Stagnant Wages and Declining Medical Insurance: Root Causes

Household incomes stagnated in Virginia while the number of uninsured increased during the past economic cycle, contends the Commonwealth Institute for Fiscal Analysis in a recent report, “Feeling the Pinch: The State of Working Virginia.” (I came across the report after reading about it in today’s Washington Post.)

“Despite seeing incomes rise this year, more Virginians are falling into poverty and fewer are able to afford health insurance,” said Michael Cassidy, executive director of the Commonwealth Institute, in an earlier press release based on the latest Census data. “This demonstrates how the bottom has fallen out for low income workers in the state’s economy — their wages have tanked in recent years — and the benefits like life insurance coverage that go along with most jobs have vanished.”

Cassidy doesn’t touch upon it, but there is a direct connection between stagnant wages and the rising rate of uninsurance. It’s the soaring cost of providing medical insurance coverage. Spending more on medical insurance leaves less for employers to pay in higher wages. The common thread: out-of-control costs in the health care sector.

Cassidy brushes up against the problem, but never quite grasps it. Health care coverage is declining mainly in the private sector, he writes. “According to Census data, 69.4 percent of Virginians received coverage from any private insurance plan in 2007. … Since 2000, the private insurance rate has fallen 6.2 percent.” Of those workers who do have insurance, Cassidy notes, they pay the highest share in the country: about 24 percent of the cost, compared to 19 percent nationally.

Cassidy emphasizes the role of public programs in offsetting the decline of private insurance. But a fundamental question needs to be asked: Why is health care insurance in Virginia so darned unaffordable? There are many reasons, but the most important the success of medical interest groups — primarily hospitals and professional societies — in lobbying the General Assembly to protect their interests at the expense of the general public. Examples include:

Mandated insurance benefits. Virginia has among the highest number of insurance mandates of any state in the country. For businesses too small to self-insure, the only option is to buy a plan subject to mandated benefits. These mandates prohibit insurers from offering less expensive, “bare bones” policies that small employers can afford. The all-too-frequent result: No health insurance at all.

The cartelization of the health care industry. Quasi monopolies under the guise of “health care systems” — Carilion in western Virginia, Inova in Northern Virginia, and Sentara in Hampton Roads — dominate Virginia’s health care system. These cartels are protected by the Certificate of Public Need that severely restricts competition from newcomers that would force a much-needed restructuring and re-engineering of the health care industry. (See “Big Questions for Roanoke’s Carilion” and “How Much Profit at Carilion Is Too Much?”)

The craft unionization of the health care workforce. All of the health care professions are certified and licensed. They carve out professional turf and use state law to ensure that other professions cannot infringe upon it. This legally sanctioned craft unionization makes it difficult to re-engineer hospitals to make their processes more efficient.

The employer-based health care insurance system is a mess, as are the government-administered Medicare and Medicaid programs. Private insurance is bloated with layers of unnecessary administrative overhead. Medicare and Medicaid are riddled with fraud. Both need to be fixed. But the root problem is the lack of business innovation in the health care sector, the resulting lag in labor productivity and the difficulty in improving patient outcomes. Until we address these ground-level problems — rooted in a political economy in which health care providers manipulate the political system to their advantage — most debate about health care “reform” in this country is a waste of time.

I’ve touched on only a small piece of what the Commonwealth Institute report covers. As I’ve said about institute’s studies in the past, I often take issue with the findings and implications of the findings. But I do applaud the group for raising important issues of social equity and supporting them with facts, rather than spewing a lot of unsubstantiated rhetoric. The Commonwealth Institute raises the bar of public discourse, and for that it should be commended.


ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)




Comments


Comments

26 responses to “Stagnant Wages and Declining Medical Insurance: Root Causes”

  1. Anonymous Avatar

    Maybe we can import health care from China.

    Or if we have enough mobility, we can just go buy it overseas. India is already a hotbed for bypass surgery, and South Africa for plastic surgery.

    RH

  2. Anonymous Avatar

    “These mandates prohibit insurers from offering less expensive, “bare bones” policies that small employers can afford. The all-too-frequent result: No health insurance at all.”

    The mandates may be too many, but they prevent the companies from selling empty policies with virtually no meaningful coverage. As it is, insurance companies can cancel your coverage for up to two years, and do it retroactively.

    A bare bones policy may do the owner very little good. Health care is so expensive that insufficient coverage and no coverage lead to the same result: bankruptcy.

    And not just for the lower classes of earners.

    RH

  3. Jim Bacon Avatar

    Actually, Ray, the “bare bones” insurance policy does a *lot* of good. Even if the insurance company does not stroke a check to the policyholder to cover a percentage of the bill, the insurer still uses its clout with the hospitals and doctors to get a reduced charge.

    Let’s say the hospital bills $1,000 to take our your appendix. The insurance company negotiates a discount from the price charged to uninsured patients to, say, $300. Let’s say a comprehensive medical insurance plan would reimburse 80 percent of the $300 to the policyholder, but a bare-bones plan reimburses 0.

    The bare-bones plan still benefits the policyholder. Instead of paying $1,000 for the procedure, he pays only $300. Under the better plan, he’d pay only $60. Sure, the comprehensive plan is better…. if you can afford it. But if you can’t, the bare-bones plan still is vastly preferable than no insurance at all.

  4. Anonymous Avatar

    Under your example, you are correct, it does do a lot of good.
    I was thinking more of the worst case situations. What is it, 60% of bankrupties are a result of medical bills? If you are in a situation where that is the end result, then it makes not a lot of difference whether the insurance covered 80% of the bill or 60% of the bill: you are still broke either way because even 20% of the bill could be your net income for five years.

  5. Anonymous Avatar

    Remember the Wall Street Journal about Carilion in Roanoke a few weeks ago?

    Apparently, the number of uninsured or under-insured people in the area is so big that Carilion has its own weekly day in General District Court to go after them with lawsuits or liens for lack of payment.

    This is a pathetic state of affairs.

    One idea comes from a doctor buddy of mine who practices out of state. They go for the highest deductible policies they can for their staff to save money but then have a separate office slush fund
    just to help pay those deductibles. They still save money.

    Did anyone say national health care?

    Peter Galuszka

  6. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    No national health care. No to substandard, inefficient, stupid socialism.

    Individual health savings accounts.

    Starting here in Virginia. Commonwealth Trust Accounts. Funded with existing taxes (no new taxes) – use sales taxes, individual and corporate shares tax deductible, gifts tax deductible, etc.

  7. Anonymous Avatar

    “No national health care. No to substandard, inefficient, stupid socialism.”

    Fine with me. But how about a little competition? Besides, what we have now is already substandard, inefficient, and stupid.

    When’s the last time you saw a “special” or “sale” or “discount” for an MRI, check-up, or other exam?

    Here’s one for ya – My grandmother has rheumatoid arthritis and she wants to switch doctors because her current MD has her taking 8-10 pills/day.

    The MD she is seeing now is partners with another doctor and she is not “allowed” to switch Dr’s…it’s against office policy.

    So, what does she have to do? She has to go back to her family doctor in order to get another “referral” to see another specialist.

    Mo’ Money!

    Our substandard, inefficient, and stupid health care system will be downfall of The Republic because companies will employ workers overseas that are covered by a “socialist” system…..as a matter of fact, they already are!

  8. Tyler Craddock Avatar
    Tyler Craddock

    One idea comes from a doctor buddy of mine who practices out of state. They go for the highest deductible policies they can for their staff to save money but then have a separate office slush fund just to help pay those deductibles. They still save money.

    If I understand your example correctly, that is basically how a Health Savings Account (HSA) works. You get a catastrophic plan and use the premiums savings to fund a flex account that you use for high frequency, low cost (relatively) events such as sick visits.

  9. Anonymous Avatar

    How about national health insurance that does not prohibit you from getting private health insurance, or buying health services out of your own pocket?

    JAB seems to think that national health insurance means that is the ONLY insurance.

    Or, how how private health insurance with the proviso that you must take on all comers at one price for equal policies? The real problem with health insurance now is for those whom it is unavailable – at any price. Cherry picking makes it impossible for some, expensive for others, and a rip-off for the healthy few.

    The system we have sucks, let’s face it. So much so that when I as disabled, my social security advisor seriously suggested that I move to Canada, just so I could get health insurance. (He was Canadian)

    Health savings acounts sound fine on the surface, but it still means you are self insuring – which kind of defeats the purpose of sharing the risks. They are NOT insurance, but they SHOULD be allowed to supplement insurance.

    The Republicans would do small business a huge favor if they would help get healthcare off their backs. They would give their pro-business stance a big shot in the arm if they got fully behind national health care and releive business of that burden.

    RH

  10. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    RH: There isn’t a single economic or health – quality of service – reason for national health care.

    It isn’t a function of the federal government. Insurance is a stretch of the Constitution as it is.

    Let Virginia take the lead with individual health savings accounts that include a stipend for each person from the sales tax. $1.5 b – $200 @ yr for 7 m Virginians.

    National Healthcare – like medicare and medicaid will be a burden on all citizens as it burdens the economy with taxes.

    As noted above, if you increase supply then you lower price. Increase competition. Increase supply.

  11. Anonymous Avatar

    Insurance predates the constitution by quite a bit. Our society cannot funtion without insurance, and even societies far less advanced than ours have it. In the old Chinese system you paid the doctor monthly: if you got ill, then you stopped paying him. Since everybody paid in, it was a crude system of national health insurance, and an incentive to doctors as well.

    And, yes, there is a quality of service reason for national health insurance. Our national health statistics are a shambles compared with many other developed nations. And, let’s not confuse national health care with national health insurance: they are NOT the same.

    Yes, national health insurance will be a burden, same as national defense is a burden. It is not something you should be without. It is also not something you should have more of than you can afford.

    But, health insurance in particular is a matter of sharing the risks. It is a matter of sharing because critical care is something almost all of us will need at one time or another.

    A health savings account is a good idea because we know that much of our health care expense will be near the end of our life: there is no reason not to have a reasonable savings plan for that. But it isn’t the same as insurance.

    If you buy health insurance, that is not a tax, it is a users fee, and a national plan should be administered as such, like the Chinese system.

    I can understand the point of increasing the amount of healthcare professionals available, to lower costs, but how do you increase competition among insurance companies, which are a virtual cartel to begin with? One way is to make them compete with the national plan. They can become the AFLACS that provide insurance over and above whatever we decide is the minimum amount. If the national plan has a high deductible, they can compete with policies to fill in the lower end of the gap.

    I’m sorry JAB, you are just wrong on this one, though I can see where you are coming from. For example, I paid insurance premiums (myself and through my employer) for over thirty years, without a claim. One day I suddenly got sick enough that I eventually could not work, was disabled and lost my job – and my insurance.

    You tell me: where is the “insurance” in that system?

    Do I sound bitter? Yeah, I think I’ll go comfort myself with my gun and my Bible, but frankly, I’d rather have the insurance.

    You don’t need to respond, I’m not convincible on this one.

    RH

  12. Anonymous Avatar

    I’m not even that hard over on this. I’d settle for one simple thing. A regulation that says “If you want to sell health insurance in the U.S., then you must offer a policy with these minimum benefits at this maximum price to all comers, bar none.”

    Getting a catastrophic plan, and backing it up with a savings plan is great – If you can get a catastrophic plan, and if you have any savings left over after.

    Declare insurance to be interstate commerce and regulate it nationally. What the heck, if I have insurance, then it covers me no matter what state I’m in, right?

    RH

  13. You wanna know why so many people want to work for the Federal, State and Local Governments and school systems and the armed forces?

    Health Care.

    re: “It isn’t a function of the federal government. Insurance is a stretch of the Constitution as it is.”

    I think we have a seriously hypocritical attitude.

    Take away the current health insurance that people get with the Feds, State and Local Government, schools, etc and see how fast those derisive attitudes with respect to ‘socialized’ medicine come unraveled.

    Take away from State and Federal and local legislators – their health insurance perks and see how fast we “do something” about health care.

    Other countries are cleaning our economic clocks because they recognize that health care is the key to innovation and competitiveness.

  14. Tyler Craddock Avatar
    Tyler Craddock

    Ray,

    I have to ask: Where specifically in the the US Constitution is the Congress empowered to run a national health care system?

  15. Anonymous Avatar

    “Until we address these ground-level problems — rooted in a political economy in which health care providers manipulate the political system to their advantage — most debate about health care “reform” in this country is a waste of time.”

    Amen – this blog regularly beats up on the General Assembly. But compared to Congress, the General Assembly is the church choir.

    How long has Congress resisted reforms for Freddie and Fannie? Chris Dodd is the biggest recipient of their campaign contributions. Congress cannot fix Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, immigration, the Tax Code. Moreover, bar none — Democratic controlled, Republican controlled or split control, this current Congress is the worst I’ve ever seen in terms of hollow pandering and accomplishing nothing.

    Why would anyone think that Congress would do anything but make health care worse than it is today? National health care would be in bankruptcy within 10 years.

    We need to harness market forces (look at costs for lasik and laser eye surgery versus costs for covered procedures); we need to crack down on health care cartels (treble damage antitrust suits); and we need some ways of sharing risk responsibly (but I don’t what Chris Dodd doing the figuring). We don’t need more corruption from Congress as it sells the country for campaign contributions. Keep in mind that Gerry Connolly may well be one of its members next year!

    Also, there is a huge problem with illegal immigration that stands in the way of health care problems. How much of the uninsured are also not in the U.S. legally? Who is going to pay for those people and their kids? Certainly not the employers who hire them. Also, make health care another entitlement and we have an even greater incentive to come here illegally.

    National health care would be the biggest failure in American history.

    TMT

  16. Anonymous Avatar

    Who said anything about a national health care system?

    Nationally regulated health insurance, made available to all, is NOT a “National Health Care System”.

    So far, State regulated health care is the biggest failure in American history.

    Larry is right on this one. Other countries are cleaning our clocks on this.

  17. Every single Federal Employee is entitled to his/her choice of the available health care plans that range from bare-bones to gold-plated and priced accordingly.

    There are about 10 different providers. None of them can reject anyone for any reason.

    Federal employees are not required to buy health insurance but the participation rate is virtually 100 percent because with a wide-choice of plans – there is something for everyone.

    AND – you can upgrade your coverage and/or change providers several times a year.

    These are the same policies that our Federal Legislators choose from.

    There is absolutely no reason at all why this type of plan cannot or should not be offered to every single American.

    We are fooling ourselves about “capitalism” and “competition” and using it as an excuse to not do what we ought to be doing.

    If we had universal coverage – we’d have many, many people that would strike out on their own – and not take that “safe” job.

    We’d have many new small businesses and start-ups and many folks who would change jobs when better opportunities presented themselves instead of having to stay with a job that provides health care that their family must have.

    We subsidize home mortgages and we subsidize insurance for second homes in flood prone areas – but we can’t keep ordinary people from bankruptcy from an illness that is no fault of their own?

    Shame on us.

  18. Anonymous Avatar

    “If we had universal coverage – we’d have many, many people that would strike out on their own – and not take that “safe” job.”

    Larry is right again. I don’t see why the Pubs don’t get it.

    I’d be in some other business, except for insurance.

    RH

  19. Anonymous Avatar

    Supermarket Dental Surgery Opens in UK To Help Solve Shortage of National Health Care Dentists

    BBC: A dental surgery has opened in a supermarket in Greater Manchester. Sainsbury’s Supermarket say that the private dentist clinic in its Sale branch is the first in a supermarket in the UK. he private surgery will go head to head with the NHS, charging £16 for a check up, which is slightly less than National Health Service fees.

    From Carpe Diem

    Imagine that. National health service promotes competition!

    RH

  20. Tyler Craddock Avatar
    Tyler Craddock

    So Ray, do you or don’t you support nationalized health care?

    Whether its nationalized care or just nationally regulation of health insurance, I still cannot find authorization in the Constitution for federal involvement.

  21. Anonymous Avatar

    Oh come on.

    All you have to do is stretch: same as we have done for all the other things we do that the founders never thought of or thought we could figure out for ourselves.

    You didn’t ask if I was a strict constructionist.

    As far as I’m concerned the constitution outlines the general framework for government, provides for seperation of powers, and allocates certain powers to the states. The constitution provides a means to change itself.

    The branches of government havecertain powers, but nowhere does it say how or for what those powers may or may not be employed.

    Except in the preamble: where it talks about making this a better place, with more justice, and promoting the general welfare.

    Fixing the current shambles of a system would promote all three of those, it seems. And if it turns out we need to change th econstitution to do it, well the constitution allows that, too.

    As far as I can see, the main thing the constitution tries to prevent, is excess concentration of power. After that, anything else we decide to do is fair game.

    RH

  22. Anonymous Avatar

    No, I do not support nationalized health care.

    I don’t think that is anything like fixing the present health insurance shambles, and I resent people who try to obfuscate the two.

    That said, Bacon is right about craft unionization in health care. In an extreme example, in Maryland you are not allowed to give equine massages unless you are a veterinarian!

    In many, many cases what started out as legitimate health and safety concerns have been corrupted into protectionism for special interests.

    RH

  23. Tyler Craddock Avatar
    Tyler Craddock

    Ray,

    You still did not answer the question. Where specifically are powers granted to the legislative branch of government to make laws in this matter?

    As far as I can see, the main thing the constitution tries to prevent, is excess concentration of power. After that, anything else we decide to do is fair game.

    And, where is Congress granted this mysterious “anything else” power?

  24. Anonymous Avatar

    The legislative branch is empowered to make laws. They are not entitntle to make laws that infringe on the other branches. Otherwise, where is it written that they cannot make laws on certain subjects?

    The idea is insane. Government makes laws on auto safety, where is th elegislature granted power for that? Would we have expected the founding fathers to enable the legislature to make laws for problems that didn’t exist?

    This is so important that if they don’t have the power, then they should use their poer to change the constitution and make it so.

    My point is that there is nothing in the constitution to stop this from happening, and looking there for excuses isn’t helping us fix the problems we have.

    RH

  25. Tyler Craddock Avatar
    Tyler Craddock

    Yes, the federal government does make laws for which there seems to be no power granted to them to do so.

    The legislative branch is empowered to make laws. They are not entitntle to make laws that infringe on the other branches. Otherwise, where is it written that they cannot make laws on certain subjects?

    The federal government has only those laws we give it through the United States Constitution. The powers of the Congress are spelled out in Article I — there is no provision that if it is not mentioned, it is fair game.

    Has Congress overstepped its Constitutional bounds on other items? Yes, of course. But, that does not make it right.

  26. Anonymous Avatar

    Nonsense.

    How could we expect the founding fathers to see the need for the FCC?

    “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers”

    And among the foregoing is

    “To regulate commerce … among the several states…”

    and

    “to ….provide for the ….general welfare of the United States”

    and

    “…to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises…”

    That’s close enough for me. As far as I’m concerned they can tax th e bejeezus out of any insurance company that doesn’t comply with some minimum standards.

    I really don’t care how they do it: the situation we have is a fraud and a mess. It needs to be fixed. If we can take over Nicaragua to build the panama canal, then we can fix this mess, too.

    Maybe bending the constitution isn’t right – so amend it. And if you can’t manage that, then consider fixing healthcare the lesser of two evils and move on.

    RH

Leave a Reply


ADVERTISEMENT