As Modern Healthcare reports:
Massachusetts, whose health care reform program was used as a template for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, had the highest per capita health spending in the U.S. in 2009. According to the commission’s report, the state spent $9,278 per person on health care in 2009, which was 36 percent higher than the national average of $6,815, and 11.2 percent more than the next-highest state, New York, which spent $8,341.
When Romneycare was enacted, I wrote,
If more Massachusetts consumers enjoy coverage without any deductible, then the average per-person expenditure on health care of $6,000 seems likely to go up.
Indeed, it seems that per capita health spending went up over 50 percent in just the first three years under Romneycare. At the time, many of its proponents were saying that Romneycare would hold down health care spending.
When people are insulated from having to pay for health care, health care spending goes up. You might want to insulate them, anyway. But the theoretical ways that you reduce spending–by cutting down on emergency room visits, or through better prevention–do not pan out in practice.
And, a “side effect” has been the recent requirement for increases in taxation, which are attributed to the need for “transportation improvements” and “educational requirements” etc., without reference to the consumption of tax revenues (which would otherwise be available) by the health care system and its subsidies.
The health care system has eaten breakfast and lunch and will soon start on dinner. Perhaps the quality, access and availability are “worth it” but eventually the costs will have to be recognized and reordered by reason of their impacts on everything else.
You simply cannot cover more people with more generous benefits and, at the same time, reduce or even hold equal the cost.
I believe you may have any two of those factors at the same time, but not all three. The math simply doesn’t work.
One of the most widely repeated quotes of Richard Feynman, first noted in his appendix to the Challenger report, is:
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”
I believe it applies in this instance, as well.
Democrats often say that the USA gov. should copy the healthcare of the other industrial nations as if the USA would have the life expectancy and healthcare costs of Italy if we copied their Healthcare system but if that were right we could copy the healthcare system of Utah to get good results at low cost but copying Massachusetts would not make sense. Yet it what they did..
My example is publicly funded K-12 education. The US system is copied from Europe…Prussia IIRC. But, now Europe spends less than we do per pupil and we get worse results.
Lesson should be that it is not impossible for the US to copy a European system and fail at gaining the cost savings or better results.
Other examples would be the Philippines copying the US Constitution, and probably many others.
Why does the whole region have the costliest and fastest growing healthcare expenses, save Alaska? Why did Massachusetts spend the most of any state prior to Romneycare? Why did and does DC spend more?
I fear the news flash here is that Massachusetts is an urban, old state with world-class hospitals.
Also, the pre Romneycare statistic I keep seeing for per capita Mass. Healthcare spending is $7,436 in 2005 or $8,002 for 2006, depending on which you prefer for your baseline year. See here:
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/health-spending-per-capita/
So not $6,000.
That makes what true?
It makes the cost increase under the first three years of Romneycare under 15 percent (I think 2006 is the best baseline), not 50 percent.
Is that a decrease?
It raises the question whether healthcare was under provided for previously, with a probable yes as the answer. Since the uninsured amount to about 10%, that and ordinary inflation explain everything.
Except the part of the promise to REDUCE COSTS.
Oh and to save the economy in the case of aca.
Reduce cost growth, which apparently it is.
Have health outcomes measurably improved with all this additional spending? That would be the key to determining whether healthcare was “under provided” previously.
Yes.
http://www.wbur.org/2012/07/11/massachusetts-life-expectancy-report
But that trend, like the trends kling identifies, predates Romneycare.
Another judge of under provision is if you can afford more. We can’t was the premise and wouldn’t was the promise
BTW by what market failure? Poor people not according luxuries that don’t exist is not under provision. Now by spending thousands more on healthcare maybe better food is being “under provided”
The idea, I think, is that subsidizing emergency room care but not routine care was under providing welfare enhancing healthcare for the poor vs the romneycare system of subsidies balanced across the range of healthcare spending.
Its funny how now if you bring up promises and lies of politicians you are treated as some naive dope.
That’s how we get that $9000 is less than $7000.
Thanks two party system!