Obama Comments on Ukraine Violence, Russian Influence

Julie Rovner
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Julie Rovner
Feb. 20, 2014, 6:52 a.m.

OK, let’s stip­u­late that the new health law doesn’t “bend the cost curve,” as we health wonks like to say. In oth­er words, it doesn’t be­gin ac­tu­ally cut­ting health­care spend­ing, at least not in its first dec­ade.

That’s the con­clu­sion of the first of­fi­cial gov­ern­ment es­tim­ate of the law’s im­pact on health spend­ing, is­sued last week by the ac­tu­ar­ies at the Cen­ters for Medi­care and Medi­caid Ser­vices.

The study, pub­lished on­line by the policy journ­al Health Af­fairs, found that by the year 2019 the law would in­deed provide health in­sur­ance to an ad­di­tion­al 32.5 mil­lion people, who will con­sume double the health care they would have oth­er­wise.

Giv­en that, it’s ac­tu­ally a bit sur­pris­ing that the ac­tu­ar­ies es­tim­ate spend­ing will only rise slightly — about 0.2 per­cent faster than they pro­jec­ted be­fore the law was passed.

The reas­on for that, of course, is ba­sic­ally the same reas­on the CBO still as­sumes the law might start to bend the cost curve in its second dec­ade: Medi­care. Spe­cific­ally, that re­duc­tions called for in the law will take place, and that some of the changes an­ti­cip­ated in how medi­cine is prac­ticed will ac­tu­ally hap­pen.

But while they dif­fer at the mar­gins — and they meas­ure dif­fer­ent things; one total health spend­ing, the oth­er the law’s im­pact on the fed­er­al budget — the ana­lyses by both CMS and CBO are far more alike than they are dif­fer­ent. They both pro­ject that the law will do a pretty good job cov­er­ing a lot of people for not a whole lot of ex­tra money, giv­en how much health care costs. And they both pro­ject that Con­gress didn’t man­age to fol­low through on its pledge to slow the rate of health spend­ing.

So what would?

Well, to listen to Re­pub­lic­ans, one of the most glar­ing omis­sions from the health law is its fail­ure to ad­dress the re­lated prob­lems of de­fens­ive medi­cine and mal­prac­tice dam­age awards.

“The routine nature of this so-called ‘de­fens­ive medi­cine’ is one reas­on health­care costs have skyrock­eted over the past dec­ade,” said Sen­ate Minor­ity Lead­er Mc­Con­nell, “and junk law­suits are the primary reas­on that doc­tors today spend a for­tune on li­ab­il­ity in­sur­ance even be­fore they open their doors for busi­ness.”

“We know that if we can elim­in­ate all of this de­fens­ive medi­cine that’s go­ing on, we can dra­mat­ic­ally lower the cost of health in­sur­ance around the coun­try,” agreed House Minor­ity Lead­er Boehner.

Ex­cept, as it turns out, prob­ably not.

That’s the bad news for Re­pub­lic­ans, also from Health Af­fairs, in this month’s is­sue.

First of all, the amount of money that goes to mal­prac­tice, in­clud­ing de­fens­ive medi­cine — those un­ne­ces­sary tests and treat­ments doc­tors per­form to either avoid get­ting sued or de­fend them­selves in case they do get sued — just isn’t all that large.

Ac­cord­ing to long­time Har­vard mal­prac­tice re­search­er Michelle Mello and col­leagues, the total spent an­nu­ally on mal­prac­tice-re­lated ex­penses, in 2008 num­bers, is about $55.5 bil­lion. Not ex­actly chump change, but still only 2.4 per­cent of total na­tion­al health spend­ing.

Even more de­press­ing for those hop­ing that fix­ing mal­prac­tice would fix health care comes a second study by group of re­search­ers led by Wil­li­am Thomas of the Uni­versity of South Maine.

They found that while the prac­tice of de­fens­ive medi­cine is com­mon, lower­ing mal­prac­tice premi­ums wouldn’t ac­tu­ally pro­duce much in the way of sav­ings. In fact, wrote Thomas, a 10 per­cent de­cline in med­ic­al mal­prac­tice premi­ums would res­ult in a re­duc­tion in health costs of 0.132 per­cent. Even a 30 per­cent cut in premi­ums would res­ult in over­all health cost sav­ings of only 0.4 per­cent, the re­search­ers said. “De­fens­ive medi­cine prac­tices ex­ist and are wide­spread, but their im­pact on Medi­care care costs is small,” they wrote.

Then, put­ting the icing on this sorry cake is yet a third study from a group led by Emily Car­ri­er of the Cen­ter for Study­ing Health Sys­tem Change. They found that while doc­tors are, in­deed, fear­ful of be­ing sued, their worry does not ac­cur­ately cor­res­pond to the ac­tu­al like­li­hood, giv­en the law­suit en­vir­on­ment in their state.

In oth­er words, doc­tors are hu­mans, too, and are not likely to change their be­ha­vi­or in re­sponse to per­fectly lo­gic­al stim­uli. So even if you make it less likely that they will be sued, they may still prac­tice de­fens­ive medi­cine that they shouldn’t.

None of this, the re­search­ers were quick to say, should sug­gest that law­makers ought not to try to ad­dress the prob­lems posed by what just about every­one agrees is a mal­prac­tice sys­tem that is dys­func­tion­al and does lead to un­ne­ces­sary de­fens­ive medi­cine. Among oth­er things, the sys­tem also does a poor job re­ward­ing people who ac­tu­ally are hurt by med­ic­al neg­li­gence and does little to en­cour­age the fix­ing of med­ic­al er­rors.

But will fix­ing the mal­prac­tice sys­tem slow health spend­ing in a way that the new health law does not? Nope. And what will? It’s prob­ably safe to say if any­one ac­tu­ally knew something that would do that in a way that’s polit­ic­ally pal­at­able, they would have done it by now.

What We're Following See More »
Trump to Begin Covering His Own Legal Bills
1 days ago
Steele Says Follow the Money
1 days ago

"Christopher Steele, the former British intelligence officer who wrote the explosive dossier alleging ties between Donald Trump and Russia," says in a new book by The Guardian's Luke Harding that "Trump's land and hotel deals with Russians needed to be examined. ... Steele did not go into further detail, Harding said, but seemed to be referring to a 2008 home sale to the Russian oligarch Dmitry Rybolovlev. Richard Dearlove, who headed the UK foreign-intelligence unit MI6 between 1999 and 2004, said in April that Trump borrowed money from Russia for his business during the 2008 financial crisis."

Goldstone Ready to Meet with Mueller’s Team
1 days ago

"The British publicist who helped set up the fateful meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a group of Russians at Trump Tower in June 2016 is ready to meet with Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller's office, according to several people familiar with the matter. Rob Goldstone has been living in Bangkok, Thailand, but has been communicating with Mueller's office through his lawyer, said a source close to Goldstone."

Kislyak Says Trump Campaign Contacts Too Numerous to List
1 days ago

"Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak said on Wednesday that it would take him more than 20 minutes to name all of the Trump officials he's met with or spoken to on the phone. ... Kislyak made the remarks in a sprawling interview with Russia-1, a popular state-owned Russian television channel."

Sabato Moves Alabama to “Lean Democrat”
2 days ago

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.