Magazine | October 30, 2017, Issue

Letters

(Mike Blake/Reuters)

Price Controls for Health Care?

In “The Price Is Right” (October 16), Peter Laakmann gives much-needed insight into why per capita spending on health care in the U.S., although higher than in other developed countries, is appropriate to our circumstances. However, he does not address why the price of health care is so high in the first place.

As a physician in Kentucky, I am amazed at the disparity between price and cost. A local lab bills the patient $125 for a blood test for which they bill me $4. When the FDA took generic colchicine off the market in 2010 in favor of Colcrys, its price jumped from $0.09 to $4.85 per tablet. When insurance companies began paying for CT scans to screen for lung cancer, the out-of-pocket price went from $175 to over $500.

While some would argue that market forces should always determine price, I think health care deserves special treatment. For one thing, there is a third party, the insurance company, that prevents a direct financial relationship between provider and consumer. For another, health care is a necessity on the order of food, clothing, and shelter. For those who cannot afford it, it must be publicly subsidized. But even those with decent incomes often cannot afford it as it is currently priced, and I’m not just talking about catastrophic care.

My recommendation is price controls on high-end providers such as drug companies, hospitals, imaging centers, and laboratories. That would lower premiums and make health care more accessible.

David Marwil, M.D.

Lexington, Ky.

Peter Laakmann responds: I don’t dispute that the prices of some items and services are too high in some instances. It is challenging to reach general conclusions without systematic analysis. However, OECD researchers indicate that the average effective price paid for health care in the U.S. was approximately 10 percent above the OECD average in 2014, which is at or below the average effective price in several rich countries.

Domestic health-care-price indices suggest that inflation explains approximately none of the increase in health-care costs relative to incomes. As in other countries, our high and rising health-care expenditure is overwhelmingly attributable to a high and rising use of health care. (The U.S. real per capita volume of health-care use was 110 percent (!) above the OECD average in 2015.)

The potential to broadly reduce costs by cutting prices is much more limited than is popularly supposed. For instance, while we pay higher prices for prescribed medicines in the U.S., they make up a modest fraction of national health spending (10.6 percent in 2015, comparable to other rich countries). Valuable medication innovation is one of the last places we should impose price controls. Incentives matter, and the pharmaceutical industry is not unreasonably profitable when one accounts for risk, time value of money, etc.

Instead of painting whole sectors and practice areas with a broad brush, we should consider the sorts of concerns you mention on a much more granular basis, paying close attention to the ratio of total cost to value and to the affordability of the costs borne by individual patients. We can do more as a society to ensure that essential, highly efficacious medicine is accessible, affordable, and straightforward (especially as concerns questions of coverage and reimbursement).

NR Editors includes members of the editorial staff of the National Review magazine and website.

In This Issue

Articles

Features

Books, Arts & Manners

Sections

Letters

Letters

Price Controls for Health Care? In “The Price Is Right” (October 16), Peter Laakmann gives much-needed insight into why per capita spending on health care in the U.S., although higher than ...
The Week

The Week

‐ Who do you think has a higher IQ — Trump, or someone who chose to work for Trump? ‐ President Trump picked a fight with Senator Bob Corker (R., Tenn.), ...

Most Popular

Politics & Policy

Yes, They Are Coming for Your Guns

At the Democratic-primary debate in Houston last night, Beto O’Rourke formally killed off one of the gun-control movement’s favorite taunts: The famous “Nobody is coming for your guns, wingnut.” Asked bluntly whether he was proposing confiscation, O’Rourke abandoned the disingenuous euphemisms that have ... Read More
White House

Politico Doubles Down on Fake Turnberry Scandal

It's tough to be an investigative reporter. Everybody who feeds you a tip has an axe to grind. Or, alternatively, you find yourself going, "I wonder if . . . ?" You put in your research, you talk to lots of people, you accumulate a huge pile of information, but you still haven't proved your hypothesis. A wise ... Read More
White House

Rachel Maddow’s Turnberry Tale

To a certain kind of Rachel Maddow viewer, there are few more titillating preludes to a news segment than the one she delivered Monday: “If you have not seen it yet, you are going to want to sit down.” Maddow’s story began, as many of her stories do, with President Trump, this time focused on his hotel ... Read More
Culture

Four Cheers for Incandescent Light Bulbs

It brought me much -- indeed, too much -- joy to hear of the Trump administration's rollback of restrictions on incandescent light bulbs, even if the ban will remain in place. The LED bulbs are terrible. They give off a pitiable, dim, and altogether underwhelming "glow," one that never matched the raw (if ... Read More