massachusetts legislature to facilitate the purchase of affordable, high-quality health insurance by small businesses and individuals without access to employer-sponsored coverage. This issue brief describes the structure and functions of the Connector, providing a primer to policymakers interested in exploring similar reforms at the state and national level. The authors describe how the Connector works to promote administrative ease, eliminate paperwork, offer portability of coverage, and provide some standardization and choice of plans. National policymakers looking to achieve similar policy goals may find some of the structural components and functions of the Connector to be transferable to a national health reform model, say the authors. More at: The Massachusetts Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector: Structure and Functions – The Commonwealth Fund.


Access and Affordability: An Update on Health Reform in Massachusetts, Fall 2008 – The Commonwealth Fund

May 28, 2009

Sharon K. Long, Ph.D., and Paul B. Masi, Access and Affordability: An Update on Health Reform in Massachusetts, Fall 2008, Health Affairs Web Exclusive, May 28, 2009, w578–w587. Full text.

More than two years after implementation of its landmark health insurance reforms, Massachusetts had achieved historically high levels of coverage and widespread improvements in access to care, according to this study—the latest in a series of updates, funded by the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation, The Commonwealth Fund, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, on implementation of the state’s reforms. The authors find, however, that constraints on provider capacity and rising health care costs—trends that predate reform—have eroded some of the gains. Massachusetts is now seeking ways to contain costs and expand provider capacity, including a proposal to shift from fee-for-service provider payments to global fees that emphasize care coordination and collaboration. More at: Access and Affordability: An Update on Health Reform in Massachusetts, Fall 2008 – The Commonwealth Fund.