The President is
looking at unraveling the Affordable Care Act (the ACA, commonly referred to as
Obamacare) and replacing it with something that is less expensive and at the
same time giving citizens more options in their health care.
Less expensive
is key. Since the ACA was passed in 2011, health insurance costs have soared
and are heading higher still. As of last November premiums were set to rise an
average of 25% in 2017, in the 39 states served by the federal market.
While many will
receive subsidies to help pay that increase, subsidies will mean that the
taxpayer will ultimately foot the bill. And you can be certain that some of the
bill we be dropped into next year by raising the deficit.
Before going any
further, it might help to consider a few simple concepts.
When this began,
there were some 250 million Americans covered by some form of health insurance.
When the ACA was passed, that number jumped. The goal was to reach 280 million,
leaving about 10% of the citizens uninsured. Without going into whether
ordering people to buy health insurance is Constitutional or ethical, someone
should have seen a problem.
The problem is
this: if you have a health care system providing care to 250 million, and you
add 30 million to it, you have less health care per person when you are done.
It doesn’t matter how you get there, you have less per person.
How bad? While
the overall ratio of doctors to citizens is staying roughly the same, that
trend line appears to be in part due to doctors remaining in practice longer,
with more doctors practicing medicine well past age 65. However, there is a
trend of more doctors entering into specialized healthcare and fewer into
general practice. That translates into fewer doctors providing basic
healthcare, meaning more “rationing” of doctors, and higher costs – to be met
with higher insurance rates.
Perhaps this
shortage can be met by expanding the role of nurses in primary health care?
Certainly,
except for one minor point: the shortage of nurses is expected to reach roughly
1 million in the next 5 years, with roughly 2 million nurses in practice in the
US (the need is for roughly 3
million, measured in ‘Full Time Equivalents.’)
In short, no
matter what’s happening with the efforts to unravel the mess caused by the ACA,
and no matter what steps are taken to address health insurance pricing, none of
that is going to matter unless we address the question of supply: the United
States needs to expand the “supply” of doctors and nurses.
Practically
speaking, that can’t be done in the short term except by “robbing” from someone
else. Even as we sit and debate the rules for immigration, the US will need to
find ways to attract more doctors and nurses to this country over the next 5
years. Options to provide incentives seem limited: a special tax category
perhaps for a medical professional who moves to the US.
To address the
long-term problem, any health care program needs to provide some mechanism to
expand the “production” of doctors and nurses. What that means is more
graduates from medical and nursing schools, but that really translates into
more medical and nursing schools. Simply putting more students in any class
will in the end dilute the “product.” The real solution requires more schools.
But it doesn’t
end there. The other shortage is in residency programs. The residency programs
need to be expanded now if we are to meet the needs of a population that will
reach 400 to 450 million by 2050. The government needs to identify both
incentives for new and expanded medical and nursing schools, and new residency
programs, as well as eliminating institutional roadblocks to expansion. And
these programs should include planning and sizing to meet the need for that
future population growth so that we don’t repeat this problem in another 30
years.
Government
planning and interference in health care has been at least partly responsible
for the increase in costs over the past decade. The government now has an
opportunity to take another look at the health care industry, and working with
the industry, academia and the citizenry, chart a different course, one that
actually steers us around the problems generated by previous administrations.
No comments:
Post a Comment