Antony Davies & James Harrigan: Let markets solve health care crisis |
Antony Davies & James Harrigan, Columnist

Antony Davies & James Harrigan: Let markets solve health care crisis

Antony Davies and James Harrigan

The presidential election is just about a year away, and we are already being subjected to a steady diet of politicians telling us what we need to do to fix the health care industry. Their rallying cry is familiar: We cannot allow “unfettered capitalism” to “deny us access” to health care. But an honest look at the facts indicates that politicians themselves caused our problems in the first place.

Our current health care (more precisely, health insurance) problems are less the result of unfettered capitalism than of two major government interventions in markets. The first was the Stabilization Act of 1942, under the authority of which President Franklin Roosevelt issued an executive order prohibiting wage increases. But prices aren’t switches one can simply flip to alter reality; they are metrics that reflect a pre-existing reality. In 1942, the reality was that businesses were having a hard time attracting workers. Wage controls didn’t change that reality. When politicians prohibited employers from attracting workers with higher wages, employers began offering health insurance instead.

The second government intervention came in 1954 when the IRS ruled that employer-provided health insurance was not taxable. This made employer-provided health insurance less expensive than individual health insurance, and less expensive than a wage raise of the same pre-tax amount. This is about as far from unfettered capitalism as possible, but politicians know not to let the facts get in the way of good campaign slogans.

The first intervention contributed to today’s pre-existing condition problem. With employer-provided insurance, a sick worker who loses his job also loses his insurance. Any new insurer will, quite sensibly, count that sickness as a pre-existing condition. The second intervention contributed to today’s insurance premium problem. When it’s cheaper to take a raise in the form of tax-free benefits than taxable wages, demand for insurance rises. And that increases the price of insurance.

Medicare and Medicaid followed these interventions a decade later, and before we knew it, the government was so deeply involved in health care that it was difficult for many to imagine things any other way. For decades, we have been lurching toward a government-run health care system as state and federal governments have enacted a sequence of ever more elaborate plans intended to solve the myriad problems their previous plans created.

But it needn’t be this way, as some telling examples illustrate. Cosmetic surgeries are typically not covered by insurance, and are thus largely exempt from the government tinkering. From 1998 to 2016, consumer prices excluding medical care rose an average of 2.1% annually. Over the same period, prices of cosmetic surgeries rose an average of only 1.6% annually. Lasik surgery is typically not covered by insurance either, but its price has remained unchanged for the past decade — not even keeping pace with inflation. The prices of most health care services that escaped political planning have risen slower than inflation — just like those of other high-technology products.

There may be ways government regulation can increase people’s access to health care and insurance. But the evidence suggests that markets, when left alone, can take us a long way to the solution. And that means that the first thing politicians should do when they see a problem in health care markets is not to ask what they might do to make it better, but to ask what they might stop doing that is making it worse.

Antony Davies is associate professor of economics at Duquesne University. James Harrigan is managing director of the Center for the Philosophy of Freedom at the University of Arizona. They host the weekly podcast, Words and Numbers.

Categories: Opinion
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.