Five Myths About American Health Care

By Evan Falchuk

Newsweek tries refute the “Five Biggest Lies In the Health Care Debate.”

But I’ve heard much bigger lies than the ones in this article.

I mean, are people really showing up angry at town hall meetings over fears that “the government will set doctor’s wages”?

Misinformation – or just plain old confusion – about our health care system is common.  To try to help fix this, I offer five of the biggest, most commonly repeated misconceptions I hear regularly about the U.S. health care system.

1. Government plays a relatively small role in American health care. Government actually plays a big role.  In 2007, federal, state and local governments paid for more than 46 cents of every health care dollar – more than $1 trillion.  In fact, since 1980, the government has paid at least 40 cents of every dollar, and as early as 1960 – 5 years before Medicare – government paid a quarter of health care expenses.  Government is a massive health care customer and has the impact one might expect such a big customer to have.

2. Health insurance companies drive the increasing cost of care in America. Not true, and here’s why:  perhaps 200 million Americans don’t get their coverage from a health insurance company.

Most of these people, or a family member, work at one of the thousands of companies that self-insure (the rest are covered by government programs).  What this means is those companies take the health care risk themselves, and use an insurance company mostly to handle the bills.  For these companies, the cost of health care directly affects their bottom line.  It’s one of the reasons employers have implemented so many programs to try to help their employees live healthier lifestyles, make sure they’re getting good care, and many others.  Some data suggest it is working to control health care costs.

The exception is small groups and individuals.  They have to buy health insurance, and face few, expensive options.  There are many reasons for this, which I’ve blogged about extensively here.  One of the most important is that there is not a truly competitive market for this kind of coverage.  Still, many of these insurance companies are not-for-profit  (some say as many as half of Americans with health insurance are covered by non-profit plans), and so it cannot be that profit drives the premium increases they, too, experience.

3. America has a free market in health care. Health care may be the most heavily regulated industry in America, with layers of state and federal regulation of care and insurance.  For example, your doctor can only practice in the state in which he is licensed.  If he wants to move to another state and be a doctor there he can’t do it unless he’s gone through a licensing process in that other state.

One of the most important reasons why the market for health insurance is so uncompetitive is that it, too, is regulated by 50 different state bodies.  If an insurer wants to sell in another state, it has to go through an extensive process in order to do it, and be subject to all kinds of mandates and other requirements that make it very impractical to do so.  It makes for a market that is much less dynamic than it could be.

I suspect one reason people call the U.S. system a “free market” is that rich or well-connected people can get better care than those who are less fortunate.  This may be true, but this is just a reality of the human condition, not the health care system.

4. There is an Obama reform plan, and you’re either for it or against it. Much of the media – and even Chuck Norris – describe the various health care reform ideas as part of an “Obama plan” or “ObamaCare.”  But other than broad outlines of what the President thinks are important principles, the President has not proposed any plan.  Most of what people are talking about – including the entirety of the Newsweek article I started this post with – is the 1,017-page bill from the House Ways and Means Committee.  While there are indications that the President is going to propose something concrete in the coming days, calling what is on the table Obama’s plan is more politics than reality.

5. Rising health care costs are a uniquely American problem. America’s not the only country suffering with rising health care costs.  In Canada, for example, the government of British Columbia has seen its health care costs increase by 45% over the last 6 years.  It’s created a budget crisis, and efforts to steadily increase the premiums it charges consumers and employers.  The U.K. has actually experienced a higher rate of growth in health care costs than the U.S. over the last several years.  So while it is true that the cost problem is worse in America than in in other countries, this is a matter of degree, not of kind.

I’ve heard lots of others, but these are the ones I most commonly run into.

What kinds of misconceptions have you heard?

  • http://www.twitter.com/NewRepublican Joshua Simeon Narins

    One thing I haven't heard is that Ameircan's pay over twice the OECD average on health care and get crappier results. Lots of Republicans lie and lie and lie saying America has the best health care in the world, but no _actual_ facts point to that.

    I have great health care, but in every other rich country in the world _everyone_ is insured, not just people like me.

    Oh, your #2 is kinda wrong, to my way of thinking. The employers buy health insurance from companies, they do not invent their own plans. My health insurance might be _through_ my employer, but my insurer is actually a regular health care company.

    Let's end employer-based health insurance, it was a bargaining chip to get around a price control structure using a loophole in a system that was only in effect for a few years seven decades ago.

  • http://www.seefirstblog.com Evan Falchuk

    Hi Joshua, thanks for your comment.

    Actually, #2 isn't wrong.

    Big companies don't buy health insurance at all. And, they do, in fact, design their own plans.

    They just use the health insurance companies to administer them. It's why if you work for a big company you may have an Aetna or United card in your wallet, even though your company hasn't bought a dime of insurance from those companies.

    These kind of administrative services only (ASO) arrangements are what pretty much any employer with at least 10,000 employee lives has in place. As you go down the scale of employer size, employers start buying insurance – first stop-loss, and then, as they get much smaller, they become fully insured.

    It's perfectly reasonable to argue about whether employer-based health coverage is a good idea or not. However the idea that the employers for which most Americans work are actually buying health insurance from anyone is a myth.

  • http://www.twitter.com/NewRepublican Joshua Simeon Narins

    While I appreciate you opening my eyes to ASO, reading Anthem's website on their own ASO, Anthem is the company which “investigates and evaluates claims.” For me, the entity responsible for funding or denying claims is the actual entity responsible for providing health care, regardless who ends up getting the bills. Do most firms in ASO agreements actually provide a list of treatments that they will and won't fund?

    If the typical large employer is actually spending time figuring out whether some new-ish, effective-ish potentially life-saving cancer treatment is, or is not, to be covered, that's the nail in the coffin for me for employer-based health care. If GE is spending time figuring that sort of stuff out they are crazy.

  • http://www.seefirstblog.com Evan Falchuk

    Hi Joshua,

    I guess you would very surprised at all of the very interesting and innovative things large employers are doing around health care.

    It's not about figuring out what's covered or not – they're much more interested in how to get their employees to be more healthy. Many of them are doing some meaningful things to improve health care quality through plan designs. Yes, there's some bad stuff out there, but most employers are really trying to do the right thing and many are learning that the cost equation is better if you follow that approach.

    I blog about this stuff a lot (here is a survey and webinar my company did on 100 major US employers on this subject: http://bit.ly/4sxLML ).

    Please poke around, there's a lot of stuff on the blog about the important subjects you are raising.

  • http://www.twitter.com/NewRepublican Joshua Simeon Narins

    Well, it is simply absurd. Why should AOL have to become specialists in health care? Why should Dow Chemical (except, of course, where it involves studying the effects of their products on people)? My company (>10K employees) tries to encourage us to live healthier lives, but that means my company, which has nothing to do with the health care industry, is hiring professionals to figure this stuff out. What a waste. A role completely outside my firm's core competencies. Who is hiring them, anyway? It isn't like any of the Officers of my firm have any special expertise to hire a “Wellness Consultant.” Not one of them.

    For me, the idea that large companies are trading results is going to end up with some bad results. Sure, they might find that offering diet sodas in their vending machines results in a 1.8% reduction in diabetes care over a 24 year period, but they might _also_ find that burying claims officer contact information in their website results in 23% fewer calls.

    Adam Smith wrote, in the Wealth of Nations, that businessfolks couldn't have dinner together without the consumer getting screwed.

  • http://www.seefirstblog.com Evan Falchuk

    It is a little bewildering once you start to look under the surface at what really goes on in health care.

    But it's not uniquely American. In Canada, where there is a national health system, employers do many of the same kinds of wellness initiatives you describe. As well as a number of other health care related programs. Why? Because healthy employees are more productive than unhealthy ones. And because in a competitive jobs market, having a robust benefits plan helps you attract and retain good talent.

    Now, the work companies are doing to improve employee health goes far beyond diet soda in vending machines. For example, did you know that one major US employer completely eliminated their deductibles and co-pays on drugs for treating a certain chronic disease that was costing them a great deal of money. Why did they do this? Because too many of their employees weren't taking their medications, and it was causing them to get sicker, which was costing the employer even more money. It's not always the case that the interests of employers and their employees are not aligned.

    We don't hear enough in our public discourse of the meaningful work being done by employers across the country to improve the cost and quality of care. Government reformers ought to be doing their work based on an understanding of what has worked in these contexts, unfortunately, as I've noted elsewhere, this isn't the case.

  • http://www.twitter.com/NewRepublican Joshua Simeon Narins

    One thing I haven't heard is that Ameircan's pay over twice the OECD average on health care and get crappier results. Lots of Republicans lie and lie and lie saying America has the best health care in the world, but no _actual_ facts point to that.

    I have great health care, but in every other rich country in the world _everyone_ is insured, not just people like me.

    Oh, your #2 is kinda wrong, to my way of thinking. The employers buy health insurance from companies, they do not invent their own plans. My health insurance might be _through_ my employer, but my insurer is actually a regular health care company.

    Let's end employer-based health insurance, it was a bargaining chip to get around a price control structure using a loophole in a system that was only in effect for a few years seven decades ago.

  • http://www.seefirstblog.com Evan Falchuk

    Hi Joshua, thanks for your comment.

    Actually, #2 isn't wrong.

    Big companies don't buy health insurance at all. And, they do, in fact, design their own plans.

    They just use the health insurance companies to administer them. It's why if you work for a big company you may have an Aetna or United card in your wallet, even though your company hasn't bought a dime of insurance from those companies.

    These kind of administrative services only (ASO) arrangements are what pretty much any employer with at least 10,000 employee lives has in place. As you go down the scale of employer size, employers start buying insurance – first stop-loss, and then, as they get much smaller, they become fully insured.

    It's perfectly reasonable to argue about whether employer-based health coverage is a good idea or not. However the idea that the employers for which most Americans work are actually buying health insurance from anyone is a myth.

  • http://www.twitter.com/NewRepublican Joshua Simeon Narins

    While I appreciate you opening my eyes to ASO, reading Anthem's website on their own ASO, Anthem is the company which “investigates and evaluates claims.” For me, the entity responsible for funding or denying claims is the actual entity responsible for providing health care, regardless who ends up getting the bills. Do most firms in ASO agreements actually provide a list of treatments that they will and won't fund?

    If the typical large employer is actually spending time figuring out whether some new-ish, effective-ish potentially life-saving cancer treatment is, or is not, to be covered, that's the nail in the coffin for me for employer-based health care. If GE is spending time figuring that sort of stuff out they are crazy.

  • http://www.seefirstblog.com Evan Falchuk

    Hi Joshua,

    I guess you would very surprised at all of the very interesting and innovative things large employers are doing around health care.

    It's not about figuring out what's covered or not – they're much more interested in how to get their employees to be more healthy. Many of them are doing some meaningful things to improve health care quality through plan designs. Yes, there's some bad stuff out there, but most employers are really trying to do the right thing and many are learning that the cost equation is better if you follow that approach.

    I blog about this stuff a lot (here is a survey and webinar my company did on 100 major US employers on this subject: http://bit.ly/4sxLML ).

    Please poke around, there's a lot of stuff on the blog about the important subjects you are raising.

  • http://www.twitter.com/NewRepublican Joshua Simeon Narins

    Well, it is simply absurd. Why should AOL have to become specialists in health care? Why should Dow Chemical (except, of course, where it involves studying the effects of their products on people)? My company (>10K employees) tries to encourage us to live healthier lives, but that means my company, which has nothing to do with the health care industry, is hiring professionals to figure this stuff out. What a waste. A role completely outside my firm's core competencies. Who is hiring them, anyway? It isn't like any of the Officers of my firm have any special expertise to hire a “Wellness Consultant.” Not one of them.

    For me, the idea that large companies are trading results is going to end up with some bad results. Sure, they might find that offering diet sodas in their vending machines results in a 1.8% reduction in diabetes care over a 24 year period, but they might _also_ find that burying claims officer contact information in their website results in 23% fewer calls.

    Adam Smith wrote, in the Wealth of Nations, that businessfolks couldn't have dinner together without the consumer getting screwed.

  • http://www.seefirstblog.com Evan Falchuk

    It is a little bewildering once you start to look under the surface at what really goes on in health care.

    But it's not uniquely American. In Canada, where there is a national health system, employers do many of the same kinds of wellness initiatives you describe. As well as a number of other health care related programs. Why? Because healthy employees are more productive than unhealthy ones. And because in a competitive jobs market, having a robust benefits plan helps you attract and retain good talent.

    Now, the work companies are doing to improve employee health goes far beyond diet soda in vending machines. For example, did you know that one major US employer completely eliminated their deductibles and co-pays on drugs for treating a certain chronic disease that was costing them a great deal of money. Why did they do this? Because too many of their employees weren't taking their medications, and it was causing them to get sicker, which was costing the employer even more money. It's not always the case that the interests of employers and their employees are not aligned.

    We don't hear enough in our public discourse of the meaningful work being done by employers across the country to improve the cost and quality of care. Government reformers ought to be doing their work based on an understanding of what has worked in these contexts, unfortunately, as I've noted elsewhere, this isn't the case.

  • Pingback: It’s Probably Best to Lose Big Anyway . . . « The Human Side of Hospitals.

  • "Medicine is learned by the bedside and not in the class room. Let not your conception of manifestations of disease come from work heard in the lecture room or read from the book: see and then research, compare and control. But see first."
    - Sir William Osler, MD
    The Father of Modern Medicine
  • Connect



    BestDoctors.com


    On Twitter


    On Facebook


    Via RSS


    On YouTube


    Subscribe via Email

  • Benefits Package

    BenefitsPackageButton

    Join the best in employer health-benefits blogging!

  • Follow Us on YouTube:

  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

  • Categories

  • Archives