Upload
joshua-gans
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/6/2019 2004 Mar 22 System Blocks Better Health Care
1/5
"System Blocks Better Health Care," Australian
Financial Review, 22nd March 2004.
It's time to rethink the design of Australia's health insurance system, argue
economists, Professors Joshua Gans and Stephen King of Melbourne BusinessSchool, University of Melbourne.
Imagine a perfect world of complete comprehensive, universal health
insurance. No one would face any financial burden when they fell sick. Everyone
would be able to utilise care of the highest quality both during treatment and
recuperation. And all this without any waiting. This is a world where individuals
health risks have been completely removed.
While nice to imagine, the simple fact is that the economics of health care
does not (yet) permit this world. Governments may aim for perfect universal
coverage, but reality falls short. Indeed, neither the government nor the market comes
even close. As we will argue here, the way we have set up the health system actively
works against improving the level of health insurance. This is because health
insurance is governed by the forces ofself selection.
Lets start with the private market. Self selection drives away those with low
health risk and makes insurance expensive for those more at risk. To see this, suppose
that private insurers set a premium based on the average population health risk. Then
those individuals and families who have a lower than average health risk would find
the price of health insurance too high. But if some low risk families fail to buy private
health insurance then the average risk faced by insurance companies increases and to
remain profitable, premiums must rise. This in turn leads more low risk families to
drop out. In a purely private market for health insurance either high risk families will
pay more for insurance than low risk families or only those who face a high risk of
medical care and hospitalisation will find it worthwhile to buy insurance.
Many societies, however, find such outcomes unacceptable. It seems unfair
that people who face the highest health risk -- the elderly, couples just starting a
family or people with a history of poor health -- should be forced to pay more for
health insurance. It is considered unconscionable to deny medical services to someone
who needs them simply because they lack health insurance and cannot afford to pay
for the treatment. Governments become involved in the provision of health insurance
because a private market outcome would not be either efficient or fair.
8/6/2019 2004 Mar 22 System Blocks Better Health Care
2/5
Governments do not, however, provide fully comprehensive universal health
insurance. Providing this insurance for all Australians would be extremely expensive
and would create strong incentives for wasteful over-servicing. As a result, a mixed
system of public (Medicare) and private health insurance has evolved in Australia.
But it too is plagued by self selection.
Even with Medicare, some households self select into the private health
system. The private option allows households to avoid queues that have become a
hallmark of the public system for non-critical procedures. They also receive a higher
level of hospital service including a private room and have a right to their choice of
doctor. If individuals purchase ancillary health insurance then they are covered for a
range of medical expenses, such as dental and optical expenses, that are generally not
freely available in the public system.
But who chooses to go private? For starters, those who can afford it. Because
private health insurance overlaps with Medicare, those utilising the private system
bear one way or another the full costs of procedures. However, because it provides
a higher quality of care, private health insurance better insures against health risk. For
that reason, like any insurance market, private health insurance also attracts those with
greatest risk of falling ill.
Private insurance attracts the well to do and the less healthy because it
provides extra benefits compared with the public system. But every person that goes
private helps the public system. The quality of the public system depends on
congestion, and those who opt to go private reduce this congestion. They also save
public money. People insured by Medicare utilise public hospitals with limited
budgets. Using private health services with private insurance reduces these budget
pressures. This tension between the private and public systems drives health debates.
What are the consequences of these forces of self selection? First, they distortgovernment choices regarding the resources devoted to the public system. Until
recently, the private system was losing. There was a steady decline in the proportion
of Australians taking out private insurance. These people drifted back into the public
system. This drift included many younger Australians who were able to afford private
insurance but did not find it worthwhile. This had both the effect of increasing
congestion in the public system but also degrading the risk profile of those taking
private insurance. Market forces took over, premiums rose and the tide continued.
8/6/2019 2004 Mar 22 System Blocks Better Health Care
3/5
8/6/2019 2004 Mar 22 System Blocks Better Health Care
4/5
health insurance system which makes the ill cross subsidise the well. Of course, good
health insurance is meant to protect the ill in Australia we do the opposite. We have
anti-insurance.
Supporters of the current system counter that wealthier individuals are also
more likely to buy private health insurance than the poor, and as a result the rich cross
subsidise the poor. This is true, but is no defence for the current system. Income
redistribution should not be carried out under the guise of health insurance. If we
believe that the government should tax the rich more and provide more benefits to the
poor then this should be done in a clear, transparent fashion. Further, the health
insurance system transfers money from the sick rich to everyone else. The poor rely
on public health insurance but so too do the well rich. At best, the equity of taxing the
sick rich to pay both the well rich and the poor is debateable.
Some recent changes, in particular the government rebate on private health
insurance, have helped to reverse the distortions in Australias health insurance
system. Essentially the rebate means that families who buy private insurance get a
refund on their public insurance premium. This reduces the pay twice effect. Other
changes, such as taxation penalties for high income earners who do not buy private
health insurance, however, are based on the wrong-headed notion that health
insurance should be used for income redistribution. Further, even the rebate is a
poorly designed band aid. By effectively subsidising the marginal price of private
health insurance, the rebate encourages families to over insure and take out coverage
that they value at less than the cost.
A better answer is to rethink the design of Australias health insurance system.
Ownership of hospitals needs to be clearly separated from ownership of insurance.
The quality of the public health insurance scheme should be maintained and, in our
opinion, expanded. Health insurance should not be used for back-door income
redistribution. The best way to ensure this is to make private health insurancesupplemental to the public system. Private health insurance would only cover services
and procedures not covered by Medicare, and it would not duplicate any part of public
insurance. Such reforms will increase government expenditure on health care but will
also improve the efficiency of health care delivery and raise the level of health
insurance protection for all Australians. It might not result in a perfect world, but it
would be a lot better than the current one!
For more by Joshua Gans and Stephen King on health
insurance: www.economics.com.au.
http://www.economics.com.au/http://www.economics.com.au/8/6/2019 2004 Mar 22 System Blocks Better Health Care
5/5