Skip to content
  • About
  • Contact
  • Contribute
  • Book
  • Careers
  • Podcast
  • Recommended
  • Speaking
  • All
  • Physician
  • Practice
  • Policy
  • Finance
  • Conditions
  • .edu
  • Patient
  • Meds
  • Tech
  • Social
  • Video
    • All
    • Physician
    • Practice
    • Policy
    • Finance
    • Conditions
    • .edu
    • Patient
    • Meds
    • Tech
    • Social
    • Video
    • About
    • Contact
    • Contribute
    • Book
    • Careers
    • Podcast
    • Recommended
    • Speaking

Employer-sponsored insurance or Medicaid? An ideological debate.

Dr. Saurabh Jha
Policy
September 1, 2014
Share
Tweet
Share

The recent disagreement between Uwe Reinhardt and Sally Pipes in Forbes is a teachable moment. There’s a dearth of confrontational debates in health policy, and education is worse off for it.

Crux of the issue is the more efficient system: employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) or Medicaid. Sally Pipes, president of the market-leaning Pacific Research Institute, believes it is ESI. Employers spend 60% less than the government, per person: $3,430 versus $9,130, per person (according to the American Health Policy Institute). Seems like a no brainer.

Pipes credits “consumerist and market-friendly approaches to health insurance” for the efficiencies. She blames “fraud,” “improper payment,” and “waste” for problems in government-run components of health care.

But Uwe Reinhardt, economist at Princeton, counters that Medicaid appears inefficient because of the risk composition of its enrollees. Put simply, Medicaid recipients are sicker. Sicker patients consume more health care resources. Econ 101.

The points of tension in their disagreement are instructive.

Is ESI free market?

The term “consumerist” instinctively appeals to competition and choice, elements we value in free market. However, health care can’t be compared to shopping for single malt in airport duty free, deciding between Talisker 18 and Glenlivet 21.

ESI is hardly an assortment of private units functioning autonomously. ESI has been carved by so many regulations that government figuratively runs through its veins.

Do you wonder why insurers in ESI don’t surcharge a family with a child with Tetralogy of Fallot? That is increase their premiums astronomically or deny coverage because of a pre-existing condition.

Goodness of heart? No, it’s because of the government.

This means that young fit joggers are subsidizing the costs for the unfortunate child’s complex cardiac surgery. This is how insurance works. Redistribution. There’s no other civilized way.

Risk adjustment: Comparing apples and oranges

Failure to adjust for co-morbidities makes it difficult to make comparisons in quality, value and performance.

Not only are Medicaid enrollees sicker, they are poorer and less empowered. A priori they are a more “inefficient” group to deal with than the employed middle class.

ADVERTISEMENT

I’ll hazard a guess that Sovaldi (medication for hepatitis C) won’t increase Microsoft’s health care bill as much as the state of Illinois’. One, of course, would not credit Microsoft’s cost savings to greater efficiency through clever free market insurance design.

However, in policy discussions comparisons between apples and oranges are commonplace.  Life expectancy and infant mortality are used to compare U.S. health care to countries such as Cuba or France, when adjudicators well know, or should know, that there is more nuance. Using metrics which can be affected by social determinants of health is misleading.

Is Medicaid an island?

There are no islands in health care.

It’s important not to make the same logical errors with Medicaid as with ESI.  Medicaid is not an autonomous government unit. Its recipients aren’t sent solely to safety net hospitals. For most parts Medicaid recipients share the same system as folks on ESI; a system which, arguably, has been sculpted by ESI, for better or worse.

This means there’s interdependence between ESI and Medicaid, or between a government-regulated and a government-regulated and run system.

Interdependence is evidenced by cost shifting, where costs of seeing Medicaid patients are shifted to ESI. Even if there is no convincing evidence of cost shifting, as Reinhardt cautions but Pipes disagrees with the caution, this interdependence is not diminished. Providers might happily see Medicaid patients knowing they can still enjoy good returns from ESI, without hospitals purposely shifting costs to ESI.

Politics, ideology and Medicaid

Medicaid is more than a system of reimbursing physicians. It has become an ideology. Any criticism of Medicaid leads to the unfortunate conclusion by some well-intentioned individuals that the purpose of critique is to send poor to workhouses.

Good intention does not mean access, though. Medicaid recipients have a problem of access. This is because Medicaid pays providers far too little whilst simultaneously imposing far too much red tape.

Given the structural problems of Medicaid I do wonder why the program was expanded and not replaced by Medicare. Who objected? What was the rationale for objection? Or was it never suggested?

Paying providers when caring for the sickest, poorest and most disenfranchised section of society the least for their efforts does no favors to that section of society.

Serve and volley at the margins

Both Reinhardt and Pipes cite several studies to support their point of view. One wonders whether policy wonks truly can form opinions solely from evidence, since it’s so easy to cite evidence to support one’s prior convictions and subconsciously disregard or criticize that which does not.

Disagreements are common because economics is not a hard science such as physics. It does not so much get us to the objective truth as it does to the action at the margins through methodology that is not as robust as in physical sciences, yielding different results on different occasions.

Who is correct, Reinhardt or Pipes?

In a sense both.

Reinhardt is right. Medicaid recipients are not the same as those enjoying ESI.

Pipes is right. Medicaid has structural issues. It pays physicians too little compared to ESI.

This begs the question which reimbursement corresponds to the fair market price in health care: Medicaid or ESI. We will never know because health care has not operated as a free market. And ESI does distort the “price signals,” as do mandates and virtually everything else.

But here is the important point: ESI is going nowhere. Neither the most left-leaning Democrat nor the most right-leaning Republican has the courage to rid health care of ESI.

What’s the objective truth? Which system really is more efficient?

The truth lies in the answer to this question: Would ESI deliver the level of care enjoyed by ESI recipients with paucity of cost sharing that Medicaid recipients face to Medicaid enrollees at a lower cost than Medicaid?

For Medicaid recipients cost sharing should be zero, otherwise it defeats the purpose of safety net. But remember we want them to have the same level of care as ESI for a true apples-apples comparison.

It’s practically impossible to conduct a randomized controlled trial to answer this question. Nor does empiricism suffice.

The best, though still markedly imperfect method, is the use of economic models. Models have assumptions. With regards to assumptions I can do no better than paraphrase Groucho Marx: “Those are my assumptions, and if you don’t like them … well I have others.”

Importance of disagreements

The current system does not have many genuine alternatives. Single-payer is out as is a genuine free market. As politicians don’t wish to talk about costs because of political expediency, all we are arguing about is which part of health care has the most administrative/ informational loss. This is a marginal argument, at best. To resolve this I would encourage more dialectic between partial truths.

Summary of key points

  1. It’s more cost-efficient treating healthier patients.
  2. Accurate adjustment for co-morbidities and social determinants of health is key for any comparisons in health care.
  3. There’s interdependence between employer-sponsored insurance and Medicaid.
  4. No one knows true market prices in health care because it’s not a free market by any stretch.
  5. Economic analysis yields information about the margins, until the next analysis.

Saurabh Jha is a radiologist and can be reached on Twitter @RogueRad.

Prev

Dissent and cynicism: Learning from listening to doctors

September 1, 2014 Kevin 1
…
Next

Allowing medicine to become a commodity would be a disaster

September 1, 2014 Kevin 3
…

Tagged as: Public Health & Policy

Post navigation

< Previous Post
Dissent and cynicism: Learning from listening to doctors
Next Post >
Allowing medicine to become a commodity would be a disaster

ADVERTISEMENT

More by Dr. Saurabh Jha

  • Masks are an effigy of American technocratic incompetence

    Dr. Saurabh Jha
  • False negative: COVID-19 testing’s catch-22

    Dr. Saurabh Jha
  • Why the Lancet’s editorial on Kashmir is unhelpful

    Dr. Saurabh Jha

More in Policy

  • Healing the doctor-patient relationship by attacking administrative inefficiencies

    Allen Fredrickson
  • The hidden health risks in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act

    Trevor Lyford, MPH
  • The CDC’s restructuring: Where is the voice of health care in the room?

    Tarek Khrisat, MD
  • Choosing between care and country: a dual citizen’s Independence Day reflection

    Kathleen Muldoon, PhD
  • How fragmented records and poor tracking degrade patient outcomes

    Michael R. McGuire
  • U.S. health care leadership must prepare for policy-driven change

    Lee Scheinbart, MD
  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • Why are medical students turning away from primary care? [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • Why “do no harm” might be harming modern medicine

      Sabooh S. Mubbashar, MD | Physician
    • Here’s what providers really need in a modern EHR

      Laura Kohlhagen, MD, MBA | Tech
    • How New Mexico became a malpractice lawsuit hotspot

      Patrick Hudson, MD | Physician
    • Why doctors are reclaiming control from burnout culture

      Maureen Gibbons, MD | Physician
    • A world without vaccines: What history teaches us about public health

      Drew Remignanti, MD, MPH | Conditions
  • Past 6 Months

    • Why tracking cognitive load could save doctors and patients

      Hiba Fatima Hamid | Education
    • Why are medical students turning away from primary care? [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • What the world must learn from the life and death of Hind Rajab

      Saba Qaiser, RN | Conditions
    • Why “do no harm” might be harming modern medicine

      Sabooh S. Mubbashar, MD | Physician
    • Here’s what providers really need in a modern EHR

      Laura Kohlhagen, MD, MBA | Tech
    • How the 10th Apple Effect is stealing your joy in medicine

      Neil Baum, MD | Physician
  • Recent Posts

    • From Founding Fathers to modern battles: physician activism in a politicized era [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • From stigma to science: Rethinking the U.S. drug scheduling system

      Artin Asadipooya | Meds
    • The gift we keep giving: How medicine demands everything—even our holidays

      Tomi Mitchell, MD | Physician
    • The promise and perils of AI in health care: Why we need better testing standards

      Max Rollwage, PhD | Tech
    • From burnout to balance: a neurosurgeon’s bold career redesign

      Jessie Mahoney, MD | Physician
    • Healing the doctor-patient relationship by attacking administrative inefficiencies

      Allen Fredrickson | Policy

Subscribe to KevinMD and never miss a story!

Get free updates delivered free to your inbox.


Find jobs at
Careers by KevinMD.com

Search thousands of physician, PA, NP, and CRNA jobs now.

Learn more

View 8 Comments >

Founded in 2004 by Kevin Pho, MD, KevinMD.com is the web’s leading platform where physicians, advanced practitioners, nurses, medical students, and patients share their insight and tell their stories.

Social

  • Like on Facebook
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Connect on Linkedin
  • Subscribe on Youtube
  • Instagram

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • Why are medical students turning away from primary care? [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • Why “do no harm” might be harming modern medicine

      Sabooh S. Mubbashar, MD | Physician
    • Here’s what providers really need in a modern EHR

      Laura Kohlhagen, MD, MBA | Tech
    • How New Mexico became a malpractice lawsuit hotspot

      Patrick Hudson, MD | Physician
    • Why doctors are reclaiming control from burnout culture

      Maureen Gibbons, MD | Physician
    • A world without vaccines: What history teaches us about public health

      Drew Remignanti, MD, MPH | Conditions
  • Past 6 Months

    • Why tracking cognitive load could save doctors and patients

      Hiba Fatima Hamid | Education
    • Why are medical students turning away from primary care? [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • What the world must learn from the life and death of Hind Rajab

      Saba Qaiser, RN | Conditions
    • Why “do no harm” might be harming modern medicine

      Sabooh S. Mubbashar, MD | Physician
    • Here’s what providers really need in a modern EHR

      Laura Kohlhagen, MD, MBA | Tech
    • How the 10th Apple Effect is stealing your joy in medicine

      Neil Baum, MD | Physician
  • Recent Posts

    • From Founding Fathers to modern battles: physician activism in a politicized era [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • From stigma to science: Rethinking the U.S. drug scheduling system

      Artin Asadipooya | Meds
    • The gift we keep giving: How medicine demands everything—even our holidays

      Tomi Mitchell, MD | Physician
    • The promise and perils of AI in health care: Why we need better testing standards

      Max Rollwage, PhD | Tech
    • From burnout to balance: a neurosurgeon’s bold career redesign

      Jessie Mahoney, MD | Physician
    • Healing the doctor-patient relationship by attacking administrative inefficiencies

      Allen Fredrickson | Policy

MedPage Today Professional

An Everyday Health Property Medpage Today
  • Terms of Use | Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • DMCA Policy
All Content © KevinMD, LLC
Site by Outthink Group

Employer-sponsored insurance or Medicaid? An ideological debate.
8 comments

Comments are moderated before they are published. Please read the comment policy.

Loading Comments...