Make people pay more:
This paper proposes a template for a progressive cost sharing plan that would require typical families to pay half of their health costs until they reached 7.5 percent of their income; low-income families would not have any cost sharing. The analysis shows that this template could reduce total health spending by 13 to 30 percent, reducing premiums by 22 to 34 percent without hurting health outcomes. Moreover, low- and moderate-income families would face less cost sharing than they do under typical plans today while the premium savings would be more than enough to compensate middle- and upper-income families for the modest increase in their exposure to small risks. Every family would have an affordable limit on their out-of-pocket payments, in contrast to the situation today, where many families have insurance policies that expose them to unlimited cost sharing. In addition, the paper suggests the potential inclusion of evidence-based exceptions for highly valuable preventive care and chronic disease treatments as well as other mechanisms to protect the chronically ill.
This plan, of course, can be applied to either markets or government provision. It finesses the problems with Bush health savings accounts, including the distributional issues and the lack of directness in achieving first-party payment. It also assumes that the individual desire for comprehensive insulation from risk — clearly the market tendency where markets are present — is the fundamental problem in the health care sector. If I protect myself from risk, I don’t take into account my diminished incentive to monitor health care costs, which creates larger dilemmas for the market as a whole.
An alternative plan is simply to tax the health insurance purchases of the relatively wealthy. But if people overestimate anxiety costs of non-comprehensive coverage, they’ll be too ready to pay the tax and we might prefer Furman’s method of allocating health insurance according to a formula. How easily supplemental insurance can be prevented remains an open question.
Addendum: Matt Yglesias comments.















Question: Why should the population segment that takes the most health risks (e.g. highest number of smokers, greater rates of alcohol use) pay the least?
err. i guess that was three thoughts.
also, since people face high health costs because they’re old, and people are usually low-income when they’re young, doesn’t a Rawlsian calculus produce nonsense here?
Nothing is going to work until health care providers are required to post prices in a consumer friendly form. Today, it is not possible to shop for health care based on price or quality. I have tried!!!!
“Moderate income” is different in the NE v. other parts of America.
And don’t forget STDs, Ted.
Here’s a wacky idea: we could let people pay for their own health insurance and let them buy whatever plan they think is reasonable. If people really want total insulation from risk, and are willing to pay for it, let ‘em have it. And if we’re feeling in the mood for charity, we could give poor people vouchers (or even cash, except that would conflict with our paternalistic ideas that we know better than they do what they need).
It’s so crazy it just might work.
maple story
maple story mesos
maple story cheats
maple story meso
maple story hacks
maple story items
maple story guides
cheap maple story
buy maple story mesos
rf online
rf online cp
rf online currency
rf online dalant
rf online disena
buy rf online currency
buy rf online cp
buy rf online dalant
Comments on this entry are closed.