« IS ECONOMICS REALLY DEAD? | econmavin's Blog | Profit vs. Value »

NOT ALL MARKETS BENEFIT FROM COMPETITION


Having been trained in Economics and Finance, I am a strong believer in the benefits of market based competition. However, I also recognize that there are many markets where for some reason the free market does not lead to economic efficiency which economists often define as producing at the lowest possible cost. The medical industry may fall into this category of non-market based efficiency.

This can be illustrated by the following: About 25 to 30 years ago the Blue Cross/Blue Shield system dominated the health insurance industry. There was sharp criticism because the hospital portion of medical care was paid on a cost plus basis. Those who did not understand the system assumed that this led to uncontrolled growth in hospital costs. Governments forced the Blues into a different payment system and hospital costs skyrocketed. What the critics failed to understand is that the Blues audited hospital costs and refused to include many costs in the payment base. In fact, hospitals were required to get advance approval for major capital purchases. This means that if one hospital had an underutilized MRI the blues would not reimburse another hospital in the area that acquired an additional MRI. The Blues encouraged the second hospital to contract for MRI services with the first hospital. This led to lower overall costs in the system. The elimination of the Blue Cross single payer cost-plus system led to duplication of services and higher per unit costs due to  underutilization at some institutions and higher over-all costs due to scheduling of unnecessary tests designed to justify the acquisition of the equipment at others. In this case competition led to higher costs rather instead of    economic efficiency.

Now we are hearing health insurers and their congressional apologists screaming that a single payer system would not be economically efficient because we would eliminate competition. In addition, they claim that a single payer system would lead to rationing. What they fail to consider is that we already have rationing. In a world of scarce resources the market based system allocates, i.e. rations, resources on the basis of prices. In the realm of health care, those who can afford to pay the price get the care. Medical care is rationed to those with either high wealth or good insurance. Those without either get poor or no care. In addition, as was explained earlier, market based health care leads to higher costs.

The time has come for Americans to join the rest of the developed world and treat health care as a non-market service. Those who claim that the government cannot operate efficiently just need to look at Medicare as a model. I have many friends, over 65, who rail against government involvement in health care. When I ask them if they're going to give up their Medicare coverage their universal response is that Medicare is great. Why would they give it up? When I point out their contradictory attitudes they just ignore me. They fall into the category of those people who dislike economists    because economics often disproves their preconceived notions and people are reluctant to change cherished beliefs when evidence contradicts them.


13 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Clearthinking!

I love your final example about the internally contradictory argument. When will people think?

Rec'ed!!!!

user-pic

While I think you have an overall point...

"In this case competition led to higher costs rather instead of economic efficiency"

When genuine producer competition does not keep consumer costs down and delivered quality up, there is a problem. While it's true that the costs of competition don't necessarily reduce the consumer price of a commodity (product or service), your argument is a bit shallow and not detailed enough here (as well has having grammatical/proofreading problems).

Some situations call for positive or negative incentives, others might not. You seem to say that Blue Cross tried to keep care costs low even though it was on a cost-plus basis - contra the greed motivation. But who was paying Blue Cross?

And why/how did competition in fact drive consumer costs up, if it did (I'm not convinced it did, I think demand went up and up and up)?

user-pic

Being born and growing up in Las Vegas provisioned me with a different perspective about the Insurance Industry, including, Health Insurers. The insurance industry has not operated under free-market paradigms for longer than I've been alive. It's a numbers racket being run, or more appropriately, a cartel of corporate bookies, all juiced in with each other, with virtually all risk eliminated. They skim from the flow going in and going out. The Vig is directly related to the size of the handle. Any market-based efficiency cuts into their take.

Admittedly, global inundation of derivative trash, backed with poorly priced credit default swaps came close to the abyss, but face it, these were wise-guy pikers facing into the howling wind, where even egghead odds setters worked half-blind grasping at probability straws. Few had any inkling of recursive structural fail threat; such as the near fatality possibility not factored in because if its infinitesimal chance of occurring, like a US Presidential Admin, so derelict, incompetent and arrogant, it was unable to stave off housing market balloon pop until a post-2008 election reality. Fewer possessed the mental acuity to contemplate how the wind from a butterfly's wings in a fortuitous place/time might be enough initial energy to set off geological scaled change. Almost none had ever sat in a ringside chair at the top, as financial agents of an oil sheik kingdom lock-loaded-n-rolled an orderly massive tranche, and watched how many levels downward it floated before any potential real liability risk reared its ugly head. At that height and scale, sans any risks, even 1/2 point vig was avaricious excess.

When the smoke started to clear in the CDO shoot-out, it was the staid family firms and the non-mainstream player cowboys who got taken out. The publicly held well-heeled corps with deeply pocketed bureaucrats and pols, picked-up the pieces at fire-sale prices marked-down both sides with public financing.

The health insurance racket is a more base kind of game, but with added spit-balls thrown into the mix over the last several decades. They also get a piece of the total handle, so there is no incentive to decrease costs. They've got every angle locked-up, and keep it that way by tossing back a few bones to their customer bases.

Used to be, if you blew out a knee, or broke a limb or some other act of stupidity that needed specialised care, you'd look-up a phone number in your company policy folder that was a direct connect to someone at work's front-office who really gave a damn. Then you picked an MD from a long list, made an appointment, and showed up with a c-note. The MD's front-office would with a wink and a nod credit it all, then say they'd bill for any uninsured excess, but generally took the 70%-80% of insured total fee plus the credit for all, even surgery. Hospitals, gas-passers, and any extra needs assisting physicians billed in full, but most of that fell under major medical, and was covered near totally. Any reasonable post-procedure rehab got tossed in free cherry on top. Getting fixed up wasn't too brutal on personal finances.

Then insurers started whining about their over-burdened billing, because MDs and other providers weren't aggressively using collection agencies on their patients, instead piggy-back mooching free off of them. Then they went in pitching employers with false visions of savings via cost-burden shifting onto employees and providers. They locked in doubter execs, with promises to outsource employers' health insurance oversight labor costs to themselves or their contractors. The HMOs and PPOs had been born.

Insurers then went to providers guns unholstered with chambered rounds. telling them it was either their way/price, or no patients, but as a sweetener promised to take it easy on malpractice premiums, if they obeyed their self-promulgated rules. Forward-looking greed head MDs, immediately sought out capitalisation financing for expanding a private practise into salaried groups of just post-residence specialists, who liked the deal, because they didn't need to plunge deeper into debt after Med School costs, just to begin practising. These medical groups became pure cut-throat profiteers, seeking out larger pieces of the available patient pie, by decreasing their per/patient bid price in exchange for raw numbers bulk.

Patient Care was no longer predicated upon humane concern. but instead upon resource management, where any patient procedure given was viewed as a commodity outlay, that needed to be weighed with the potential for incurring liability risks if not providing it. Patients also became important revenue streams, and were charged for even pharmaceutical samples, which had been given freely to the medical groups. No more winks and nods from medical front office either. Cash, check, charge, or soon face boutique collection agencies that specialised in recouping delinquent medical accounts regardless of hardships. More health care dollars spent out of the Doctor/Patient relationship, and a sense of animosity between patients and providers, which impaired healing effectiveness.

Medical office visits became nightmarishly long reception room waits, punctuated with being quickly strong-armed by a tech into blood-pressure cuffs, stethoscope breathing and pulse-taking, along with quick-charted med history queries. If you were really unlucky, you caught phlebotomist hell, and a blood-letter who needed to needle punch both sides of a weight-lifter's firearm artery just to fill-up one test-tube. This all added to patient stress. Then the visit ended with a short uninformative and stressed MD sign-off on the chart with possible diagnoses/prescriptions. Naturally this led to missed symptoms at times, then onto to legal settlement processes, which also redistributed health care monies to attorney firms.

Insurance Providers were not about to eat the extra liability costs (remember they skim going in and out), so they upped the malpractice premiums, and whined to MDs about shysters in shark-skin suits, and illiterate jurors who only see deep-pockets of defendants, but never see through the faux pain of plaintiffs. Insurers then went politicalmercialtyzing to Medical Associations, telling doctors the problem wasn't from the insurers' end, but instead from greedy attorneys and faker patients, looking for sweepstakes easy street, and promising to help them lobby their politicians. Doctors, caught between a crock and a hard place hit the bait hook-line-and-sinker, yet didn't even notice when legislative relief came from the state capitols, their insurance premiums did not also decrease.

This has nothing to do with anything remotely resembling a free-market. It a free-license for public corporations to steal. A public corporation is driven by one force alone, and that is to maximise profitability. Give one a license to steal, and they will start cutting hearts out if regs allow. It ain't personal, it's simply business, and people are resources to be bought/trade/expended as resource commodities.

user-pic

Yep. Legalized Graft.

user-pic

This comment is highly recommended.

user-pic

Uninteresting article with no facts or information of any value in it.

You need English lessons. Reading "Economics for dummies" does not constitute being "trained in economics and finance."

If Government run healthcare is so great, why do Mass. residents pay double on average than the rest of the nation? Oh yeah, artifically inflated demand, which is exactly what Obama is trying to do.

This doesn't even bring up the 1.6 trillion dollar price tag that will only cover 16 million citizens.

user-pic

Libertarian, heh? Tell me, did you get the uncited 1.6 tril/16 mil coverage figure from the less than half-truthful LP National website blog, which was itself a lame gloss of a dishonest Heritage Foundation Hit Piece? Where did your facts and information about Mass. come from, and have you actually verified their veracity through proper research? Why do you want to play from different rulebooks?

There is nothing free-market about the insurance industry. It is a near vertical and stovepiped non-competitive market run by a cartel comprised of fictional business constructs, which are allowed to shield from exposure to the true liability costs potential, which flow naturally from their business decisions, behind protectionist legislation enacted by self-serving revolving door bureaucrats and politicians

Did you vote for the least libertarian Presidential slate ever nominated by the LP in its history last November, Barr/Root? If yes, I'm ROTFLMAO... you're no libertarian, I've known libertarians for a very long time, and have self-identified as one for almost as long. The LP is presently on a self-destruct course, being run by those who are really deeply water-closeted members in The Party of The Public Potty Peepers, aided by the more overt Republican-Blight Interventionists, like Eric Dondero. The non-libertarian wing of The LP controls the show, and they have shown themselves to possess less personal honour than a human torture supporting GOP Senator.

As one who wills to retain possession of my personal honour, and one who in the past acted to breathe life into the LP, it is now incumbent upon me to assure that this obscene Frankensteinian bastardisation of libertarianism dies before it is able to acquire any real force within America's Political System.

user-pic

Apparently forgot to hit reply last night. My perfectly framed retort was set right below yours. Anyway, the CBO figure is here, and includes offsets.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/20/AR2009062001041.html

For the actual report, you can go here and read the entire paper.
http://www.cbo.gov/

Facts are amazing things.

user-pic

Uninteresting comment with no facts or information of any value in it.

Just sayin', is all...

user-pic

Pass da popcorn, please!

user-pic

> Libertarian, heh? Tell me, did you get the uncited 1.6 tril/16 mil coverage figure from the less than half-truthful LP National website blog, which was itself a lame gloss of a dishonest Heritage Foundation Hit Piece?

No, it's the figure the Congressional Budget Office came up with.

> Where did your facts and information about Mass. come from, and have you actually verified their veracity through proper research? Why do you want to play from different rulebooks?

Major news outlets, like ABC and CNN. Go look it up yourself.

> There is nothing free-market about the insurance industry. It is a near vertical and stovepiped non-competitive market run by a cartel comprised of fictional business constructs, which are allowed to shield from exposure to the true liability costs potential, which flow naturally from their business decisions, behind protectionist legislation enacted by self-serving revolving door bureaucrats and politicians

This is pure conjecture based off of your opinions of people that have more material wealth than you.

> Did you vote for the least libertarian Presidential slate ever nominated by the LP in its history last November, Barr/Root?

Who I voted for as President has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

> As one who wills to retain possession of my personal honour, and one who in the past acted to breathe life into the LP, it is now incumbent upon me to assure that this obscene Frankensteinian bastardisation of libertarianism dies before it is able to acquire any real force within America's Political System.

I don't even understand how this is relevant to anything. I do believe You Made This Shit Up.

user-pic

For those interested in what the CBO really said in it's June 15th analysis, here is the real deal.

Pay no attention to 1.6 trillion for 16 million insured as that is not what the CBO said at all. But you all knew that, I know. :-)

In brief:

1.0 trillion over 10 years (2010–2019)
Offset by $257 billion in tax revenues gained and $38 billion in Chip and Medicare outlays that don't get laid, and approx 2 billion from spanking the people that don't get insured at $100.00 bucks a pop.

So subtract about 300 billion from 1.0 trillion and we get $700 billion. About what we've been spending per month in Iraq, isn't it? :-)

user-pic

Your figures are based off of Obama's rosy painting of the situation. See facts provided above.

> So subtract about 300 billion from 1.0 trillion and we get $700 billion. About what we've been spending per month in Iraq, isn't it? :-)

This shows just how little grasp of this country's finances you have. We don't spend anywhere near 700 billion per month in Iraq. Even at the height of the war, we didn't spend 700 billion in a year.

> For those interested in what the CBO really said in it's June 15th analysis, here is the real deal.

If you could read and comprehend English, you'd understand that a net increase in the federal deficit does not mean that's how much the program will cost.

Come back when you have some real facts.

Leave a comment

econmavin

user-pic

Following: 0
Followers: 6

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

  • Favorite Quotes Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different outcomes

Bio

Former Corporate Treasurer in multinational corporation. Currently teaching Economics and Finance at the college level. BS, MA, MBA

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address