Will Disclosing Prescription Drug Prices in TV Ads Make Any Difference?

Why did the Trump administration last Monday propose requiring pharmaceutical companies to disclose their prices in television advertisements? A cynic might believe the rule comes at least in part because the drug industry opposes it.

Now, I carry no water for Big Pharma. For instance, I opposed their effort earlier this year to repeal an important restraint on Medicare spending. But this particular element of the administration’s drug pricing plan appears to work in a similar manner as some of the president’s tweets—to dominate headlines through rhetoric, rather than through substantive policy changes.

Applies Only to Television

The rule “seek[s] comment as to whether we should apply this regulation to other media formats,” but admits that the administration initially “concluded that the purpose of this regulation is best served by limiting the requirements” to television. However, five companies alone accounted for more than half of all drug advertisements in the past year. Among those five companies, the advertisements promoted 19 pharmaceuticals—meaning that new disclosure regime would apply to very few drugs.

If the “purpose of this regulation” is to affect pharmaceutical pricing, then confining disclosures only to television advertisements would by definition have a limited impact. If, however, the “purpose of this regulation” is primarily political—to force drug companies into a prolonged and public legal fight on First Amendment grounds, or to allow the administration to point to disclosures in the most prominent form of media to say, “We’re doing something on drug costs!”—then the rule will accomplish its purpose.

Rule Lacks Data to Support Its Theory

On three separate occasions, in the rule’s Regulatory Impact Analysis—the portion of the rule intended to demonstrate that the regulation’s benefits outweigh its costs—the administration admits it has very few hard facts: “We lack data to quantify these effects, and seek public comment on these impacts.”

It could encourage people to consume more expensive medicines (particularly if their insurance pays for it), because individuals may think costlier drugs are “better.” Or it could discourage companies from advertising on television at all, which could reduce drug consumption and affect people’s health (or reduce health spending while having no effect on individuals’ health).

Conservative think-tanks skewered several Obamacare rules released in 2010 for the poor quality and unreasonable assumptions in their Regulatory Impact Analyses. Although released by a different administration of a different party, this proposed regulation looks little different.

Contradictions on Forced Speech?

Finally, the rule refers on several occasions to the Supreme Court’s ruling earlier this year in a case involving California crisis pregnancy centers. That case, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, overturned a California state law requiring reproductive health clinics, including pro-life crisis pregnancy centers, to provide information on abortion to patients.

The need for that distinction arises because the pharmaceutical industry will likely challenge the rule on First Amendment grounds as an infringement on their free speech rights. However, a pro-life administration attempting to force drug companies to disclose pricing information, while protecting crisis pregnancy centers from other forced disclosures, presents some interesting political optics.

A Political ‘Shiny Object’

Ironically enough, most of the administration’s actions regarding its prescription drug pricing platform have proven effective. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Scott Gottlieb has helped speed the approval of generic drugs to market, particularly in cases where no other competitors exist, to help stabilize the marketplace.

Other proposals to change incentives within Medicare and Medicaid also could bring down prices. These proposals won’t have an immediate effect—as would Democratic blunt-force proposals to expand price controls—but collectively, they will have an impact over time.

This administration can do better than that. Indeed, they already have. They should leave the political stunts to the president’s Twitter account, and get back to work on more important, and more substantive, proposals.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

What You Need to Know about President Trump’s Drug Pricing Plan

On Friday, President Trump gave a Rose Garden speech outlining his plan, entitled “America’s Patients First,” to combat rising drug prices. The plan incorporates policy ideas included in the president’s budget earlier this year, new proposals, and additional topics for discussion that could turn into more specific ideas in the future.

What’s the Problem?

Surveys suggest public frustration with the cost of prescription drugs. While such costs represent a small fraction of overall spending on health care, several dynamics help the prescription drug issue gain disproportionate attention. First, in any given year, more Americans incur drug costs than hospital costs. Whereas only 7.3 percent of Americans had an inpatient hospitalization in 2013, more than three in five (60.7 percent) had prescription drug expenses.

With more Americans incurring drug costs, and paying a larger percentage of drug costs directly from their pockets, the issue has taken on greater prominence. The rise of coinsurance (i.e., paying a percentage of drug costs, rather than having those costs capped at a set dollar amount) for pricey specialty drugs exacerbates this dynamic.

What Are the Proposed Solutions?

In general, ways to address drug prices fall into three large buckets.

Controlling costs through competition: These solutions would involve bringing down price levels by encouraging generic competition, or substituting one type of drug for another.

Shifting costs: These solutions would alter who pays for drugs among insurers, pharmaceutical benefit managers (PBMs), or consumers. While they may make drugs more “affordable” for consumers, they will not change overall spending levels. In fact, if done poorly, these types of proposals could actually increase overall spending, by encouraging individuals to increase their consumption of costly brand-name drugs.

Drug company and PBM stocks went up Friday following the blueprint’s release, largely because the plan eschews actions in the second bucket. The president’s plan includes a few tweaks to the system of “rebates” (de facto price controls) the Medicaid program uses, but includes none of the major Democratic proposals to use blunt government action to drive down prices.

In fact, the plan criticizes foreign price controls, attacking the “global freeloading” by which other countries gain the research and development benefits of the pharmaceutical industry without paying their “fair share” of those R&D costs. While the plan frequently mentions the disproportionate share of costs American consumers pay, it includes few specific proposals to rebalance these costs to other countries. It also remains unclear whether, if successfully implemented, any such rebalancing would successfully lower prices in the United States.

Other competitive proposals include giving Medicare Part D plans more flexibility to adjust their formularies mid-year to respond to changes in the generic drug marketplace, and prohibiting Part D plans from including “gag clauses.” These clauses prohibit pharmacies from telling consumers that they would actually save money by paying cash for certain drugs, rather than using their insurance.

In the cost-shifting bucket lie several of the proposals incorporated into the president’s budget. For instance, a cap on out-of-pocket expenses for the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit would provide important relief to seniors with very high annual drug costs. However, to the extent that such a proposal would encourage seniors to over-consume drugs, or purchase more costly brand-name drugs, once they reach such a cap, this proposal could also increase overall Part D spending.

In a similar vein lie proposals about PBMs passing drug rebates directly to consumers at the point of sale. In most cases, PBMs had previously passed on those savings indirectly to insurers in the form of lower premiums. Giving rebates directly to consumers—a practice some insurers have begun to adopt—would provide relief to those with high out-of-pocket costs, but could raise premiums overall, particularly for those with relatively low prescription spending.

What’s Next?

The plan raises more questions than it answers—quite literally. The last and longest section of the blueprint includes 136 separate questions about how the administration should structure and implement some of the proposals discussed in the document.

Some proposals, while eye-catching, seem ill-advised. For instance, the proposal to “evaluate the inclusion of list prices in direct-to-consumer advertising” raises potential First Amendment concerns—government dictating the content of drugmakers’ communications with patients. Moreover, with many Americans viewing health care as a superior good, some consumers may view a more expensive product as “better” than its alternative. In that case this proposal, if ever implemented, could have the opposite of its intended effect, encouraging people to consume more expensive drugs.

The plan did not include the heavy-handed approaches to the prescription drug issue—Medicare price “negotiation” and drug reimportation—that Democrats favor, and that President Trump endorsed in his 2016 campaign. The document also makes clear the iterative nature of the process, with additional proposals likely coming after feedback from industry and others.

But to the extent that Washington has become consumed by the midterm elections fewer than six months away, the high-profile event Friday allowed Republicans and the president to say they have a plan to bring down drug prices—an important political objective in and of itself.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

How Bailing Out Insurers Leads to Single Payer

The bad news for Obamacare keeps on coming. Major health carriers are leaving insurance exchanges, and other insurance co-operatives the law created continue to fail, leaving tens of thousands without health coverage. Those on exchanges who somehow manage to hold on to their insurance will face a set of massive premium increases—which will hit millions of Americans weeks before the election.

Many on the Right believe Obamacare was deliberately designed to fail, and fear that we’re on a slippery slope toward single-payer. On the other side of the spectrum, the Left hopes conservatives’ fears—and liberals’ dreams—will be answered. But is either side right?

The reality is more nuanced than the rhetoric would suggest. Whether government runs all of health care is less material than whether government pays for all of health care. The latter will, sooner or later, lead to the former. That’s why the debate over bailing out Obamacare is so important. Ostensibly “private” health insurers want tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded subsidies—because they claim these subsidies are the only thing standing between a government-run “public option” or a single-payer system.

But the action insurers argue will prevent a government-run system will in reality create one. If insurers get their way, and establish the principle that both they and Obamacare are too big to fail, we will have created a de facto government-run insurance system. Whether such system is run through a handful of heavily regulated, crony capitalist “private” insurers or government bureaucrats represents a comparatively trifling detail.

The Biggest Wolf Is Not the Closest

In considering the likelihood of single-payer health care, one analogy lies in the axiom that one should shoot the wolf outside one’s front door. Single-payer health care obviously represents the biggest wolf—but not the closest. While liberals no doubt want to create a single-payer health care system—Barack Obama has repeatedly said as much—they face a navigational problem: Can you get there from here?

The answer is no—at least not in one fell swoop. Creating a single-payer system would throw 177.5 million Americans off their employer-provided health insurance. That level of disruption would be orders of magnitude greater than the cancellation notices associated with the 2013 “like your plan” fiasco, which itself prompted President Obama to beat a hasty, albeit temporary, retreat from Obamacare’s mandates. Recall too that the high taxes needed to fund a statewide single-payer effort prompted Vermont—Vermont—to abandon its efforts two years ago.

Understanding the political obstacles associated with throwing half of Americans off their current health insurance, liberals’ next strategy has focused on creating a government-run health plan to “compete” with private insurers. Hillary Clinton endorsed this approach, and Democratic senators made a new push on the issue this month. When stories of premium spikes and plan cancellations hit the fan next month, liberals will inevitably claim that a government-run plan will solve all of Obamacare’s woes (although even some liberal analysts admit the law’s real problem is a product healthy people don’t want to buy).

Can the Left succeed at creating a government-run health plan? Probably not at the federal level. Liberals have noted that only one Democratic Senate candidate running this year references the so-called “public option” on his website. Thirteen Senate Democrats have yet to co-sponsor a resolution by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) calling for a government-run plan. Such legislation faces a certain dead-end as long as Republicans control at least one chamber of Congress. Given the failure to enact a government-run plan with a 60-vote majority in 2009, an uncertain future even under complete Democratic control.

What About Single-Payer Inside States?

What then of state efforts to create a government-run health plan? The Wall Street Journal featured a recent op-ed by Scott Gottlieb on this subject. Gottlieb notes that Section 1332 of Obamacare allows for states to create and submit innovation waivers—waivers that a Hillary Clinton administration would no doubt eagerly approve from states wanting to create government-run plans. He also rightly observes that the Obama administration has abused its authority to approve costly Medicaid waivers despite supposed requirements that these waivers not increase the deficit; a Clinton administration can be counted on to do the same.

But another element of the state innovation waiver program limits the Left’s ability to generate 50 government-run health plans. Section 1332(b)(2) requires states to enact a law “that provides for state actions under a waiver.” The requirement that legislation must accompany a state waiver application will likely limit a so-called “public option” to those states with unified Democratic control. Because Obamacare, and the 2010 and 2014 wave elections it helped spark, decimated the Democratic Party, Democrats currently hold unified control in only seven states.

Even at the state level, liberals will be hard-pressed to find many states in which to create their socialist experiment of a government-run health plan. In those few targets, health insurers and medical providers—remember that government-run health plans can only “lower” costs by arbitrarily restricting payments to doctors and hospitals—will make a powerful coalition for the Left to try and overcome. Also, in the largest state, California, the initiative process means that voters—and the television ads health-care interests will use to influence them—could ultimately decide the issue, one way or the other.

So if single-payer represents the biggest wolf, but not the one closest to the door, and government-run plans represent a closer wolf, but only a limited threat at present, what does represent the wolf at the door? Simple: the wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Too Big To Fail, Redux

The wolf in sheep’s clothing comes in the form of insurance industry lobbyists, who have been arguing to Republican staff that only making the insurance exchanges work will fend off calls for a government-run plan—or, worse, single-payer. They claim that extending and expanding the law’s current bailouts—specifically, risk corridors and reinsurance—can stabilize the market, and prevent further government intrusion.

Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they. But examining the logic reveals its hollowness: If Republicans pass bad policy now, they can fend off even worse policy later. There is of course another heretofore unknown concept of conservative Republicans choosing not to pass bad policy at all.

That’s why comments suggesting that at least some Republicans believe Obamacare must be fixed no matter who is elected president on November 8 are so damaging. That premise that Congress must do something because Obamacare and its exchanges are “too big to fail” means health insurers are likewise “too big to fail.” If this construct prevails, Congress will do whatever it takes for the insurers to stay in the marketplace; if that means turning on the bailout taps again, so be it.

But once health insurers have a clear backstop from the federal government, they will take additional risk. Insurers have said so themselves. In documents provided to Congress, carriers admitted they under-priced premiums in the law’s first three years precisely because they believed they had an unlimited tap on the federal fisc to cushion their losses. Republican efforts in Congress to rein in that bailout spigot have met furious lobbying by health insurers—and attempts by the Obama administration to strike a corrupt bargain circumventing Congress’ restrictions.

Efforts to end the bailouts and claw back as much money as possible to taxpayers would shoot the wolf at the door. Giving insurers more by way of bailout funds—socializing their risk—will only encourage them to take additional risk, exacerbating a boom-and-bust cycle that will inevitably result in a federal takeover of all that risk. When the federal government provides the risk backstop, you have a government-run system, regardless of who administers it.

While the insurance industry may view more bailouts as their salvation, Obamacare’s version of TARP looks more like a TRAP. By socializing losses, purportedly to prevent single-payer health care, creating a permanent insurer bailout fund will effectively create one. While remaining mindful of the other wolves lurking, Congress should focus foremost on eliminating the one at its threshold: Undo the Obamacare bailouts, and prove this law is not too big to fail.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

The IRS, Obamacare, and You: The Government Is Coming for Your Health Insurance Records

Thanks to Obamacare, all Americans will now have to submit their health insurance information to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Sadly, this new requirement comes at the same time that serious questions have been raised about the IRS’s ability to manage personal health records competently.

As American Enterprise Institute scholar Scott Gottlieb noted:

An unnamed health care provider in California is suing the IRS and 15 unnamed agents, alleging that they improperly seized some 60 million medical records of 10 million Americans, including medical records of all California state judges, on March 11, 2011.

The complaint alleges that IRS agents exceeded the scope of their search warrant, seizing not just financial records, but “information on psychological counseling, gynecological counseling, sexual and drug treatment, and other sensitive medical treatment data.”

The alleged data seizure occurred at roughly the same time in which employees in another division of the IRS targeted tea party and other conservative groups due to their political beliefs. If true, these new allegations regarding seized medical records would further undermine trust in the IRS’s ability to conduct its affairs properly and to manage the sensitive and confidential information all Americans submit to the agency every year.

As this week’s entire series has shown, the IRS’s reach within Obamacare seemingly knows no bounds. Armed with new bureaucrats and funded by a massive spending blitz, the IRS will implement trillions of dollars in tax increases; issue new regulations, edicts, and orders; impose new paperwork burdens on all Americans; and increase the scope of government intrusion into the lives of ordinary, law-abiding citizens.

Prior to the recent scandals, many Americans thought the IRS could not be trusted to implement Obamacare in a competent and impartial manner. Now they know it. It’s one more reason why Congress should repeal Obamacare once and for all.

This post was originally published at The Daily Signal.

The Taxman Cometh: The IRS’ Role in Implementing Obamacare

This Issue Brief is available at the Heritage Foundation website.

The recent admission by the IRS that its employees improperly subjected certain organizations to heightened scrutiny based upon their political affiliation raises troubling questions about the agency’s ability to manage Obamacare in a competent and impartial manner. At a time when doubts are growing about the IRS’s politically biased behavior, Obamacare grants the agency massive new authority to implement its complex and bureaucratic regime.

Trillions in New Taxes

Obamacare contains no fewer than 18 tax increases, including new taxes on medical devices, insurers, and pharmaceutical companies, to name but a few.[1] According to the most recent estimates, those tax increases will raise revenue by at least $1 trillion over the next 10 years—followed by higher sums in future decades.[2]

Moreover, 12 of the 20 tax increases will affect middle-class families,[3] directly violating Barack Obama’s “firm pledge” to families making under $250,000 per year that he would not raise “any of your taxes.”[4]

Gusher of Spending—and Bureaucrats

To implement all of Obamacare’s tax increases, the IRS has needed additional infusions of taxpayer funds. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that the IRS would spend $881 million on implementing the law from 2010 through 2013 and that, of that amount, the IRS would spend more than half a billion dollars from an Obamacare implementation “slush fund.”[5]

Treasury Secretary Jack Lew recently testified before Congress that the IRS had approximately 700 full-time equivalent staff working on Obamacare implementation.[6] However, in its budget request this spring, the IRS assumed that a force nearly three times that size—1,954 full-time equivalent employees—would work on the law’s implementation in the coming fiscal year.[7]

Complexity for Bureaucrats and Citizens Alike

Obamacare contains what the Treasury’s inspector general called “the largest set of tax law changes in 20 years.”[8] Obamacare is so complex that auditors cannot agree on how many provisions the IRS is charged with implementing. The GAO wrote that the IRS “has responsibilities in the implementation of 47” provisions,[9] while the Treasury inspector general concluded that “at least 42 provisions [of Obamacare] add to or amend the Internal Revenue Code.”[10]

Regardless, the law’s massive changes led the IRS’s National Taxpayer Advocate to worry in 2010—well before the current scandal became public—that she was “concerned about [the IRS’s] ability to administer the new health care credits and penalty taxes in a fair and compassionate way.”[11]

More Intrusions into Americans’ Lives

Obamacare requires all insurance companies to report to the IRS the name, address, identification number, and type of policy purchased by every customer, along with a determination whether the insurance was “government-approved” for purposes of complying with Obamacare’s individual mandate.[12] Likewise, individuals will have to file similar forms demonstrating they held “government-approved insurance” with their tax returns.

Privacy Concerns

At a time when the IRS will receive massive new amounts of personal health information from virtually all Americans, the agency’s ability to manage the health records it already receives has come under scrutiny. The American Enterprise Institute’s Scott Gottlieb writes that “an unnamed healthcare provider in California is suing the IRS and 15 unnamed agents, alleging that they improperly seized some 60 million medical records of 10 million Americans, including medical records of all California state judges on March 11, 2011.”[13] These allegations raise additional concerns about the IRS’s competence to manage the confidential health details of millions of American citizens.

Sound Familiar?

Both the IRS scandal and Obamacare contain similar themes: government overreach, massive intrusions, and bureaucrats granted opportunities to abuse their power in arbitrary and harmful ways. The American people should not be subjected to either.


[1]Alyene Senger and John Fleming, “Obamacare’s 18 New Tax Hikes,” The Heritage Foundation, The Foundry, August 20, 2012, http://blog.heritage.org/2012/08/20/obamacares-18-new-tax-hikes/.

[2]Congressional Budget Office, cost estimate for H.R. 6079, Repeal of Obamacare Act, July 24, 2012, http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43471-hr6079.pdf (accessed May 16, 2013).

[3]House Ways and Means Committee, “Democrats Have Increased Taxes.”

[4]Barack Obama, speech in Dover, New Hampshire, September 12, 2008, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HE-rGGKksQ (accessed May 16, 2013).

[5]Government Accountability Office, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: IRS Managing Implementation Risks, but Its Approach Could Be Refined, GAO–12–690, June 13, 2012, pp. 1 and 5, http://gao.gov/assets/600/591566.pdf (accessed May 16, 2013).

[6]Cited in letter by Representative Charles Boustany (R–LA) to Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller, March 21, 2013, http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/irs_aca_resources.pdf (accessed May 16, 2013).

[7]Internal Revenue Service, Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Justification, p. 169, http://www.treasury.gov/about/budget-performance/CJ14/10.%20IRS%20CJ%20FINAL%20v2.pdf (accessed May 16, 2013).

[8]Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, “The Modernization and Information Technology Services Organization Is Effectively Planning for the Implementation of the Affordable Care Act,” September 19, 2011, p. 1, http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2011reports/201120105fr.pdf (accessed May 16, 2013).

[9]Government Accountability Office, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: IRS Should Expand Its Strategic Approach to Implementation, GAO–11–179, June 2011, p. 2, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11719.pdf (accessed May 16, 2013).

[10]Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, “Modernization and Information Technology Services.”

[11]National Taxpayer Advocate, “Report to Congress: Fiscal Year 2011 Objectives,” June 30, 2010, p. 9, http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/nta2011objectivesfinal..pdf (accessed May 16, 2013).

[12]Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 110–148, Section 1502.

[13]Scott Gottlieb, “Suit Alleges IRS Improperly Seized 60 Million Personal Medical Records,” Forbes, May 15, 2013, http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgottlieb/2013/05/15/the-irs-raids-60-million-personal-medical-records/ (accessed May 16, 2013).

Is Having Medicaid Better than Being Uninsured?

One of the big items in the news this morning was a study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research that was released overnight regarding the impact of Medicaid coverage.  The study examined 10,000 Oregon residents who were selected for a Medicaid expansion by lottery, and compared their outcomes to those who “lost” the lottery and remained uninsured.

Some news reports have claimed that the study proves “Medicaid does make a difference after all,” due to the prime conclusions that Medicaid beneficiaries had higher medical utilization, lower out-of-pocket costs, and better self-reported health.  However, the results are FAR more nuanced than that.  Among the key points to consider:

  • The study was funded by both the Administration – specifically HHS’ Office of Planning and Evaluation and CMS – and liberal think-tanks like the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, all of which have interests in promoting the benefits of Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion.
  • The study notes “there is no discernible impact of insurance on emergency room or inpatient hospital use” from new Medicaid coverageIf accurate, this finding would undermine one of the arguments for Obamacare – that expanding coverage through Medicaid will reduce unnecessary emergency room visits.
  • The authors note that “we do not believe our…estimates are capturing an initial, highly transitory surge of ‘pent up demand’ for health care among the uninsured.”  This is a somewhat surprising development, which raises questions why the uninsured did not feel the need to obtain health services immediately upon enrolling in Medicaid.
  • While the authors found a decrease in financial pressures among new Medicaid beneficiaries, they did not find a statistically significant reduction in the most extreme examples of financial strain (e.g., bankruptcies, liens, etc.).  While this development could be based on a “pipeline” effect (bankruptcies can take years to develop, and the study examined only one year of available data), the authors note their conclusion contrasts with the findings of another study released this year.
  • The study notes that “we do not detect any statistically significant improvement in survival probability” from obtaining Medicaid coverage.  This development could be due to the relatively young and healthy nature of the expansion population, but it still suggests that, when it comes to the ultimate arbiter of health, Medicaid’s impact is far from definitively proven.
  • Although the authors note an increase in self-reported health status for the new Medicaid beneficiaries, they repeatedly note that the “measures could reflect a more general sense of well-being rather than actual improvements in objective health.”

The bottom line conclusions of this study:  When enrolled in a program Medicaid charging no more than a $20 monthly premium that provides health care “with no consumer cost sharing,” beneficiaries obtain more care, undergo less financial strain, and feel better about their own health as a result.  These findings are all logical conclusions, but don’t necessarily make a definitive case for Medicaid’s health care benefits.

The most interesting limitation about this Oregon study is that, while it quantifies the amount of additional health care new Medicaid beneficiaries received, it doesn’t examine the quality of care received, nor the outcomes for Medicaid patients.  Scott Gottlieb’s March article in the Wall Street Journal cited several studies indicating that when it comes to such episodes as cardiac procedures and lung transplants, Medicaid patients have worse outcomes than uninsured patients, even after controlling for socioeconomic and other factors.  Studies of that nature arguably provide a better comparison of Medicaid’s bottom-line impact on the health of patients, as opposed to arriving at the logical (and slightly obvious) conclusion that providing taxpayer-funded coverage without cost-sharing relieves beneficiaries’ financial stress.

So is having Medicaid better than remaining uninsured?  To quote the Magic 8-Ball, the answer here is still “Ask Again Later…”

Why Medicaid Is NOT “Real Insurance”

Wanted to pass along this great op-ed by Dr. Scott Gottlieb in this morning’s Wall Street Journal on the massive Medicaid expansion in the health care law.  Dr. Gottlieb, a former official within the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, goes through several recent clinical studies concluding that patients with Medicaid suffer far worse clinical outcomes than patients with private insurance – even after controlling for socioeconomic factors that can influence health outcomes.  These kinds of poor patient outcomes and access difficulties explain why beneficiaries themselves don’t consider a Medicaid card actual health insurance coverage: “When we had real insurance, we could call and come in [to the doctor] at the drop of a hat.”

Remember, the health law expands Medicaid to at least 20 million new individuals – and Medicare actuary Rick Foster recently testified that “an additional 5 million or more” could be added to the Medicaid rolls on top of this 20 million number, depending upon how CMS interprets the law.  And as noted in the article, the law also adds to state budget difficulties; the joint Finance/Energy and Commerce report released last week found that the law will add at least $118 billion to state Medicaid costs, at a time when states are suffering from severe fiscal difficulties.

The answer to this problem, as Dr. Gottlieb concludes in his op-ed, is more flexibility for states to operate their Medicaid programs as they see fit, and tailor their benefits provided to distinct populations.  Governors have made multiple requests  for such flexibility – and on February 3 Secretary Sebelius wrote to them saying she was “continu[ing] to review what authority, if any, I have to waive the maintenance of effort” requirements under the health care law.  However, nearly five weeks later, the Secretary has yet to respond substantively to this issue, notwithstanding the serious budget crises affecting many states.