Health care reform

Why Price Controls Won't Fix American Health Care

States have already tried strict rate setting systems-and given up on them.

|

Photo credit: Alex E. Proimos / Foter.com / CC BY

Anyone looking for a clue about the future of health policy debates should take note of a Center for American Progress panel convened earlier this month. The topic at hand was journalist Steven Brill's Time magazine story on high medical bills, which compared rates charged to uninsured and privately insured patients with the negotiated, lower per-service rates charged to Medicare.

But rather than push for a government-run, single-payer system—what liberals often term "Medicare for all"—several of the left-leaning health experts on hand talked up a technocratic alternative known as "all-payer": Instead of the federal government serving as a universal insurer, as in single payer, the government would set payment rates for the entire system, public and private, eliminating price discrepancies for different payers.

In other words, price controls. This is the great new idea that has gripped liberal health wonks as health costs have continued to rise: to simply have the government declare that prices must be lower. That's neither a new idea nor a particularly great one, and there's little reason to think it will have result in meaningful restraint of health care cost growth.

All-payer and other forms of rate setting have a long history in the U.S. Throughout the 1970s and into the early 1980s, multiple states experimented with various forms of state-driven rate setting. The Nixon administration pursued a bevy of wage and price controls, while Congress passed legislation encouraging states to set up rate-setting regimes. A federal effort backed by President Jimmy Carter failed to pass, but by the end of the decade states such as Maryland, New York, and New Jersey were all moving forward with ambitious all-payer-style price control systems.

Those systems, however, became impossible to sustain pretty quickly. For one thing, they were just too complicated: Not only did these systems attempt to set rates for every single hospital product and service, they also included provisions attempting to redistribute funds from relatively wealthier hospitals to relative poorer hospitals. The result was a labyrinthine system of reimbursement procedures and payment exceptions that confused even the public administrators who were supposed to oversee its workings.

As Harvard health professor John McDonough chronicled in a 1997 essay for Health Affairs, officials from many of the states that tried rate-setting later concluded that "the statutes and regulations needed to sustain their rate-setting systems were complex and often incomprehensible." McDonough quotes the former chair of Massachusetts Senate Health Committee describing the payment rules as being "like Sanskrit—no one could understand them."

The complexity didn't just make the systems hard to run, it made them easy for large and powerful hospitals to game. One New Jersey legislator, according to McDonough, likened the state's system to "a methadone program, a guaranteed bottom line every year, and no one could understand how it worked." State officials sometimes attempted to adjust the systems in response to concerns that particular providers were manipulating them, but McDonough reports that the adjustments merely "resulted in greater incomprehensibility," followed by further requests for adjustments.

Some studies from the era showed that state-based rate-setting schemes helped control the growth of hospital costs—at least on some measures. But the systems were so complex, and so dependent on factors unique to each state, that researchers also warned that policymakers should not be able to count on reproducing the savings in other states.

A 1985 study for the Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law, for example, found that most states that implemented rate-setting saw per-admission costs contained, but found "no direct evidence that total health care costs" were contained. (Other studies found that while per-admissions costs were restrained, the total number of admissions increased.) The study also cautioned that "were rate-setting established in additional states, it is not clear that comparable results would be realized. It is still less clear that rate-setting would constrain health care costs more than would increased competition and selective contracting."

Starting in the mid 1980s, most states gave up their rate setting programs. Today, only Maryland continues to maintain a legacy all-payer system. And while Maryland's system has won plaudits from some policy analysts, it has recently developed problems of its own: Maryland operates its rate-setting program under a federal waiver that requires it to keep its average cost-per-admission from rising faster than the average cost-per-admission in the rest of the country. Yet recently the state has had trouble keeping its average per-admission cost below the cap, and has toyed with the idea of cutting Medicare reimbursements—and forcing private insurers to pick up the balance. 

Other countries have tried to control healthcare cost growth through rate setting as well, with less than compelling results. As Carnegie Mellon health economist Martin Gaynor recently noted, international comparisons don't suggest any obvious conclusion about he efficacy of rate setting. Cost growth in the U.S., where about half of prices are private and therefore deregulated, is below average for countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). It's also below several countries with robust price control systems. 

Gaynor also points to the Netherlands, which deregulated a substantial portion of its hospital pricing starting in 2006. Overall, cost trends stayed the same following the implementation of market pricing, and the deregulated market segment actually saw substantially slower cost growth than the sector that remained regulated—indeed, costs actually fell for several years in the deregulated sector even while they continued to rise where price controls applied.

Ultimately the emphasis for public health reforms should be on public sector spending, and an all-payer system could end up straining public finances further. As Boston University health economist Austin Frakt has noted, an all-payer system is fundamentally just a tool for eliminating price discrimination: all payers, public and private, would have to pay the same charge for the same service within the same hospital. Balancing out public and private payments, however, would probably mean higher prices for Medicare and Medicaid—potentially creating additional budget headaches for the federal government as well as states.

All of which is to say that liberal health wonks should not be too hopeful about the prospects for controlling costs via newfangled price controls. The state experience with similar systems suggests that they are too complicated, too arcane, too susceptible to gaming by big industry players, and too uncertain to guarantee results. Anyone tempted to argue that sweeping price controls are the health policy of the future should also remember that they are the discarded health policy of the past. 

NEXT: Pope Francis Has Voiced Support for Civil Unions

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Peter Suderman on Why Price Controls Won’t Fix American Health Care”
    For the same reason they don’t fix *any* economic problem, right?

    1. You mean price controls didn’t fix the gas shortage in the 70’s?

      Who knew?

      1. As has been pointed out many more times that it should need to be, all that damn gas stayed where it was (and wasn’t needed) since shipping it cost money and you couldn’t get it back.
        Pretty sure it was Jeb Bush who outlawed ‘gouging’ for home generators after one of the hurricanes; generators stayed in warehouses all over the nation instead of migrating to FL where they were needed.

      2. They didn’t work in NYC after Sandy, either.

  2. That choir needs some new music.

  3. Think you need to distinguish between price setting, where the state actually dictates all prices, and all-payer, where hospitals (and other providers) set their own prices but the state requires the providers have to charge everyone the same price regardless of payer (insurer, government agency, other third party, or out of pocket). You conflate the two.

    1. If this is the case, I think it could be useful. I would start with drug prices, and require global prices from drug companies. No selling to European monopsonies at cheap prices and to us Americans at high prices. Then European socialized medicine would not keep being the glittering prize its not.

  4. Price conrols work. It’s working in North Korea, I saw the happy sparkling eyes of children around Dennis Rodman on his visit. There was wine and big tables of food. Not to mention a round egg shaped young man with fully formed jowels, he was clearly well fed. I SAW it.

  5. Peter Suderman on Why Price Controls Won’t Fix American Health Care

    Ha! they work perfectly.

    1. i see ‘grey’ beat me to it.

      1. Sarcasm is a fast draw sport on the Reason blogs and also my favorite humor. Although I also like the quick draw knock downs of fallacious arguments. Simply pointing out the argumentative fallacy, granting that others are smart enough to see it and agree without beating them over the head.

  6. Keerist in a bucket. Wasn’t it WW II wage controls which got us into this employer-provided health insurance mess in the first place?

    The only good thing I see is that the more they fuck it up, the sooner it will collapse, not in a revolution or anything drastic, just enough Greece-like to finally scare some sense into them.

    1. Scarecrow Repair| 3.20.13 @ 6:30PM |#
      “Keerist in a bucket. Wasn’t it WW II wage controls which got us into this employer-provided health insurance mess in the first place?”

      Why, it certainly was! And now the right people are going to fix that with more regulation!

      1. Yes, it’s too bad FDR died. He could have fixed this.

        1. He’s been reincarnated. Sadly.

    2. just enough Greece-like to finally scare some sense into them.

      Don’t remember that ever working, even in Greece.

      1. just enough Greece-like to finally scare them into doubling down, again.

        FTFhim

  7. indeed, costs actually fell for several years in the deregulated sector even while they continued to rise where price controls applied.

    Shocking news! This has never happened before?? Oh wait, it happens EVERY FUCKING TIME

  8. “Peter Suderman on Why Price Controls Won’t Fix American Health Care”

    YOU LIE!!! Insurance companies get 10000% profit and the Rethuglicans want to protect them while the poor get screwed. To think otherwise means you’re evil and hate the poor.

    [Puts head back in sand].

  9. newfangled price controls

    There’s nothing new in price controls.

  10. I hate to say it, but health care pretty much needs to be socialized.

    The government has to meddle in it (for instance, overusing antibiotics breeds antibiotic resistant bacteria) , which means a free market can’t work.

    What we have now is terrible. We pay twice as much for health care than anyone else, and yet not everyone has healthcare, and the healthcare we have sucks. Unless you are rich or have great insurance.

    My mother had heart problems and then later cancer. It was an absolute nightmare – the hospital would routinely discharge her because the insurance would only cover so much, but she couldn’t walk or anything, so we’d have to take her to the emergency room to re-admit her. And her insurance wouldn’t pay for a nursing home for more than a few days.

    And yet, you can’t really blame the insurance company – she racked up almost a quart of a million in hospital bills. And the level of care in the hospital and nursing home was terrible. So it’s hard to understand why it’s so expensive, when it’s more like a cheap motel.

    The only decent experience in the whole thing was the hospice care, which was state run.

    1. “The government has to meddle in it (for instance, overusing antibiotics breeds antibiotic resistant bacteria) , which means a free market can’t work.”

      Yeah, because all the gov’t meddling has prevented that, right?
      Your argument doesn’t work.

      1. JeremeyR:

        The government has to meddle in it (for instance, overusing antibiotics breeds antibiotic resistant bacteria) , which means a free market can’t work.

        Blatant question begging.

    2. There is a policy in place for the readmission problems now. I call it the 30 day warranty, if a patient is readmitted in less than 30 days for same issues, the insurance company can refuse reimbursement. It is so serious now that it is part of my merit increase goals. I’m a maintenance Tech.

  11. Well, price controls apparently don’t work, but maybe Elizabeth Warren has pointed to the solution: raise the minimum wage to $100 an hour. Then EVERYONE could afford their medical costs. Funny, it seems so easy and obvious, now… wonder why only liberals can figure these things out.

  12. Justin. I agree that Francisco`s story is terrific… on tuesday I bought a new Mazda sincee geting a check for $6390 this – 4 weeks past and in excess of 10k last munth. without a question it is the most-financialy rewarding I’ve ever had. I actually started 6 months ago and practically straight away startad making at least $77, per-hour. I follow the details here, http://www.jump30.com

  13. If you think Frank`s story is terrific,, last pay-cheque my friend’s brother basically also made $4230 just sitting there a ninteen hour week from there apartment and the’re buddy’s half-sister`s neighbour done this for 3 months and worked and got paid more than $4230 in there spare time on their mac. applie the information from this address, http://www.wow92.com

  14. uptil I looked at the paycheck saying $6337, I have faith that my best friend was like actualie taking home money parttime online.. there neighbor has been doing this for only about and by now repayed the mortgage on there appartment and got a great new Renault 5. go to,
    http://JUMP30.COM

  15. my buddy’s sister makes $70/hr on the computer. She has been out of work for 8 months but last month her pay check was $18807 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more on this site http://www.fly38.com

  16. until I looked at the check four $5877, I did not believe that…my… brother woz actualy erning money in there spare time at there labtop.. there dads buddy had bean doing this for only about six months and just repayed the loans on their cottage and bought a new Mazda. we looked here, http://www.fly38.com

  17. If you think Edna`s story is cool…, last pay-cheque my sister’s best friend basically also recieved a check for $5865 working a seventeen hour week from there apartment and their best friend’s mom`s neighbour done this for 9-months and got over $5865 parttime from a labtop. follow the instructions on this address, http://www.wow92.com

  18. @Loise, you create $27h…good for you! I compose to $85h engaging from home. My story is that I quit engaging at shoprite to figure on-line and with to a small degree effort I simply herald around $45h to $85h?heres an honest example of what i am doing, http://www.hdcash1.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.