How long ago was it that we were told the health care reform would a) control costs, b) take care of adverse selection, and c) make the insurance market workable again. Yet somehow such a policy is necessary.
Remind me again, what will happen to the quality of coverage and reimbursement, all factors included, following price controls?
Hmm … I’ll get back to this below. First, here’s (some of) what the article said. It’s not much longer than this so go read it in full if you think I might be leaving out something important.
Under the proposed rules, insurers seeking rate increases of 10 percent or more in the individual or small group market in 2011 must publicly disclose the proposed increases and the justification for them. […]
Under the proposed regulation, the federal government will evaluate each state’s procedures for analyzing insurance rates.
If the federal government finds that a state has an “effective rate review system,” the state would conduct the annual reviews of premium increases. But, the administration said, “if a state lacks the resources or authority to do thorough actuarial reviews, the Department of Health and Human Services would conduct them.” […]
In February, just one month before Congress completed work on the health care bill, Mr. Obama proposed giving federal officials the power to block excessive rate increases by health insurance companies. Congress did not accept the proposal, choosing instead to leave rate review primarily in the hands of state officials.
An official at the Department of Health and Human Services said Tuesday: “The statute does not give us authority to disapprove rates. We do not have that authority. The regulation leaves state laws intact. It does not interfere with state law. In some states, rates cannot be put into effect unless the state affirmatively approves the rate increase.” In other states, insurers must file rates with a state agency before using them, but the state does not approve or disapprove rates. [Emphasis mine.]
So, back to Cowen’s comments. I’m not sure I see the direct connection to the content of the NYT article. My thoughts and questions are:
- I agree with his implied sentiment that the law does not do enough to control costs yet was sold as cost reducing. But the sense of “cost reducing” is important here. It’s (a) relative to the counter-factual of no reform (not cost reducing in an absolute sense) and (b) following CBO’s baseline projection. I don’t think CBOs baseline projection will hold either, but in the game as it is played it’s considered a valid score. I don’t fault Democrats for touting it. Nor would I had they been Republicans or Libertarians or Martians. (Well, that would be weird.)
- What has the NYT article to do with adverse selection? There ought not be a problem if the mandate or the equivalent is in force.
- I do think the law will make the non-group insurance market far more workable than it is today, provided the law is permitted to be implemented with a mandate or the equivalent. Is it problematic to outlaw pre-existing condition exclusions? Yes, but only if individuals are permitted to game the system, shirk their personal responsibility, and get covered only when sick.
- What’s the policy here? The feds are letting the states act with some oversight. But that oversight has no teeth. It’s just a disclosure requirement. Price control? Is that price control?