In this segment, Aaron and Austin discuss the evidence on which type of insurer better controls health care costs: public or private. For more on this topic, see Austin’s post this morning, which includes links to many of our previous ones. For prior podcasts and subscription information, see our podcast archive.
Masthead
Editors in Chief
Austin Frakt
Aaron Carroll
Managing Editor
Adrianna McIntyre
Contributors
Kevin Outterson
Bill Gardner
Nicholas Bagley
Other ContributorsRecent posts
- Shkreli Awards: Profiteering and Dysfunction in US Healthcare
- What should Biden do about Medicaid work requirements?
- Does Vitamin D Influence Mood?
- How Useful Are Temperature Screenings for Covid?
- Veterans Experience Differences Between VHA and Community Providers
- The Health Of The People Should Be The Supreme Law
- What Can Be Learned From Differing Rates of Suicide Among Groups
- At-Home Testing for Covid
- Bias In, Bias Out
- Come work with me (and colleagues you’ve read here)
Archives
For speaking inquiries
Interested in having Aaron or Austin speak to your group?
For information on Aaron speaking, click here.
For information on Austin speaking, contact the Leigh Bureau.
Aaron’s stuff
Selected appearances:
The Colbert Report
Good Morning America
Sound Medicine (most recent)
The Ed ShowAustin’s stuff
Click here for links to Austin’s peer-reviewed publications and/or related posts.
Private vs. public health care cost control [podcast]
09/16/2011
multiple authors
item.php
Follow the blog
TIE Books
Amazon.com
Barnes & Noble
Indiebound
iBooks
Google
Kobo
Amazon.com
Barnes & Noble
Books-A-Million
iBooks
IndieBound
Powells
Buy at Amazon.com
Summary
Excerpt: Economic profit
Excerpt: Diminishing marginal utility
Excerpt: Four factors of production
Excerpt: Monopoly marginal revenue
Excerpt: Consumer/producer surplus
Amazon.com
Barnes & Noble
Books-A-Million
Borders
IndieBound
Powells
Borders
Barnes & Noble
IndieBound
Amazon.com
Books-A-Million
Powells
Austin and Aaron are participants in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com.Tag cloud
ACA AcademyHealth access accountable care organizations Affordable Care Act announcement blogging cancer comic competitive bidding costs cost shifting COVID-19 employer-sponsored health insurance health care costs Healthcare Triage health insurance health insurance mandates health reform hospital readmissions hospitals individual mandate insurance exchange market power Massachusetts Medicaid Medicare Medicare Advantage mortality nutrition obesity On The Record physicians politics PPACA premiums prescription drugs quality reading list reflex RWJF spending uninsured Upshot vaccines
by JayB on September 18th, 2011 at 16:35
Thanks for an interesting an provocative discussion:
Primary Response:
My sense from listening to your conversation is that you were really asking which actor the government or private insurers administering third party payor mechanisms has the greatest latitude to ration care through a regime of price controls under the system of rules and incentives that prevails in the current market and political equilibrium.
Clearly the government wins that contest. Hands down. It’s not clear to me that this demonstrates anything other than the trivial proposition that the closer a given payor approaches monopoly/monopsony, the greater the capacity to cut payments to providers, care to patients, or both. Give a private operator the same pool of tax revenues, quasi-monopoly, and statutory power and it’s not clear that they wouldn’t be able to cut reimbursements as or more effectively than the government has.
*******************************************************************************
Quasi On-Topic Rambling:
It’s also worth pondering the more pertinent question what actual people would be willing to pay to extend their lives and mitigate their suffering under systems that minimized or eliminated the role of third party payors in determining what treatments to pursue and what to pay for them.
This isn’t terribly different than what we see in the drug pricing debate. Clearly governments wielding a given amount of market share and political power can drive drug prices lower than a fragmented array of private insurers ever could. Governments can clearly squeeze drug companies harder than private buyers. That’s one thing – claiming that you can take the lowest prices that state monopsonies can squeeze out of drug companies and globalize them without impacting the supply of new and existing drugs in the present and future in a way that will have no adverse impact on the supply of both new and existing drugs is quite another.
The same questions apply to claims that we can leave all of the existing variables that affect demand in place, or increase them, *and* universalize the lowest prices that governments have been able to impose on providers without there being any adverse effects on the supply of care available. It’s not at all clear to me that the longitudinal price-growth data can support such a claim.
If that’s not the point of such longitudinal comparisons, what is?