This seems like a relatively well researched and interesting article on the cost of healthcare in the US vs other OECD countries:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/10/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries.html
You’re right, that’s a very interesting article. Lots of good discussion about why US healthcare is so much more expensive than the rest of the world.
Over the holiday, Bruce Bartlett posted this: A Conservative Case for the Welfare State. It focuses on pensions and health care, which isn’t quite the whole “Welfare State”, but those are certainly two of the elephants in the room.
American conservatives, being far more libertarian than their continental counterparts, reject the welfare state for both moral and efficiency reasons. It creates unhappiness, they believe, and inevitably becomes bloated, undermining incentives and economic growth.
One problem with this conservative view is its lack of an empirical foundation. Research by Peter H. Lindert of the University of California, Davis, shows clearly that the welfare state is not incompatible with growth while providing a superior quality of life to many of those left to sink or swim in America.
In a new paper for the New America Foundation, Professor Lindert summarizes his findings. He points out that there are huge efficiencies in providing pensions and health care publicly rather than privately. A main reason is that in a properly run welfare state, benefits are nearly universal, which eliminates vast amounts of administrative overhead necessary to decide who is entitled to benefits and who isn’t, as is the case in America, and eliminates the disincentives to work resulting from benefit phase-outs.
…
The one area where the United States tops all other countries in terms of health is cost. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States spent more than any other country – 17.4 percent of gross domestic product on health in 2009, 8.3 percent through government programs such as Medicare and 9.1 percent privately. By contrast, Britain spent only 9.8 percent of G.D.P. on health, 8.2 percent publicly and 1.6 privately.Thus, for no more than the United States already spends through government, we could have a national health-insurance system equal to that in Britain. The 7.6 percent of G.D.P. difference between American and British total health spending is about equal to the revenue raised by the Social Security tax. So, in effect, having a single-payer health system like Britain’s could theoretically give Americans 7.6 percent of G.D.P. to spend on something else – equivalent to abolishing the payroll tax.
This is a powerful conservative argument for national health insurance. There are many other ways, as well, in which what the conservatives call bloated European welfare states are actually very efficient. This fact is disguised in commonly cited data for spending as a share of G.D.P. because so much social spending in the United States takes the form of tax expenditures, which are de facto spending.
Looks like state-run health insurance exchanges are getting in gear. 17 states so far are approved. Most states will be leaving it to the feds, though.
Well, no, because she says that a lot of other people said things without linking any of it. Plus,
Sally C. Pipes is President, CEO, and Taube Fellow in Health Care Studies at the Pacific Research Institute. Her latest book is The Pipes Plan: The Top Ten Ways to Dismantle and Replace Obamacare (Regnery 2012)
She may be quoting all of the people who are getting it right, but how can I tell?
Contrast her apocalypse with this:
https://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/benefits/Articles/Pages/Health-Premiums-2013.aspx
In 2012, U.S. companies and their employees saw the lowest health care premium rate increases in six years, according to an analysis by consultancy Aon Hewitt. The average health care premium rate increase for large employers in 2012 was 4.9 percent, down from 8.5 percent in 2011 and 6.2 percent in 2010. In 2013, however, average health care premium increases are projected to jump up to 6.3 percent.
On average, Aon Hewitt forecasts that companies will see 2013 cost increases of 7.0 percent for health maintenance organization (HMO) plans, 6.1 percent for preferred provider organization (PPO) plans and 6.1 percent for point-of-service (POS) plans. From 2012 to 2013, the average cost per person for major companies is estimated to increase from $10,659 to $11,405 for HMOs, $10,433 to $11,069 for PPOs and $11,062 to $11,737 for POS plans.
Now maybe that’s a partisan group (The Society for Human Resource Management is the world’s largest association devoted to human resource management; I could find no activism with a brief look), but I sure like the clarity and comprehensiveness of their page vs. her fearmongering in a conservative publication’s Opinion section.
That’s what I thought. Thanks.
Well, primarily, she’s probably trying to sell her book.
Sally C. Pipes is President, CEO, and Taube Fellow in Health Care Studies at the Pacific Research Institute. Her latest book is The Pipes Plan: The Top Ten Ways to Dismantle and Replace Obamacare (Regnery 2012).
Having said that, it appears that premiums are indeed going up, though I have a hard time believing an average of $3k/year as Ms Pipes says.
SHRM said in October that the average would be going up around $1000 total:
Aon Hewitt’s analysis showed that in 2012:[INDENT] The average health care cost per employee was $10,522, up from $10,034 in 2011.
The employees’ portion of the total health care premium was $2,204, up from $2,090 in 2011.
Average employee out-of-pocket costs, such as co-payments, co-insurance and deductibles, were $2,200, up from $2,072 in 2011.
[/INDENT]For 2013, average health plan premium costs per employee are projected to jump to $11,188, of which average employee contributions to the health plan premium would be $2,385. In addition, average employee out-of-pocket costs (co-pays, co-insurance and deductibles) would be $2,429.
Another data point: the WSJ reported back in September that an increase is coming:
First, the bad news: You will likely be paying higher premiums next year, with 13% of companies planning to raise their employees’ contributions to health-care costs by five percentage points or more, and 42% planning premium increases of one to five percentage points, according to a July survey of employers by benefits consultant Towers Watson.Some good news: The pace of that growth is slowing. Employer health-care costs are expected to rise by 5.3% in 2013, compared with 5.9% this year, according to the survey.
Since they’re not selling books, the WSJ also includes some mitigating factors, such as improved dependent coverage and higher spending caps.
Edit: Dang it, Houngan, type slower!
Can’t get a link to it but the local paper on Saturday ran a story telling readers to expect a double digit premium increase at their next health insurance re-up. I remember that including Aetna, Blue Shield and Anthem.
Well, this sucks and is one of those unintended consequences in our local area:
SIOUX CITY (AP) — Hospice of Siouxland is laying off 28 workers due to funding changes in federal health care programs for the elderly and poor.
Hospice announced the layoffs Friday.
Hospice officials reported a nearly 30 percent decline in the number of patients they’re able to serve because of changing regulations in Medicare and Medicaid services.
Hospice director Linda Todd said the action was a last resort and that the organization is “extremely disappointed by the change.”
Affected employees will receive severance packages and assistance in securing new job opportunities in the area. The layoffs, which went into effect Saturday, reduce the staff to about 120 workers.
Hospice of Siouxland has satellite offices in Le Mars and South Sioux City, Neb.
This isn’t a greedy CEO looking for excuses to cut people - I know these people as we sometimes have done some volunteer work and they are passionate about helping elderly and sick people in their homes. They also had to cut the people they serve down about 30%. I will talk to the head guy and get the details on what the changes are that forced them to do this; I know they were trying everything they could to avoid this.
For Americans Under 50, Stark Findings on Health
Younger Americans die earlier and live in poorer health than their counterparts in other developed countries, with far higher rates of death from guns, car accidents and drug addiction, according to a new analysis of health and longevity in the United States.
Researchers have known for some time that the United States fares poorly in comparison with other rich countries, a trend established in the 1980s. But most studies have focused on older ages, when the majority of people die.
…
Car accidents, gun violence and drug overdoses were major contributors to years of life lost by Americans before age 50.
…
The panel sought to explain the poor performance. It noted the United States has a highly fragmented health care system, with limited primary care resources and a large uninsured population. It has the highest rates of poverty among the countries studied.Education also played a role. Americans who have not graduated from high school die from diabetes at three times the rate of those with some college, Dr. Woolf said. In the other countries, more generous social safety nets buffer families from the health consequences of poverty, the report said.
Still, even the people most likely to be healthy, like college-educated Americans and those with high incomes, fare worse on many health indicators.
Oh, Mr. Glass-Half-Empty, you’re missing the upside, which is that we’re weeding out our poor people faster than every other developed country, too!
</sarcasm>
Hmm, good point. Maybe we should reverse course on that birth control thing, so the replacement rate goes down too.
+1
Poverty raises TFR anyway…
The breast pump industry is booming, thanks to Obamacare
The legislators who drafted Obamacare wrestled with cosmic issues of health and spending, but here’s one consequence they didn’t foresee: a boom in demand for breast pumps that has left some retailers scrambling to keep up.
Tucked within the Affordable Care Act is a provision requiring insurance companies to cover breast pumps and visits to lactation consultants at no cost to the patient.
Other mandated benefits, including the requirement to pay for contraceptives, drew far more attention and controversy. But when health insurance plans began resetting Jan. 1 under the new terms, it was the breast-pump clause that took off with consumers.
Who said Obamacare wouldn’t create jobs? But not everyone is happy about it:
In late July, Aetna sent lactation consultants a letter noting that the company was expanding its “network of international board certified lactation consultants” and inviting providers to join.
Some lactation consultants, however, have declined these entreaties, saying that the reimbursement rates insurance companies have offered are significantly lower than the amount they charge for a consultation.
Have at it, you wags - milk this one for all it’s worth.
As someone who’s had pre-existing conditions for the past 21 years and forced to carry individual health insurance for the past 5 years due to those PE conditions, you might think I’d be in favor of Obamacare. But I’m not, and I never have been.
For the past 5 years in March, my insurance premium has increased an average of 8% per year. Once the premium reached a value I could no longer comfortably afford, I had to switch to a plan with a much higher deductible to reduce it. Yesterday, I received a letter from my provider informing me that my insurance premium for this year would be increasing from $766/month to $881/month, an increase of 15%, nearly double the previous average increase. But, hey–at least I’m helping to fund insurance coverage for those who previously didn’t feel they needed it, were too cheap to pay for it, or couldn’t afford it, because they refused to work.
Please attempt to convince me Obamacare’s good for me. I dare you.
I sure won’t take your dare. Obamacare is what happens when the government attempts to control virtually every aspect of health insurance. Unintended consequences abound. If you think Obamacare’s effect on your premiums is bad, wait until all the young adults who post in these forums see what will happen to their premiums in 2014. Why? Because Obamacare dictates that insurance companies must use 3 to 1 age rating bands. What does that mean? Commonly, in states that require the use of age rating bands, ratios of 5 to 1 or greater are used. That means the premium rates for any given age band can’t be more than 5 times that of any of the others. But Obamacare dictates 3 to 1. That’s good news for an old fart like me, but it’s really bad for any young adult who has to buy their own health insurance. Their premiums are going to skyrocket.
If you think this is just the ranting of a Republican curmudgeon, think again. Even the most liberal state insurance commissioners, like California’s Dave Jones are really worried about this:
“We are very concerned about what will happen if essentially there is so much rate shock for young people that they’re bound not to purchase [health insurance] at all,” California insurance commissioner Dave Jones, told federal health officials. “It is a big problem for those of us, like in California, who are moving forward very aggressively to implement this [health law] and want to be successful.” - Kaiser Health News
Jones, along with the other state insurance commissioners, have been trying to get Health and Human Services to phase in the age rating bands. But HHS has made it clear there’s nothing they can do, since the Obamacare statute is clear that the rating bands must be in place on 1/1/14.
Premium increases has nothing to do with increased risks or costs of providing you coverage and everything to do with insurers having a cover for record profit taking. In the states where insurers are obligated to justify premium increases - it was kept at pre-ACA level increases. Elsewhere ACA magically (because it isn’t in effect yet!) increased costs.
ACA has a lot of warts, but your 2011 and 2012 rate increases have very little to do with it. Plus you have to realize that 8%/year is unsustainable. You might make it to Medicare, but someone in mid 30s in your situation won’t.
Wrong. ACA went into effect for premiums in 2011. Carriers have been required to spend 85% of premiums in the large group market and 80% of premiums in the individual and small group market on health care. Anything above that amount was rebated to insureds starting last year. So if those premium increases really are for unjustified profits only, the excess will be going back to their customers in the form of rebates. All the publicity about rate increases ignores that fact. If the insurer can’t show that 85/80% was paid out in claims, that excess gets returned.