Googleanalytics

Monday, April 4, 2011

CBO on Medicare – “We need a Death Panel”

Doug Elmendorf over at the CBO gave a speech this morning on Medicare. I think he gave us a window into what is coming. He outlined a number of measures that would help to put Medicare on firmer footing.

The federal government will spent north of $1 trillion in 2011 for health care (7% of total GDP!). Half of that will go to Medicare. That’s a bad result. But it is nothing compared to what will happen in the coming decade. The cost of all medical treatment will rise substantially above Mr. Bernanke’s measurement of inflation and there will be many more people on the Medicare line due to the rapidly aging population. So what does Doug suggest?

Cut payments to Medicare providers for services they provide. There have already been cuts made. But they are temporary. Elmendorf wants more. This makes sense. Cutting payments to Dr’s, hospitals and service providers like nursing homes would make a big difference on the financial side. It would also make a big difference to Granny in that nursing home. It’s worth noting that Elmendorf doesn’t think this is likely to happen:

Whether the reductions will be sustained over a long period of time remains to be seen.

Another suggestion is to extend the eligibility schedule for Medicare from 65 to 67. I am quite certain this will happen. The only question is how soon it will happen. Some smart fellow will do an analysis on the proposal and conclude “It will save us X dollars, but Y people will die as a result”. The X in this calculation will be big. The Y will also be big.

This recommendation will strike a dagger at the Administration and all those Dems who supported Obamacare:

Reverse the expansion of Medicaid and the subsidies for purchasing insurance that were enacted in last year’s legislation.

The suggestion is that we will have Universal Health Care “Lite”. It also implies that Obamacare comes up for some redrafting. If they start messing with this it will be the death of it. (Politically this would suit the Republicans and Tea Party set-ergo look for it to happen)

A separate suggestion is to treat employer contributions to health insurance as income and tax it accordingly. This is just a tax increase for workers. It will go over like a lead balloon. But we need to remember that this concept is already part of the current law. It was part of the Obamacare stealth tax increases. These tax increase are scheduled to go into effect in 2018. This could happen much sooner according to Elmendorf:

Last year’s legislation changed the tax treatment of employer-sponsored health insurance, but only in 2018 and beyond. That provision could be accelerated and strengthened.

The most significant recommendation (to me) is the suggestion that Medicare will not cover new treatments under some circumstances. This is the Death Panel concept of rationing health care that everyone has been taking about.

Currently, Medicare pays the costs of nearly any medical treatment or procedure that a doctor recommends. An alternative would be for Medicare to pay only the cost of existing ways of dealing with a specific health problem

I was surprised that Elmendorf made it clear that if someone on Medicare had the money to pay for the better, newer treatments they could do it. But they had to shell out of their pocket. In this plan, what happens to those who don’t have that money? Easy, they die or get inferior treatment.

Under such an approach, patients would be able to use their own money to pay for the more-expensive care, but the federal government would not pay more

Elmendorf acknowledges the difficulty in making the choices of which treatments are covered and which are not:

It would be an immense challenge to formally classify treatments and procedures into sets that address the same health problems and to evaluate whether some treatments and procedures are better for some or all patients.

Yes Doug, it will be an “immense challenge” to come up with that list. But that list is coming. And again, as a result of the list, some will die.

We have to make hard choices. Ones that will result in suboptimal health care and yes, premature death. It’s good that the CBO put this on the table. It’s still not easy to read. Anyone who says that America is such a wealthy country ought to look at it. We’re not as rich as we’d like to think we are.


13 comments:

  1. We need to ration care to the elderly, not a popular idea but real and I am 65 and have elderly mother who at 91 recently had an expensive heart scan paid by the government so her physician could make another buck. Several years ago the governor of Colorado made a speech regarding this and was thrown out of office quickly as a result. When I have discussed this issue with friends all are against any limits on elderly medical care and with passion!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I wonder how people would react if given a choice: instead of spending money for the heart scan, we will provide a death benefit for the beneficiaries of your choosing of half the amount of the medical benefit.
    Don Levit

    ReplyDelete
  3. Completely off topic, I read this article about our Great Recession a couple of weeks back. Fascinating, but I find it hard to decide if it presents a valid analysis or not.
    If you have time/interest, Bruce, would appreciate getting your take.
    http://innovationandgrowth.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/a-decade-of-labor-market-pain/

    "It may surprise you to learn that job losses in the most recent decade ending February 2011 are reasonably comparable to the job losses from 1929-1939. Moreover, if we exclude government and "quasi- government" jobs, the latest decade is the worst ever, by far."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jim from Ca, Tks for this link. I will read it and mark it. It does not surprise me that in many ways the last decade compares negatively to 29-39.

    Then it took a big war and a monstrous population boom to dig us out of a hole. What will it take this time?

    ReplyDelete
  5. "We have to make hard choices. Ones that will result in suboptimal health care and yes, premature death."

    The choices are hard because the people making the choices generally have an incentive to do more procedures. That is what is suboptimal.

    By your definition of optimal, we can only have optimal health care if we already know the results. A truer definition requires admitting that saving everyone is not optimal.

    ReplyDelete
  6. But What do I Know?April 4, 2011 11:22 AM

    Great discussion as usual, Bruce. One thing that I don't see mentioned anywhere in the discussion of Ryan's proposal or the CBO comments is the relationship between Medicare/Medicaid spending and the consistent growth in employment in the Health and Education BLS category. This sector has been the only consistent grower for the last ten years, and I have to believe that cutting/slowing the spending would bring this to an end.

    That in itself is not a reason for not reining in spending in Medicare/Medicaid (which I think would be a great idea). But just remember that all of these projections in spending cuts wouldn't occur in a vacuum--one man's excess spending is another man's revenue. . .

    ReplyDelete
  7. WDIK:
    Very good point. If the US does make meaningful cutbacks it will hurt GDP/Growth/Employment/Profits.

    Yes this is a very good reason why "they" will not make the cuts. But then we would die a different way.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I made a music video at the London protest for one of my banksta raps.
    You can see me singing in front of riot cops HERE

    Zombie Bank Death Squad.com

    ReplyDelete
  9. I work in the medical field. Some people are supposed to die. Instead, they are kept alive, given false hope, only to die within 2 years. Most of Medicare's money is spent in that 1-2 year period before death. These old people are only alive in body, not spirit. Where is the dignity when people's old bodies are made into money making? People should be allowed to die in dignity like they did before Medicare! --MG

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anon @9:15

    You have made a most important comment. If we could change the way the last two years are managed then Medicare would not be the problem that it is.

    How does one achieve dignity? I wish I knew.

    tks.bk

    ReplyDelete
  11. Bruce,

    I enjoy your posts and your analysis, there is a very high signal to noise ratio on your blog.

    I'm not sure that cutting pay to doctors is going to accomplish much. There is already evidence that docs are opting out of Medicare/Medicaid due to the reimbursement levels: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/business/retirementspecial/02health.html
    Hospitals may be a different story as the vast majority are very poorly run and many have monopolistic or oligopolistic pricing power.

    I think the comments raised here about the end of life spending are going to be the key to solving the medicare issue. We have this spare no expense attitude to give someone another 3 or 6 months of life in a lot of cases. It's unsustainable. I've also heard the idea of giving patients a choice between extreme efforts to preserve life and some kind of monetary incentive to forego that in exchange for a financial benefit to their heirs. Something like that is going to be needed to make the tradeoff tangible and give people a sense of being treated fairly.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You ask how to achieve dignity. An example would be in order. A person is known to be intelligent. He has cancer. One option: the doctors radiate him, they cut him open, they drug him up. At the end of life, he could have either died in dignity by accepting his time to go and say a few words joking about his life. The person that has been "taken" by Medicare cannot utter words. He's on morphine. Has been on it for months. His family worries all the time, am I gonna miss seeing him before he dies? Family members each tries to go see the elderly person as much as he can. He feels guilty. Family members are burdened by someone who cannot go to the bathroom without aid. He needs 24 hour care. When the man finally dies, the family member who missed his passing, kicks himself forever. How is this person who died remembered? With dignity, or not? A person who is willing to die in bravery will be remembered for his courage. And that he died in dignity and in peace. --MG

    ReplyDelete
  13. all elderly medicare age folks should be drafted and sent to these wars we like to fight. no body armor only light arms ect. let them die in battle with honor instead of some ICU with a catheter and feeding tube and 10 CT scans

    ReplyDelete