There is a lot of talk about health care in terms of giving consumers of medical services choice in a marketplace. The basic cost-control measure that the Ryan Plan hopes for is that a market in health insurance will lower prices. Well, it likely won’t. The mechanism that will control prices is the willingness of people to make up the difference between Medicare vouchers and the actual costs. But brushing that aside, Paul Krugman takes ultimate offense to the characterization of “patients as consumers“:
Medical care is an area in which crucial decisions — life and death decisions — must be made; yet making those decisions intelligently requires a vast amount of specialized knowledge; and often those decisions must also be made under conditions in which the patient is incapacitated, under severe stress, or needs action immediately, with no time for discussion, let alone comparison shopping.
[...]
The idea that all this can be reduced to money — that doctors are just people selling services to consumers of health care — is, well, sickening. And the prevalence of this kind of language is a sign that something has gone very wrong not just with this discussion, but with our society’s values.
Of course it is very true that life and death situations are made in the field of medicine…probably every day if not at a single hospital, at hospitals as a whole. But the actual truth of the matter is that the bulk of medical spending of the average person does not involve death at all…just nagging, often temporary, quality of life issues. In fact, outpatient care (which includes routine and sick visits to the doctor and same-day hospital visits), drugs and non-durables (which includes things like wheelchairs and other medical supplies), and administration account for ~2/3rds of all medical spending in the US.*
In this aspect of medical care, patients are consumers, and would benefit from price competition in a less-regulated market. Having strep throat doesn’t so much require “specialized knowledge”, as it requires a signed piece of paper so that you can get specialized drugs. Most moderately bad cuts are treated with the highly technical, and extremely specialized skill…applying super-glue.** Same thing with pain management, which in the name of the “War on Drugs”, we severely limit and police. This is why I think that leftist-liberals get it exactly backward when they want to push people into insurance markets, and then use a lot of administrative tricks in order to control costs. What you want to do is push people into a market for these services, perhaps by subsidizing price competition.
Then we can discuss the extent to which the government should intervene as a single payer for the remaining 1/3 of medical spending; which includes inpatient care (plus some emergency outpatient procedures from the previous category), long-term care, and end-of-life services, among a few other things. The point is you can’t just wrap the blanket of “life and death” and “specialized information” around every single medical service, and then claim that markets don’t work.
As an aside, is it really wise to base regulation on perceptions of different groups of people? Seriously?
*The information is a little dated, but it hasn’t changed much if at all: http://nihcm.org/pdf/EV_JensenMendonca_FINAL.pdf.
**I pride myself on the fact that I’ve super-glued many a cut of my own! Also, I have some odd illness that is STILL untreated, and it is naggingly annoying…however it’s hasn’t proven “life or death”. I would have much preferred shopping on price for services (like my CT scan for instance, which was $1,500) to having my insurance company pay tens of thousands of dollars in tests and visits — all which have yielded no results.

11 comments
Comments feed for this article
Wednesday ~ April 20th, 2011 at 9:13 pm
BSE
I have to be honest, this post of yours makes me a little mad. 2/3 of health spending is on routine procudures? OK, that sounds about right. You know what else is right? More than 2/3 of spending is done by less than 1/3 of patients (the actual number that gets quoted is 80/20, but I its not quite that bad). Anyway, that’s not friggin’ papercuts. Every Serious illness requires continuous care lest it become much much worse. We’re not talking annoyances here.
I have had to struggle with serious illness myself and I can tell you in excrutiating detail all the bull that you will have to go through if you’re sick long enough. I’ve been denied coverage in the individual market. I’ve had copays exceed my annual income. I’m pretty sure Doctors have prescribed unnecessary treatments. None of these are issues that can be solved with some magic markets or libertarian minarchist utopia. I’m a little annoyed so that’s all I’m going to say.
Read Arrow’s 1963 paper on this, and then you can talk to me.
Wednesday ~ April 20th, 2011 at 9:33 pm
Niklas Blanchard
I don’t think that your and my position is actually all that far apart. It seems that the differences are due to the fact that I wasn’t very clear in my overall preference for the structure of medical care.
First, most people most of the time are simple medical consumers. They are consuming routine treatments for which price competition would benefit them in the aggregate, regardless if they spent a lot of time specifically shopping for the lowest price. For this portion of the market, I say do away with insurance. Offer cash subsidies if need be.
Second, there are major accidents which require specialized medical attention (outpatient emergency procedures like broken bones, or car crashes, etc.). This type of risk is more or less insurable at a reasonable price. There may be a role for government in subsidizing insurance of this sort.
Third, there are chronic illnesses that people are either biologically disposed to, or people develop. And also, there is old age. These are very hard to insure for, and thus, there is a role government in providing payment for this type of care.
Now that opens up a lot of questions about which market specific treatments belong in, and it may be that those questions are insurmountable…but that is the basic framework I’m working with.
I’ve been sick for three years, and it’s been very expensive (even with insurance). Sometimes when I’m fighting with insurance companies and doctors I fall into wishing that we had single payer insurance. It would be much easier for everyone, and possibly cheaper (although I think that most people think of the cost savings through more or less rosy glasses). But I still think for your everyday medicine, a less regulated market based around price competition would work well.
Wednesday ~ April 20th, 2011 at 9:25 pm
My name here
Your linked paper doesn’t say 2/3 of health spending is routine stuff, it says 2/3 of the spending beyond the average advanced nations spending is routine stuff, a very different claim. I don’t see numbers in there for the breakdown on total healthcare spending.
Wednesday ~ April 20th, 2011 at 9:49 pm
Niklas Blanchard
The way I understand the breakdown of the graph, which could be mistaken, is that it shows the total amount the US spends on health care, then breaks it down between what would be expected given an OECD average (peach), and the amount we spend above (blue) or below (orange) the OECD average. If you take the three categories I mentioned (amounting to $1,247), and add them up, it’s 60.7% of total spending.
It is entirely possible that I’m reading the chart wrong, however.
Thursday ~ April 21st, 2011 at 11:28 am
Th
I think you have missed an entire area of focus among “leftist-liberals” to control medical costs. Who worked to include in-home nursing care in Medicare? Who championed nurse-practitioners writing prescriptions making medclinics in Walmart and CVS possible? Who works to expand the role of PA’s and midwifes?
The individual has no bargaining power with medical care providers. There is a whole market out there for medical cards that pay nothing but let you buy at their negotiated prices. You have insurance so your CT scan is already a negotiated, set price, probably far lower than an individual would pay. You may want to talk to a medical provider about their contractual relationship with insurance companies and how that would have to change to do what you are suggesting.
Thursday ~ April 21st, 2011 at 9:10 pm
Ben
We physicians know that negotiating prices in medical care could have very little effect on costs
Just read this:
http://allbleedingstops.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-patients-are-not-consumers.html
Friday ~ April 22nd, 2011 at 10:58 am
Paul Krugman on How to Keep the Doctor-Patient Relationship Sacred: Less Commercialism, More Bureaucratic Oversight - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine
[...] that’s not the only time you need medicine. It’s not even most of the time. As Niklas Blanchard points out, non-emergency medicine such as outpatient care, drugs, and devices account for approximately [...]
Wednesday ~ April 27th, 2011 at 9:19 pm
Krugman Consumes His Own Tail » Right Thinking
[...] or that patients are incapable of making difficult choices is ridiculous and arrogant. Two thirds of healthcare spending occurs in non-emergency situations. Patients make decisions about healthcare [...]
Friday ~ August 3rd, 2012 at 7:19 pm
Krugman Consumes His Own Tail « Mike's Meandering Mind
[...] or that patients are incapable of making difficult choices is ridiculous and arrogant. Two thirds of healthcare spending occurs in non-emergency situations. Patients make decisions about healthcare [...]
Friday ~ February 22nd, 2013 at 10:30 am
Lower Costs by Fiat | It Don't Mean Much, These Seats are Cheap.
[...] P.S. My preferred solution is here. [...]
Tuesday ~ March 12th, 2013 at 10:58 pm
Solutions: Everybody Has One | It Don't Mean Much, These Seats are Cheap.
[...] Finally, the other biggest area to deal with is health care. You can read my views on health care here and here. [...]