Three Things to Know about “Surprise” Medical Bills

In recent months, lawmakers in Washington have focused on “surprise” medical bills. In large part, this term refers to two types of incidents: 1) individuals who received pre-arranged treatment at an in-network hospital, but saw an out-of-network physician (e.g., anesthesiologist) during their stay, or 2) individuals who had to seek care at an out-of-network hospital during a medical emergency.

In both cases, the out-of-network providers can “balance bill” patients—that is, send them an invoice for the difference between an insurer’s in-network payment and what the physician actually charged. Because these bills can become quite substantial, and because patients do not have a meaningful opportunity to consent to the higher charges—many patients never meet their anesthesiologist until the day of surgery, and few people can investigate hospital networks during an ambulance ride to the ER—policy-makers see reason to intervene.

1. Few Hospitals Comprise Most of the ‘Surprise’ Incidents

As a chart from The New York Times demonstrates, most hospitals had zero, or close to zero, out-of-network emergency room bills in 2015, according to a study by three Yale University professors:

“Surprise” bills applied in 22 percent of ER visits, but as a Times reporter noted, they are “not happening to some random set of patients in every hospital. [They’re] happening to a large percentage of patients in certain hospitals.”

As noted above, most hospitals don’t have this problem, because they keep their ER physicians and other doctors in-network. Unfortunately, however, the one-quarter or so of hospitals that have not forced their physicians in-network have made life difficult for the rest of the hospital sector.

The hospital industry should have done a much better job of policing itself and weeded out these “bad actors” years ago. Had they done so, the number of “surprise” bills likely would not have risen to a level where federal lawmakers demand action. However, the fact that these incidents still only occur in a minority of hospitals suggests reason for continued caution—because why should Congress impose a far-reaching solution to a “problem” that doesn’t affect most hospitals?

2. The Federal Government Has Little Reason to Intervene

Over and above the question of whether “surprise” bills warrant a legislative response, lawmakers should also ponder why that response must come from the federal government. Even knowledgeable reporters have (incorrectly) assumed that a solution to the issue must emanate from Washington because only the federal government can address “surprise” bills for self-funded employer plans. Not so.

ERISA, in this case, refers to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, which regulates employer-provided health insurance. ERISA states that its provisions “shall supersede any and all state laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan.”

But as that language indicates, ERISA applies only to the regulation of employee benefit plans—i.e., the employer as an insurer. It does not apply to the regulation of providers—i.e., hospitals, doctors, etc. As a Brookings Institution analyst admitted, states can, for instance, require hospitals to issue an in-network guarantee, ensuring that all doctors at an in-network hospital are considered in-network.

For most of the past year, interest groups have lobbied Congress on “surprise” billing. As one might expect, everyone wants a solution that takes patients out of the line of fire in negotiations between doctors, hospitals, and insurers, but no one wants to take a financial haircut in any solution that emerges.

The lack of agreement on a path forward indicates that Congress should take a back seat to the states, and let them innovate solutions to the issue. Indeed, several states have already enacted legislation on out-of-network bills, suggesting that Congress might do more harm than good by weighing in with its own “solution.”

3. Some Republicans Support Socialistic Price Controls

Both the comparatively isolated nature of the problem and the lack of a clear need for federal involvement suggest that some on the left continue to raise the “surprise” billing issue as part of a larger campaign. By establishing that the federal government should regulate the prices of health-care services—even those in private insurance plans—liberals can lay down a predicate for a single-payer health-care system that would do the exact same thing, just on a larger scale.

Sure enough, congressional Republicans, like Oregon Rep. Greg Walden and Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, have endorsed legislation establishing a statutory cap on prices for out-of-network emergency services. (Remember: In policy-making, bipartisanship only occurs when conservatives agree to liberal policies.)

Both the House Energy and Commerce Committee and Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee have introduced proposals that would engage in such federal price-fixing, although lawmakers recently modified the House bill to allow for binding arbitration between doctors and hospitals where the disputed sums exceed certain thresholds. Alexander wants to move his legislation on the Senate floor within weeks.

Last month, Alexander said he “instinctively” liked the in-network guarantee approach—which requires hospitals to have their physicians in-network, while letting insurers, hospitals, and doctors negotiate those in-network prices without setting them through government fiat. However, he told reporters that he ultimately endorsed the price-fixing approach because the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) called it “the most effective at lowering health care costs.”

The retort to Alexander’s comment seems obvious: Of course, price-fixing will lower health care costs. Indeed, CBO said the price-fixing provision would save by far the greatest amount of money of any section of the nearly 250-page bill, because it “lower[s] payment rates” to physicians.

If Alexander suddenly wants to use price controls to lower health care costs, then why not regulate the prices of all health care services ($129.95 for surgery, anyone?)—or move to full-on single-payer? Because the quality of care will suffer too—as will American patients.

A Spoonful of Socialism, Anyone?

I noted above that the hospital industry caused the “surprise” billing problem in the first place. I have little love for hospital executives, many of whom behave like greedy monopolists, and who represent the single biggest argument for single-payer health care I can think of.

Yet however much hospital executives may have earned opprobrium by their conduct, the American people don’t deserve a single-payer system, with its massive economic disruption and its inferior care, foisted on them. They deserve better than federally imposed price controls as a “solution”—whether as the mere “spoonful of socialism” in the “surprise” billing legislation, or an all-out move to single-payer.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Joe Biden’s Health Care Plan: SandersCare Lite

On Monday morning, former vice president Joe Biden released the health care plan for his 2020 presidential campaign. The plan comes ahead of a single-payer health plan speech by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) scheduled for Wednesday.

Biden’s plan includes several noteworthy omissions. For instance, it does not include any reference to health coverage for foreign citizens illegally present in the United States. That exclusion seems rather surprising, given both Democrats’ embrace of health benefits for those unlawfully present in last month’s debate, and Biden’s repeated references to the issue.

Biden said later on Monday that illegally present foreign citizens should have access to “public health clinics if they’re sick,” but not health insurance. He also claimed that last month’s debate format did not give him enough time to explain his position.

Overall, however, Biden’s plan includes many similarities to Sanders’. While both Sanders and Biden want to draw contrasts on health care—Sanders to attack Biden as beholden to corporate interests, and Biden to attack Sanders for wanting to demolish Obamacare—their plans contain far more similarities than differences.

Losing Coverage

Sanders’ bill would, as the American people have gradually learned this year, make private insurance “unlawful,” taking coverage away from approximately 300 million Americans. Biden’s plan specifically attacks single payer on this count, for “starting from scratch and getting rid of private insurance.”

As with Obamacare, Biden’s promise will echo hollow. By creating a government-run “public option” like Sanders’, the Biden plan would also take away health coverage for millions of Americans. As I have previously explained, a government-run plan would sabotage private insurance, using access to Treasury dollars and other in-built structural advantages.

In 2009, the Lewin Group concluded that a government-run health plan, available to all individuals and paying doctors and hospitals at Medicare rates (i.e., less than private insurance), would lead to 119.1 million individuals losing employer coverage:

More Spending

Biden would also expand the Obamacare subsidy regime, in three ways. He would:

  1. Reduce the maximum amount individuals would pay in premiums from 9.86% of income to no more than 8.5% of income, with federal subsidies making up the difference.
  2. Repeal Obamacare’s income cap on subsidies, so that families with incomes of more than four times the poverty level ($103,000 for a family of four in 2019) can qualify for subsidies.
  3. To lower deductibles and co-payments, link insurance subsidies to a richer “gold” plan, one that covers 80% of an average enrollee’s health costs in a given year, rather than the “silver” plan under current law.

All three of these recommendations come from the liberal Urban Institute’s Healthy America plan, issued last year. However, they all come with a big price tag. Consider the following excerpt from Biden’s plan:

Take a family of four with an income of $110,000 per year. If they currently get insurance on the individual marketplace [i.e., Exchange], because their premium will now be capped at 8.5% of their income, under the Biden Plan they will save an estimated $750 per month on insurance alone. That’s cutting their premiums almost in half. [Emphasis original.]

That’s also making coverage “affordable” for families through unaffordable levels of federal spending. By its own estimates, Biden’s plan will give a family with an income of $110,000 annually—which is approximately double the national median household income—$9,000 per year in federal insurance subsidies. Some families with that level of income may not even pay $9,000 annually in federal income taxes, depending upon their financial situation, yet they will receive sizable amounts of taxpayer-funded largesse.

Price Controls and Regulations

The drug price section of the Biden plan includes the usual leftist tropes about “prescription drug corporations…profiteering off of the pocketbooks of sick individuals.” It proposes typical liberal “solutions” in the form of price controls, whether importing price-controlled pharmaceuticals from overseas, or allowing “an evaluation by…independent board members” (i.e., bureaucrats) to determine prices.

Ironically, Biden’s plan implicitly acknowledges Obamacare’s flaws. In talking about prescription drug pricing, Biden omits any discussion of the “rock-solid deal” that the Obama administration cut with Big Pharma, so that pharmaceutical companies would run ads supporting Obamacare.

Likewise, Biden’s plan notes that “the concentration of market power in the hands of a few corporations is occurring throughout our health care system, and this lack of competition is driving up prices for consumers.” Yet it fails to note the cause of much of this consolidation: Obamacare encouraged hospitals to gobble up physician practices, and each other, to obtain clout in negotiations with insurers. Typically, after acknowledging government’s failures, Biden, like Sanders, prescribes yet more government as the solution.

In the leadup to debate on “repeal-and-replace” legislation several years ago, conservative Republicans said they did not want any replacement to become “Obamacare Lite.” Just as history often repeats itself, Democrats seem ready to embark on a similar intra-party debate. That’s because, no matter how much Biden wants to draw distinctions between his proposals and single payer, his plan looks suspiciously like “SandersCare Lite.”

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Three Reasons You Won’t Keep Your Doctor Under Single Payer

Over Fourth of July week, liberal activists took solace in the results of a poll that they said demonstrates the popularity of a single-payer health system. The survey showed diminished support for a “‘Medicare for All’ [system] if it diminished the role of private insurers.” However, support rose by nearly ten points if pollsters described single payer as a system that “diminished the role of private insurers but allowed you to keep your preferred doctor and hospital.”

Staff for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) claimed the survey showed single payer “is wildly popular when you tell people what it would actually do.” That claim misses the mark on several levels. First, most individuals wouldn’t consider a 55 percent approval rating—the level of support for a single-payer plan that allows patients to keep their doctors—as evidence of a “wildly popular,” as opposed to mildly popular, policy.

More fundamentally, though, single payer has precious little to do with keeping one’s doctor. For at least three reasons, many patients will lose access to their preferred physicians and hospitals under a single-payer system.

‘Free Care’ Means People Will Demand More

Second, the Sanders legislation would virtually eliminate medical cost-sharing—deductibles, co-payments, and the like. As a result, individuals who currently have health insurance would use more care once it becomes “free.”

In their analysis of single-payer legislation, both the Rand Corporation and the liberal Urban Institute have estimated that induced demand would result in capacity constraints for health care supply. In other words, so many more people would clamor for “free” care that the system would not have enough doctors or facilities to treat them.

More Work, Less Pay

As I noted last year, single-payer supporters operate under the fanciful premise that doctors and hospitals will perform more procedures for less money. Nearly three-quarters of hospitals already lose money on their Medicare patients—and single payer would extend those Medicare reimbursement rates to all patients nationwide. A study earlier this year in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) concluded that a single-payer system linked to Medicare payment levels would reduce hospitals’ revenue by $151 billion annually.

More Soul-Crushing Regulations

The federal government has already caused physicians countless hours of paperwork and grief. Thanks to requirements regarding electronic health records introduced in President Obama’s “stimulus,” an emergency room physician makes an average of 4,000 clicks in one shift. Rather than practicing their craft and healing patients, physicians have become button-clicking automatons, forced to respond to Washington’s every whim and demand.

The combination of more work, less pay, and added government intrusion under single payer could cause many physicians to leave the profession. For instance, the electronic records requirements caused my mother’s longtime physician to retire—he didn’t want to spend all his time staring at a computer screen (and who can blame him).

Some physicians could instead eschew the single-payer route, offering their services on a cash basis to wealthy patients who can afford to opt-out of the government system (provided the government will permit them to do so). Still other individuals may make alternative career plans, abandoning medicine even before they begin their formal training.

Here’s hoping that the American people never get an opportunity to discover the fanciful nature of Sanders’s promise that you can keep your doctor and hospital under single payer.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

How Democratic Health Proposals Will Take Your Coverage Away

Following her performance in last week’s Democratic presidential debates, California Senator Kamala Harris once again tripped up over the issue of health care. For a second time, Harris attempted to claim that she would not eliminate private health coverage. In reality, however, virtually all Democrats running for president would enact policies jeopardizing Americans’ health insurance. The candidates differ largely in their level of honesty about their proposals’ effects.

During the debates on Wednesday and Thursday, only Harris, New York Mayor Bill DeBlasio, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said they supported eliminating private insurance. But in an interview Friday morning, Harris claimed she heard the question as asking whether she would give up her insurance, not whether she would take others’ coverage away.

The facts defy Harris’ lawyerly parsing. Section 107(a) of the bill that Sanders introduced, and which Harris, Warren, and New Jersey’s Cory Booker have co-sponsored, would make it “unlawful for a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided” under the legislation.

In May, Harris claimed that Sanders’ legislation would permit private health insurance to supplement the government-run program. But as CNN’s Jake Tapper pointed out at the time, Sanders’ bill would provide such comprehensive benefits that supplemental coverage could only cover treatments like cosmetic surgery. It raises an obvious question: Who would want to buy “insurance” covering breast implants and Botox injections? Harris’ Hollywood constituents, perhaps, but few middle-class Americans.

Other candidates have similarly tried to disguise their intentions when it comes to taking away Americans’ health coverage. During last week’s debates, New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand—another co-sponsor of Sanders’ legislation to make private coverage “unlawful”—did not raise her hand when asked about eliminating health insurance. She said she supported a government-run “public option” instead: “I believe we need to get to…single payer. The quickest way you get there is you create competition with the insurers.”

But individuals with private coverage cannot, and should not, rest easy. The fact that Gillibrand says she supports a government-run health system as an eventual outcome means that she would work to sabotage the private health insurance system, to drive all Americans into a government-run program.

Even Democratic candidates who claim they oppose Sanders’ single-payer legislation have proposed policies that would eventually lead to such a government-run health system. In Thursday’s debate, Sen. Michael Bennet claimed that his proposal for a “public option” “could easily” see 35 million people enroll. Bennet proved off in his estimate by only about 100 million individuals. In 2009, the Lewin Group estimated that a plan similar to Bennet’s could enroll as many as 131.2 million Americans.

A review of Bennet’s legislation demonstrates how it would sabotage private coverage, by giving the government plan major structural advantages. Bennett’s bill grants the government plan $1 billion in start-up funding from taxpayers—with additional bailout funds likely should the plan ever run into financial distress. It would require all doctors participating in Medicare to join the government plan. And it would pay doctors and hospitals the much lower rates that Medicare pays, even though nearly three-quarters of hospitals lost money on their Medicare patients in 2017.

Among the Democrats running for president, Sanders has remained outspoken in his desire to take away Americans’ health coverage, and ban private insurance. While most of the other candidates say that they want to preserve private coverage, their policies would do the exact opposite. Just as Barack Obama eventually had to apologize for his infamous “If you like your plan, you can keep it” broken promise, so too will most of this year’s candidates have to explain why American families couldn’t keep their insurance if and when their policy plans go into effect.

In accepting his party’s nomination for president at the 1984 Democratic National Convention, Minnesota Senator Walter Mondale infamously claimed that “[Ronald] Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won’t tell you; I just did.” Thirty-five years later, virtually all Democrats have embraced a position almost as unpopular as raising taxes: Taking away Americans’ health insurance. Unlike Mondale, most of this year’s candidates won’t tell you the full truth about their policies. I just did.

This post was originally published at Fox News.

Democrats Agree: Free Health Coverage for Undocumented Immigrants

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then three series of pictures, featuring Democrats discussing health benefits for those in this country illegally, speak volumes. First, Hillary Clinton in September 1993:

Finally, Democratic candidates for president last night:

Whereas Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg called coverage for illegal immigrants an “insurance program” and “not a hand out,” Clinton said in 1993—well before the most recent waves of migration—that “we do not want to do anything to encourage more illegal immigration into this country. We know now that too many people come in for medical care, as it is. We certainly don’t want them having the same benefits that American citizens are entitled to have.”

Likewise, whereas Joe Biden said “you cannot let people who are sick, no matter where they come from, no matter what their status, go uncovered,” the president whom he worked for promised the American people that “the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.” Granted, the promise had a major catch to it—Obamacare verifies citizenship but not identity, allowing people here illegally to obtain benefits using fraudulent documents—but at least he felt the need to make the pledge in the first place. No longer.

Ironically enough, even as all Democrats supported giving coverage to illegally present foreigners, the candidates seemed less united on whether, how, and from whom to take health insurance away from U.S. citizens. Only Sens. Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders said they supported abolishing private health insurance, as Sanders’ single-payer bill would do (and as Sen. Elizabeth Warren and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio pledged on Wednesday evening). For Harris, it represents a return to her position of January, after fudging the issue in a follow-up interview with CNN last month.

As usual, Sanders made typically hyperbolic—and false—claims about his plan. He said that his bill would make health care a human right, even though it does no such thing. In truth, the legislation guarantees that individuals would have their bills paid for—but only if they can find a doctor or hospital willing to treat them.

While Sanders pledged that under his bill, individuals could go to whatever doctor or hospital they wished, such a promise has two main flaws. First, his bill does not—and arguably, the federal government cannot—force a given doctor to treat a given patient. Second, given the reimbursement reductions likely under single payer, many doctors could decide to leave the profession altogether.

Sanders’ home state provided a reality check during the debate. Candidates critical of single payer noted that Vermont had to abandon its dream of socialized medicine in 2014, when the tax increases needed to fund such a program proved too overwhelming.

Shumlin gave his fellow Democrats a valuable lesson. Based on the radical, and radically unaffordable, proposals discussed in this week’s debates—from single-payer health care, to coverage for undocumented immigrants, to “free” college and student loan forgiveness, and on and on—they seem hellbent on ignoring it.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Democrats Debate How Many Americans to Take Coverage Away From

The first segment of Wednesday evening’s Democratic presidential debate featured the ten candidates largely competing amongst themselves to see who could offer the most far-reaching proposals. In response to a question from the moderators, the candidates debated whether to allow individuals to keep the private insurance plans that most Americans have (and like) currently.

Of the candidates on stage, only New York Mayor Bill de Blasio and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren said they wanted to do away with private insurance entirely. But as I explained on Wednesday, the other candidates’ plans for a so-called “public option” could result in two-thirds of those with employer-sponsored coverage losing their insurance. In reality, then, the debate centered not around whether to take away Americans’ current health coverage, but how many would lose their insurance—and how honest Democrats would be with the American people in doing so.

For better or for worse, by saying “I’m with [Sen.] Bernie [Sanders]” on eliminating private coverage, Warren admitted that she’s “got a plan” for taking away Americans’ current insurance. Having seen her fellow senator and presidential candidate Kamala Harris flip-flop on her earlier comments about banning private coverage, Warren went all-in on embracing single-payer insurance, perhaps to siphon away Sanders’ socialist base.

Warren used flimsy reasoning to justify her support for single payer, talking repeatedly about insurers’ profits. As she noted, those profits totaled just over $20 billion last year. But during the last fiscal year, Medicare and Medicaid incurred a combined $84.7 billion in improper payments—payments made in the wrong amount, or outright fraud. With improper payments in government programs totaling nearly four times the amount of insurers’ earnings, a move to single payer would likely end up substituting private-sector profits for increased waste, fraud, and abuse in the government plan.

In rebuttal, Maryland Rep. John Delaney pointed out that Sanders’ bill would pay doctors and hospitals at Medicare reimbursement rates. Because government programs pay medical providers less than the cost of care in many cases—72 percent of hospitals lost money on their Medicare patients in 2017—Delaney persuasively argued that extending those payment rates to all patients could cause many hospitals to close.

Indeed, a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association earlier this year concluded that single payer would reduce hospital payments by more than $150 billion annually. To cope with losses that massive, hospitals could lay off up to 1.5 million workers alone. If extended to doctors’ offices and other medical providers, single payer could put millions of Americans out of work—job losses that would obviously affect access to care.

Ironically, the health care debate soon pivoted to talk about “reproductive health.” Commentators noted that the candidates seemed much more eager to talk about abortion issues—on which they almost all agree—than on single payer. But of course, the two remain linked, as Democrats not only want to have taxpayers fund abortions, but to force doctors and hospitals to perform them.

It says something about the current state of the Democratic Party that forcing doctors to perform abortions, and taking away the coverage of “only” 100 million or so Americans, now represent moderate positions within the party. If Democrats want to win over persuadable swing voters next November, they sure have a funny way of showing it.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

This Chart Explains How Democrats Will Take Away Your Current Coverage

This week, Democratic presidential candidates will gather in Miami for their first debates of the 2020 campaign cycle. Health care, including Sen. Bernie Sanders’ single-payer scheme, will surely serve as a prime point of contention.

More candidates who want to appear more moderate, such as former vice president Joe Biden, might try to contrast themselves with Vermont’s socialist senator. Because Biden and others instead want to allow people to buy into the Medicare program—the so-called “public option”—they will claim that individuals who like their current health coverage need not fear losing it.

In an April 2009 study, Lewin concluded that within one short year, a government-run health plan would eliminate the private coverage of 119.1 million individuals—two-thirds of those with employer-provided insurance:

Democrats’ proposals for a government-run health plan have slightly different details, but they share several characteristics that explain this massive erosion of private health coverage. First, most of the plans receive dollars from the Treasury—seed funding, funding for reserves, or both. These billions of taxpayer dollars, to say nothing of the possibility of additional bailout funds should it into financial distress, would give a government-run plan an inherent advantage over private insurers.

Third, and most importantly, the government-run plan would pay doctors and hospitals at or near Medicare payment levels. These payment levels fall far short of what private health plans pay medical providers, and in most cases fall short of the actual cost of care.

The Lewin Group concluded in 2009 that, by paying doctors and hospitals at Medicare rates, a government-run plan would lead to massive disruption in the employer-provided insurance market. It also concluded that the migration to the government plan would cost hospitals an estimated $36 billion in revenue, and doctors an estimated $33.1 billion. As Lewin noted, under this scenario “health care providers are providing more care for more people with less revenue”—a recipe for a rapid exodus of doctors out of the profession.

Democrats have spent the past two years criticizing President Trump for his supposed “sabotage” of Obamacare. But proposals to create a government-run health plan would sabotage private health insurance, to drive everyone into a single-payer system over time. And some of the plan’s biggest proponents have said as much publicly.

Many moderate and establishment Democrats view the government-run plan as a more appealing method to reach their single-payer goal, because it would take away individuals’ private coverage more gradually. Few believe in the efficiency of competition, or the private sector, as a policy matter; instead, they view the millions of people with private health coverage as a political obstacle, one they can overcome over time.

Senator and presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) epitomizes this belief. In March, she called for “a not-for-profit public option [to] compete for the business—I think over a couple years you’re going to transition into single payer.” Of course, by making these comments, Gillibrand indicated a clear bias toward her preferred outcome. So when she said “I don’t think that [private insurers] will compete,” Gillibrand really meant that she—and her Democratic colleagues—will sabotage them so badly that they cannot.

Democrats may claim that they don’t want to take away individuals’ insurance, but the numbers from the Lewin Group survey don’t lie. Regardless of whether they support Sanders’ bill or not, the health coverage of more than 100 million Americans remains at risk in the presidential election.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Single-Payer Will Increase Fraud and Corruption

It seems fitting that the Democratic National Committee chose Miami to host the first debates of the 2020 presidential campaign. Given that many of the candidates appearing on stage have endorsed a single-payer health care plan, the debates’ location epitomizes how government-run care will lead to a massive increase in fraud and corruption.

In South Florida, defrauding government health care programs doesn’t just qualify as a cottage industry — it’s big business. In 2009, “60 Minutes” noted that Medicare fraud “has pushed aside cocaine as the major criminal enterprise.” One former fraudster admitted that likely thousands of businesses in the Miami area alone were defrauding Medicare. Eric Holder, then the attorney general, explained why: Medicare fraud is easier — and carries smaller penalties — than dealing drugs.

A 2009 Government Accountability Office report also highlighted pervasive fraud within Medicare. For instance, some South Florida home health agencies “have submitted claims for visits that were probably not provided, such as claims for visits that allegedly occurred when hurricanes were in the area.” Auditors also found that fraudsters paid off seniors to cooperate with their scams. Because some “beneficiaries purportedly received more income in illegal [kickbacks] than from their monthly disability checks,” they would not report fraud to government officials.

Lest anyone believe that much has changed in the past decade, the spring of 2019 saw not one but two billion-dollar — that’s billion with a B — fraud rings against Medicare exposed in a single week. On April 7, Philip Esformes, a South Florida businessman, was convicted for bilking Medicare and Medicaid out of $1.3 billion in fraudulent nursing home claims. Two days later, federal authorities charged dozens more individuals in a $1.2 billion Medicare scam regarding neck braces.

If you think that the single-payer bills promoted by Sens. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and others would stop this rampant fraud, think again. Both the House and Senate single-payer bills include not a single new provision designed to stop crooks from defrauding government health programs. The bills would apply some existing anti-fraud provisions to the new government-run health program. However, given the widespread fraud in Medicare and Medicaid, expanding the failed status quo would increase corruption rather than reducing it.

To give some sense of perspective, in the last fiscal year Medicare had a rate of improper payments — payments either made in the wrong amount, or made under fraudulent pretenses — of 8.12%. Medicaid had an even higher improper payment rate of 9.8%. Extrapolating those rates to all health spending nationwide yields estimated improper payments under a single-payer system of between $296.1 billion and $357.3 billion. These sums of potential improper payments under single payer exceed the entire economies of countries like Finland and Denmark.

If lawmakers like Bernie Sanders want to see the ways in which socialized medicine will increase fraud, they don’t have far to look. Sanders’ Senate colleague Robert Menendez received nearly $1 million in gifts and favors from Salomon Melgen, yet another South Florida medical provider convicted of defrauding Medicare. Yet over several years, Menendez repeatedly lobbied Medicare officials on his friend Melgen’s behalf — using his influence as a senator to try to protect Melgen from his crimes.

At next week’s debates, moderators should ask candidates supporting Sanders’ plan whether they condone the actions of their colleague Menendez — and whether they think concentrating all power in a government-run health plan will increase or decrease the incidence of fraud and corruption within our health care system. The American people deserve better than to pay massive tax increases for this $32 trillion scheme, only to see much of that money end up in the hands of criminal fraudsters.

This post was originally published at Real Clear Politics.

California Is What’s Wrong with Obamacare

In recent days, California lawmakers have finalized their budget. The legislation includes several choices regarding health care and Obamacare, most of them incorrect ones. Doling out more government largesse won’t solve rising health costs, and it will cause more unintended consequences in the process.

Health Coverage for Individuals Unlawfully Present

This move has drawn the most attention, as the budget bill expands Medicaid coverage to illegally present adults aged 19-26. California will pay the full share of this Medicaid spending, as the federal government will not subsidize health coverage for foreign citizens illegally present in the United States.

As to those who disagree with this move, one can study the words of none other than Hillary Clinton. In 1993, she testified before Congress in opposition to giving illegal residents full health benefits, because “illegal aliens” were coming to the United States for health care even then:

We do not think the comprehensive health care benefits should be extended to those who are undocumented workers and illegal aliens. We do not want to do anything to encourage more illegal immigration into this country. We know now that too many people come in for medical care, as it is. We certainly don’t want them having the same benefits that American citizens are entitled to have.

If Clinton’s words don’t sound compelling enough, consider one way that California may finance these new benefits: By reinstating Obamacare’s individual mandate. To put it another way, people who obey the law (i.e., the mandate) will fund free health coverage for people who by definition have broken the law by coming to, or remaining in, the United States unlawfully.

A Questionable Individual Mandate

This issue faces multiple questions on both process and substance. First, the budget bill includes about $8 million for the state’s Franchise Tax Board to implement an individual mandate, but doesn’t actually contain language imposing the mandate. The bill that would reimpose the mandate, using definitions originally included in the federal law, passed the Assembly late last month, but faces opposition in the Senate.

Third, implementing the mandate imposes legal and logistical challenges. I argued in the Wall Street Journal last fall that states cannot require employers who self-fund health coverage to report their employees’ insurance coverage to state authorities. The mandate bill the Assembly passed does not include such a requirement.

Without a reporting requirement on employers, a mandate could become toothless, because the state would have difficulty verifying coverage to ensure compliance—people could lie on their tax forms and likely would not get caught. However, imposing a reporting regime, either through the mandate bill or regulations, would invite an employer to claim that federal labor law (namely, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act) prohibits such a state-based requirement.

More Spending on Subsidies

While the budget bill does not include an explicit insurance mandate, it does include more than $295 million to “provide advanceable premium assistance subsidies during the 2020 coverage year to individuals with projected and actual household incomes at or below 600 percent of the federal poverty level.”

Obamacare epitomized the problems that policy-makers face in subsidizing health insurance. The federal law includes a subsidy “cliff” at 400 percent of the poverty level. Households making just under that threshold can receive federal subsidies that could total as much as $5,000-$10,000 for a family, but if their income rises even one dollar above that “cliff,” they lose all eligibility for those subsidies.

By penalizing individuals whose incomes rise even marginally, the subsidy “cliff” discourages work. That’s one of the main reasons the Congressional Budget Office said Obamacare would reduce the labor supply by the equivalent of 2.5 million full-time jobs.

California decided to replace these work disincentives with yet more spending on subsidies. This year, the federal poverty level stands at $25,750 for a family of four—which makes 600 percent of poverty equal to $154,500. In other words, a family making more than $150,000 will now classify as “low-income” for purposes of the new subsidy regime.

Hypocrisy by Officials

The individual mandate bill gives a significant amount of authority for its implementation to Covered California, the state’s insurance exchange. The bill says the exchange will determine the amount of the mandate penalty, and determine who receives exemptions from the mandate.

Who runs California’s exchange? None other than Peter Lee, the man I previously profiled as someone who earns $436,800 per year, yet refuses to buy the exchange coverage he sells. Or, to put it another way, if the mandate passes, Lee will be standing in judgment of individuals who refuse to do what he will not—buy an Obamacare plan.

If you think that seems a bit rich, you would be correct. But it epitomizes the poor policy choices and hypocritical actions taken by officials to prop up Obamacare in California.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

The Trump Administration’s Innovative Solution Regarding Pre-Existing Conditions

Last Thursday afternoon, the Trump administration released its final rule regarding Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs). The 497-page document will take lawyers and employment professionals weeks to absorb and digest fully. But in a nutshell, the rule will help to make coverage more portable and affordable—while also going a long way to resolve the problem of pre-existing conditions.

As I first explained when the administration proposed this HRA rule back in October, much of the problem surrounding pre-existing conditions revolves around portability. Because most Americans don’t own their own health coverage—their employers do—when people lose their job, they lose their health coverage. The pre-existing condition problem emerges when people develop a costly medical condition while at one job, then have to switch jobs or otherwise leave their employer plan.

But if people owned their own insurance policies, they could change jobs easily, without fear of losing their coverage. Moreover, they would get to pick the kinds of benefit designs and doctor networks they want, rather than being stuck with what their employer picks for them.

The final rule accomplishes both objectives. It enhances portability by allowing employers to give their workers a (tax-free) contribution to an HRA, so employees can buy the plan that works best for them. If there’s any difference between the employer’s contribution and the total premium—for instance, an employer contributes $300 per month, and the worker selects a plan with a $350 monthly premium—the worker can pay the difference on a pre-tax basis, so long as he purchases the plan outside of the Obamacare exchanges. Best of all, because employees own the plans and not the employer, they can keep their coverage when they change jobs.

This change also improves affordability, in two key respects. First, individuals can buy just the coverage they want, rather than the coverage their employer gives them. Currently, if an employer plan offers particular benefits that an employee does not value, or a provider network a worker does not need, the worker can only buy an alternative plan by forfeiting their employer’s subsidy towards their health insurance—an unattractive and irrational option for most. The HRA option will allow workers to retain their employer’s subsidy, yet purchase more tailored coverage.

Second, more people purchasing coverage individually will create a more robust marketplace, increasing competition. Carriers may move into the market for individual coverage, and even create new options to attract additional business—both changes that will help consumers, and mitigate premium increases.

The final rule does include important safeguards to ensure that businesses don’t just try to “dump” their sickest employees onto individual insurance plans, raising premiums on the Obamacare exchanges. Most notably, if they elect the HRA option, firms must apply it to an entire class of workers—for instance, all full-time workers, or all workers in a certain geographic area. Moreover, employers cannot vary their contributions to workers’ HRAs, except by the employee’s age and number of dependents.

The rule could eventually lead to dramatic changes in Americans’ health-coverage options, but it includes provisions designed to phase those changes in over time. Under the rule, employers cannot offer traditional group health coverage to any class of workers that has access to an individual coverage HRA. In other words, employers can choose the “new” HRA model to deliver benefits to their workers, or the “old” (i.e., existing) model for their workers, but not both (at least not for the same class of workers).

However, the final rule also includes a critically important grandfathering provision, which will provide businesses the option for a smoother transition. Under this provision, an employer can apply the HRA model to new hires, while allowing existing employees to maintain their traditional group insurance. For instance, an employer could state that any worker joining the firm after the HRA rule takes effect (on January 1, 2020) would receive health coverage using the new rules, while current workers would remain on the firm’s existing employer plan.

Conservatives concerned about pre-existing conditions should study this rule closely, and cite it every time the left mounts political attacks over the issue. Liberals want the government to control all of health care, as evidenced by their single-payer push. Conversely, conservatives want doctors and patients to make their own health-care decisions. Last week’s HRA rule will accomplish just that.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.