Blog Archives

Should We Tax Health Care Insurance as Income?

October 3, 2012
By

Health care insurance benefits have been excluded from taxable income since 1943, when the National War Labor Board ruled employers, who were offering health plans as a way to attract workers without violating wartime wage-and-price controls, could deduct their cost as an expense without reporting their value as income for workers. As a result, employees get the benefit of the insurance without paying taxes on its value.

Workers weren’t the only ones who benefited from the ruling. Neither employers nor workers had to pay their half of the Social Security (and later Medicare) payroll taxes that would have been assessed at a higher rate, had it been paid as straight wages.Today, the ever-growing cost of health care has turned that little loophole into a subsidy program that costs the Treasury an estimated $240 billion a year. It is the single largest tax expenditure in the federal tax code.

Economists across the political spectrum are united in their analysis of its impact. It allows employers to spend more on health insurance than they otherwise would. It leads workers, especially if they are unionized and have voice in how any wage increases are allocated, to fight for lower co-pays and deductibles since those are paid with after-tax dollars. The two factors working in tandem encourage overuse of health care services, which drives up spending and eventually premiums.

“It turns into a vicious cycle,” said Paul Fronstin, an analyst at the Employee Benefits Research Institute.

The exclusion is also unfair in the same way that any tax expenditure becomes unfair under a progressive income tax code. A person in the 30 percent tax bracket who gets a $15,000 family plan at work gets twice the subsidy as someone in the 15 percent bracket that belongs to the same plan.

Given the magnitude of the revenue loss, politicians from both sides of the political aisle have eyed limiting the exclusion for decades. Read more »

On The Hypocrisy of Our Business Elite

September 30, 2012
By

Today’s must read is from Steve Pearlstein of the Washington Post. Read it here.

Medicare/Medicaid’s “Got His Back”

September 28, 2012
By

The Cost of Living in Fat City

September 20, 2012
By

Obesity rates have doubled over the past two decades and will almost double again over the next two decades unless the public comes to grips with its swelling waistlines, a new study says.

The rising tide of obesity threatens to send health care costs soaring. Already, the nation spends an estimated $147 billion to $210 billion per year on obesity-related diseases including Type 2 diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, and arthritis. Unless the projections are altered dramatically, additional medical costs associated with treating preventable, obesity-related diseases could swell by another $48 billion to $66 billion by 2030, the report said.

“We have this middle-aged cohort who are obese today and in the next 10 to 20 years will become quite costly,” said Jeffrey Levi, executive director of Trust for America’s Health, which co-authored the report with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. “They’re the really tough nuts to crack when it comes to combating obesity.”

About 35 percent of adults were obese in 2010, up from 15 percent in 1980. Obesity is defined as a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or higher. Nearly 12 million children ages 2 to 19 are now considered obese, triple the level of three decades ago, the study said.

Looking ahead, every state in the union will have an obesity rate above 44 percent in 2030, up from a nationwide average of about 30 percent now, the study said. Some states will top 60 percent. Its projections were based on the latest data from the Centers for Prevention and Disease Control.

A dozen states already have adult obesity rates above 30 percent and the ten states with the highest rates of obesity-related Type 2 diabetes and hypertension are in the South. Mississippi, with its 34.9 percent obesity rate, earned the title of fattest state in the land in the state-by-state rankings contained in the report. Twenty-six of the 30 fattest states were located in the South and Midwest. Read more »

Makers Are Takers, Too

September 20, 2012
By

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s impolitic comments at a fundraiser in Florida last May shed light on his attitude toward the 46 percent of the population that paid no federal income tax in 2011 (his 47 percent came from an earlier study by the Tax Policy Center, since updated). He called them “takers” and all but accused them of mooching off the rest of society.

As numerous news outlets have pointed out in the wake of those comments’ release, about half the households in the group paid no income tax because the standard deduction put them below the taxable threshold. Three-quarters of the other 38 million households were either elderly or in families that received refundable tax credits for their school-age children or as supplements to their income – the so-called earned income tax credit.

In other words, they paid no taxes because they benefited from tax expenditures, exclusions and deductions in the tax code that lower personal income taxes.
If that is “taking,” how does that compare with Romney’s 53 percent or, for that matter, with Romney himself?

The Tax Policy Center has a detailed study of the distribution of tax expenditures, which in addition to the earned income tax credit includes reduced tax rates on capital gains, exclusion of retirement savings and the deductions for charitable giving and home mortgage interest that reduced household federal income taxes by $1.08 trillion in 2011.

It found that the top 1 percent of filers earning over $400,000 raked in 23.9 percent or about $258 billion in reduced taxes through deductions and exclusions. The top 10 percent of filers took in 40.3 percent, or more than $435 billion.

On the other hand, the bottom 60 percent of tax filers, which includes more than 99 percent of the people who paid no income tax last year (the non-paying group also included 7,000 millionaires), grabbed just 20.1 percent of the tax reductions from deductions and exclusions. That was worth $217 billion or half of what was claimed by far fewer top earners in the U.S.

“If you counted tax expenditures as a form of spending, then the rich would be paying a lot more in taxes,” said Eric Toder, a fellow at the Urban Institute and co-author of a study on the distribution of tax expenditures. “If you didn’t have tax expenditures, the tax system would be more progressive than it is today.” Read more »

Why Aren’t Health Care Prices Ever on The Table?

September 17, 2012
By

Journalist-turned investment banker-turned auto bailout czar Steven Rattner provocatively calls for “not quite” death panels in an op-ed in today’s New York Times. Noting a quarter of all Medicare spending comes in the last year of life, he writes:

No one wants to lose an aging parent. And with price out of the equation (emphasis added), it’s natural for patients and their families to try every treatment, regardless of expense or efficacy. But that imposes an enormous societal cost that few other nations have been willing to bear. Many countries whose health care systems are regularly extolled — including Canada, Australia and New Zealand — have systems for rationing care.

Take Britain, which provides universal coverage with spending at proportionately almost half of American levels. Its National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) uses a complex quality-adjusted life year (QALY) system to put an explicit value (up to about $48,000 per year) on a treatment’s ability to extend life.

At the least, the Independent Payment Advisory Board should be allowed to offer changes in services and costs. We may shrink from such stomach-wrenching choices, but they are inescapable.

Here’s the problem with the NICE/QALY model. It accepts the price that providers set on end-of-life care. It says, here’s the cost; here’s the benefit; and if the cost-per-life-year gained is above a particular level,  we won’t pay anything (actually it’s the National Health Service in Great Britain that won’t pay based on analysis of cost and benefits provided by NICE).  If the average length of time to death from diagnosis with a terminal disease like stage four cancer is 10 months, and the drug extends the average life to a year, those extra two months cost $120,000 or $720,000 per QALY (and that doesn’t even adjust for the lower quality-of-life of that final year from adding a drug that probably has debilitating side effects).  That’s 15 times the British standard of cost-effectiveness.

Here’s another way to tackle the problem. Instead of having a binary option of either not allowing Medicare to pay for the drug or paying $10,000 a month, why not simply set the price that Medicare will pay at its actual value? In this case, it would be 1/15th of $10,000 or $667 a month. If the drug company continues to insist on charging more, then people will have to pay the difference out-of-pocket.

It’s called reference pricing, an idea initially propounded by Steven D. Pearson, president of the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review in Boston and a former advisor to CMS and Peter Bach of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer. Some may object that this will cause rationing by price since poorer patients will suffer the brunt its effects. To a certain extent, they are right. But at least the poor and middle-class will go to their graves knowing they didn’t miss much since Medicare will have sent them a clear signal based on careful science that what they couldn’t afford really wasn’t worth very much.

Others may object by saying, ah, but these new drugs actually work extremely well in a handful of patients. They often live for years and it was this small group’s experience on the drug that drove the overall survival rate to two months. As soon as we figure out how to target them by using sophisticated biomarkers (the latest cancer drugs are being approved with such screening tests), we can limit the drug’s use to those that truly benefit. Great! The cost per QALY should come down dramatically. As long as Medicare doesn’t pay for its off-label use (patients with the same condition who don’t meet the appropriate biomarker profile), the cost to the system should be much more affordable. If that cost was still above the reference price (because even with targeting, the latest therapies are not magic bullet cures, but still life extenders), at least the out-of-pocket for patients (and the cost to Medicare) will be much, much lower.

Why The Slowdown in Health Care Costs?

September 14, 2012
By

Meghan McCarthy of the National Journal posted a good overview of the alternative explanations for the recent slowing in the increase in health care costs, which rose less than four percent in each of the past two years. Medicare costs, she points out, has slowed even more dramatically.The latest survey from the Kaiser Family Foundation shows insurance premiums rising just 4 percent this year.

The first reasons she offers parallel the official analysis from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: the recession has caused people to postpone elective surgeries or physician visits, which, like most health care, entail out-of-pocket costs. She then offers competing views on the role of the Affordable Care Act and reasonably quotes former Republican chief of CMS Gail Wilensky, who points out that it’s hard to credit something whose major provisions haven’t gone into effect yet.

She concludes with comments from the Urban Institute’s Robert Berenson, a former CMS official and physician, who credits the reform “environment,” not any specific element of reform: “Physicians and others are getting the message,” he said. “I suspect physicians are tired being criticized for not being able to restrain themselves. It’s more health reform in general, rather than specific provisions that are associated with ACA.”

There is precedent for that view. The last time there was a multi-year slowdown in the pace at which health care spending increased was between 1994 and 1996, during and after the Clinton-era debate over health care reform. While the legislative effort failed, it sparked a massive rush by insurers and employers to enroll people in health maintenance organizations, which succeeded for a time in holding costs in check (mostly by denying care, which led to a late 1990s backlash by the patients rights movement).

Today, hospitals and provider networks are moving to establish accountable care organizations and preparing for a new era of cost-controlled medicine. As Berenson points out, providers, tired of being blasted for their wasteful practices (even the Institute of Medicine earlier this month signed onto the analysis that said nearly a third of all health care expenditures are wasted), are preparing for a new era.  Contrary to Wilensky, reform can work even before it goes into effect.

Clinton’s Advice on Solyndra

September 14, 2012
By

Former president Bill Clinton put in an appearance yesterday at the solar industry’s annual meeting in Orange County, California. “You’re going to win this battle,” he told the crowd, according to an account this morning in Solar Industry Magazine. He pointed to California’s 33 percent renewable energy portfolio standard for utilities; falling solar panel prices (thanks to cheap Chinese modules flooding the U.S. market, which he didn’t mention); the growing interest at utilities in large-scale plants; and state-level tax credits now that federal aid is disappearing.

As for Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s pledge to end all federal renewable subsidies, he pointed to a study by the Baker Center (named for former Sen. Howard Baker, R-Tenn.) that government support for renewables is comparable by any measure to government support for fossil fuels. In reality, it lags far behind in nominal dollar terms.

Then he turned to the hot button issue of the campaign: Solyndra, the failed solar thin film manufacturer that received a $500 million loan guarantee from the Obama administration’s stimulus act. “You can’t blame people for reacting to an isolated incident out of context if you don’t provide the context and the other side of the story,” he said.

Solyndra, he argued:

. . . was a company with an innovative yet expensive technology that failed to reach volume and bring its costs down quickly enough to compete – especially once the Chinese government doled out billions to their domestic solar manufacturing industry. “Since no one explained that to the American people, they can be forgiven for listening to the worst possible explanation,” he said. He urged solar companies and their partners to “get the basic positive facts out there” in order to counteract the negativity.

Let’s see, the Koch brothers and the Romney campaign finance a massive advertising blitz to spread the lie that the loan guarantee for Solyndra, one of dozens made by the Obama administration, almost all of which have been successful, was an example of “crony capitalism.” Yet Clinton castigates a handful of small manufacturers struggling to survive in a tough international environment for failing to get their message out. Talk about blaming the victim!

The elite press, especially the Washington Post, jumped all over the Solyndra story after Rep. Daryl Issa, the richest man in Congress from his car alarm business, made it is cause celebre in his government oversight committee.  The solar industry never got any help from the free media except the occasional editorial in the New York Times. The alternative was advertising. But if their trade group was miraculously given the same hundred million dollars dumped on advertising by the Kochs and the other pro-oil industry Super PACs, I suspect it would donate it to research or advertise the benefits of the product, not explain the reasons behind one firm’s failure.

The reality is that if Romney and his allies in the fossil fuel industry win this election, alternative energy will face headwinds like nowhere else in the world. The solar industry here — the one most in need of subsidy because it is still uncompetitive with cheap natural gas — will go into steep decline. The stock market is already anticipating this outcome. Everything is teed up for China to win the race to dominate what is certain to be one of the major industries of the 21st century by default.

Are You Better Off?

September 11, 2012
By

A new Gallup poll out this morning compares Americans’ attitudes about the economy now to February 2009 when Barack Obama took office. It found:

Changes in Key Indicators, February 2009 to August 2012

Are things hunky-dorey? No, economic confidence is still a negative, but it’s far better than it was four years ago. Slightly less than half say their standard of living is getting better, not very satisfactory. But it’s a lot better than a bit more than a third saying the same four years ago.

It’s not surprising Obama’s job approval ratings are down sharply from where he stood when he first entered office. But the bottom line on the public’s attitudes conforms with the message sent during the Democratic convention last week: things may not be all that great, but at least the economy and public attitudes are moving in the right direction.

 

Two Conventions, Two Philosophies

September 10, 2012
By

Michael Cohen of the Century Foundation has a nice piece up on the Guardian website that pulls two quotes from the past two week’s conventions that sums up the vast philosophical gulf that separates the two parties. Unfortunately, Romney left it to Paul Ryan to articulate his party’s philosophy:

“I never thought of myself as stuck in some station in life. I was on my own path, my own journey, an American journey, where I could think for myself, decide for myself… that is what we do in this country. That is the American dream. That’s freedom and I will take it any day over the supervision and sanctimony of the central planners.”

Here is how President Obama responded:

“We, the people, recognize that we have responsibilities as well as rights; that our destinies are bound together; that a freedom which asks only what’s in it for me, a freedom without a commitment to others, a freedom without love or charity or duty or patriotism, is unworthy of our founding ideals and those who died in their defense.”

Last week, I read somewhere that Romney at a campaign event accused Obama of wanting to take the word “God” off the nation’s currency by removing “In God We Trust.” It wasn’t true, but no doubt resonated with some of the low-information fundamentalist voters who populate his crowds. If Obama were a liar, he might have responded, “oh, yeah, well they want to pull ‘E Pluribus Unum’ off the currency.” At least that would have been spiritually accurate.

 

 

 

Yes! Send Me Weekly Headlines
Email:  

Yes! I Support Independent Health Care Journalism