Skip to main content

The Real Reason Health Care Prices Keep Rising

Much has been made of the healthcare crisis of late, but very little of it addresses two of the biggest financial problems with the system: the third party payer problem and the reality that health insurance bears no resemblance to true insurance. 

Insurance is a pooling of risk. The odds are that just over one in every 250 people will contract cancer in the next year. Cancer is an incredibly expensive disease to treat. So if 250 people got together and put aside enough savings to cover one case of cancer between them, they have effectively pooled their risk, and, on average, they should have enough to cover the statistical cancer they as a group are likely to incur.

This risk pooling works better in larger numbers. A statistician would be unsurprised if one group of 250 had four cases of cancer while three others had none. But a single group of 10,000 people is much more likely to remain near the nationwide average, and if each of the 10,000 people pays just a little extra, they should be able to cover an extra case or two. Because the risk of cancer is so remote, risk-pooling works. 

The current health “insurance” isn’t insuring against risk - a remote possibility that something might happen to an individual; it’s insuring against near-certainty. Most people are likely to get sick or injured enough to need some form of medical treatment each year. Since the Affordable Care Act outlawed catastrophic insurance - or true risk pooling - what we really see on the ground is more akin to pre-paid medical care. 

This exacerbates an already problematic third party payer issue. When someone with a catastrophic health care plan gets the flu, he is unlikely to seek medical care. For the young and healthy, the flu tends to run its course without complications. It’s only when a cold or flu lingers that he might go to his general practitioner or the urgent care center. Even then, he asks the doctor to consider the costs of the tests he wants to run. 

He’s there for two reasons: to make sure it’s not something more serious, and to get affordable treatment if it’s available. He thinks about the costs of care before deciding to seek treatment, and only does so if the gains outweigh the costs. If that same person gets cancer, he will seek whatever treatment is available and affordable to him. With catastrophic coverage, he will likely be able to afford good care, if not the most cutting edge experimental care available anywhere. 

But when we consider someone with pre-paid medical care, we know that not only is she going to have coverage for catastrophic emergencies, she is likely to go to a doctor any time she’s a bit under the weather. She has paid up front for all her medical care, so she rationally wants to get her money’s worth. The only deterrent to her is the time she will spend sitting in the waiting room, and the small co-pay she may incur. Once she gets to the doctor, there is no reason at all she shouldn’t have him look at every little thing that hurts, in addition to her flu. 

We can see two related problems trigged by the pre-paid model for health coverage. One is overconsumption/overprovision of health services. If you buy a season pass to the pool, you’re going to go a lot more often. The same is true with doctors. If a patient has an all-the-care-you-need pass (i.e. ACA-compliant coverage), it makes sense to check out every little ache and pain. The second is a disregard for the cost of various treatment options. Imagine two hypothetical flu treatments: one that relieves all symptoms after 48 hours and sells for $10 per treatment, and another that relieves all symptoms in 12 hours, but costs $1,500.  Most people who are paying their own costs out of pockets would suffer for the extra day and a half so they could afford their mortgage payment. But someone who has the buffet model is going to press for the opulent treatment. It’s only rational. 

What is not rational is continuing the national conversation on the skyrocketing costs of health care without addressing these perverse incentives. Each of us is paying for everyone else to get far more care, and care at a more expensive price, than is really needed. The fact that these costs are baked in to the price of our “insurance” should not distract us from the fact that we are all paying for them.  

Mike Davis is Research Fellow at 1889 Institute. He can be reached at mdavis@1889institute.org.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 1889 Institute.


Popular posts from this blog

Muddy, Shallow Thinking Versus Clarity in Education Reform

Monopolies are the best! If we are to gain maximum efficiency and create the greatest value for people, monopoly is the way to go. Competition creates administrative inefficiency since instead of one set of managers, there are as many as there are companies, and all of them cost money. Competitive companies make products that do the same basic things, but waste resources by making products with different features. Standardized products would save money. Were research and development under one roof, instead of many competitive ones, researchers could coordinate more closely, saving money and ultimately being even more innovative. Monopolies would therefore benefit everyone. Everything in the first paragraph is, of course, balderdash . Monopolies, especially those created by government, stifle innovation, develop bloated management, produce too little at low quality, and charge too much. Why? Because they can. They’re monopolists. Without competition and with nearly guaranteed ...
Read more

Lies We Tell in Government, and Our Debts to Truth

HBO’s mini-series,  Chernobyl ,  is a drama depicting  the disastrous  1986  explosion ,  and  hero ic efforts to control the  resulting  meltdown ,  of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine  (then part of the Soviet Union ).  A flawed man, but true hero,  Valery  Alexeyvich   Legasov , worked tirelessly to ameliorate the disaster’s consequences and  chiefly  investigated its cause. He was  Deputy Director of the  Kurchatov  Institute of Atomic Energ y , a Soviet elite, who  is portrayed at the end of  the  series making a dramatic speech at a trial about how the nuclear reactor exploded, when  such an explosion in that type of reactor  should not have been possible. In the course of the series, the audience  learns  that the reactor had a design flaw that had been covered up by the Soviet State (true).  The audience also learns  that...
Read more

Oklahoma Is OK, but Seriously, That’s Not OK

The Americans at the table, negotiating a business deal, ask one of their number, “You can speak Dutch?” He replies, “I’m OK.” With his fellow Americans looking doubtful, he proceeds to mistranslate what they want him to say to their Dutch counterparts. The “OK” translator tells the Dutch that the Americans really need a hug, when he was supposed to tell them they really need the deal. With that, the AT&T commercial ends as one of the Dutch negotiators gives an American a hug with the announcer saying, “When just OK is not OK.” There are several of these commercials, each with a different scenario, in which, indeed, just OK is not OK. And every time I see one of these commercials I think of the license plates that were once so common – “ Oklahoma is OK. ” As someone who works to develop policy suggestions intended to make Oklahoma better, and hopefully, the best that Oklahoma can be, it often seems that slogan – Oklahoma is OK – gets in the way. The fact is, in most r...
Read more

The Unfairness of Concentrated Wealth is NOTHING Compared to the Unfairness of Redistributing It

Socialist types like to accuse rich corporate types of having “too much” wealth. Simple fairness, they claim, dictates that one person should not have so much when so many have so little. But if we’re going to talk about fairness, let’s really give it fair consideration. That means looking beyond the petty jealousy and thinking about the fairness of seizing wealth from those who earned it and giving it to those who did not.   How did the wealthy get that way? The socialist types claim that the greedy capitalists exploit their workers and their consumers. Is that true? Let’s start with the workers. Jeff Bezos may be greedy. I wouldn’t know, I’ve never met him. But I did work for him - in fact I hired other people to work for him. So I can say with reasonable certainty that he hasn’t created his enormous wealth by exploiting his workers. They were all there voluntarily.   Before attending law school, I spent several months working for the temp agency that hires seasonal workers ...
Read more