An Up-Front Wager?

Ezra Klein writes:

Liberals don’t think that Congress will pass a bill outlawing private insurance. They don’t think the Supreme Court will render a decision naming WellPoint “cruel and unusual.” Rather, they think the market will, well, work: The public option will provide better service at better prices and people will choose it. Or, conversely, that the competition will better the private insurance industry and that people won’t need to choose it.

But that confidence rests on a very simple premise: The public sector does a better job providing health-care coverage than the private sector. If that proves untrue — and I would imagine most every conservative would confidently assume that that’s untrue — the plan will fail. The public option will not provide better coverage at better prices, and so it will not be chosen, and it will languish. Indeed, if it languishes, it will lack customers and thus lack bargaining power and economies of scale, and get worse even as the private insurers get better. In that scenario, the public option not only fails, but it discredits single-payer entirely.

Well, it depends on the relative advantages given to the public sector and the private sector, doesn’t it? If the public option is allowed to negotiate reimbursement rates that private insurers can’t also use and if private insurers are regulated in such a way that they can’t define the mix of benefits and providers they offer (to avoid adverse selection), providing better coverage at better prices is fairly straightforward. How is this an up-front wager? If, in contrast, the public option is not allowed to leverage its publicness, and it has to offer the same reimbursement rates as private insurers, the public option is toothless. 

The real goal, as I understand it, isn’t benchmarking for its own sake. Rather, it is to restrain private insurers in an environment in which private insurers will have the benefit of a captive marketplace — thanks to the individual and employer mandates – and no strong incentives to reduce costs and premiums.

A better approach would, as Harold Luft has argued, allow private and public insurers (i.e., Medicare Advantage plans, state Medicare plans, etc.)  to contract with a publicly-chartered Major Risk Pool that would gives healthcare providers a choice of either accepting Medicare rates with no balance-billing or episode-based payments to care delivery teams with balance-billing. This would encourage greater efficiency among providers without imposing new regulations. 

Reihan Salam — Reihan Salam is executive editor of National Review and a National Review Institute policy fellow.

Most Popular


Courage: The Greatest of Virtues

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is Jonah Goldberg’s weekly “news”letter, the G-File. Subscribe here to get the G-File delivered to your inbox on Fridays. Dear Reader (Or Listener), As the reporter assigned the job of writing the article about all of Sidney Blumenthal’s friends and supporters told his ... Read More

My American Dream

This morning, at 8 a.m., I did something I’ve wanted to do for as long as I can remember: I became an American. I first applied for a visa in early 2011, and since then I have slowly worked my way through the system — first as a visa-holder, then as a permanent resident (green card), and, finally, as a ... Read More

The Gun-Control Debate Could Break America

Last night, the nation witnessed what looked a lot like an extended version of the famous “two minutes hate” from George Orwell’s novel 1984. During a CNN town hall on gun control, a furious crowd of Americans jeered at two conservatives, Marco Rubio and Dana Loesch, who stood in defense of the Second ... Read More