The health plan being considered in the Senate includes an individual mandate: everyone has to get health insurance. There is a good reason to include this if the insurance market is competitive. Otherwise, low risk types opt out and go to the emergency room if they get sick and impose a negative externality on the rest of the population who end up paying for them in their health insurance premiums, taxes etc. An individual mandate eliminates this cross subsidy and allows prices to fall for the people getting health insurance at the current status quo.
But if the health insurance market is not competitive, the insurers will make yet more profits by charging the low risk types a high price. Moreover, they will not cut prices for the high risk types and there will be no benefits to health reform except to insurance companies. This is the nightmare scenario. And in fact my Kellogg colleague Leemore Dafny has a nice paper (Are Health Insurance Markets Competitive?) showing that in concentrated markets with a few health insurers, a firm that enjoys a positive income shock sees a greater increase in health premiums for its employees. So, there is evidence of market power and hence some basis for the nightmare scenario that Howard Dean etc. are concerned about.
To prevent this from arising, there has to be more competition. Then, an insurer that keeps prices high is undercut by another who is going for profitable volume. The public option was meant to provide competition. It was going to be run as a non-profit so it might have had lower costs by avoiding the costs of marketing and advertising and creidbly played the role of the undercutting competition.
What’s left now that the public option is no longer an option? The best answer I have found is in a blog by Ezra Klein at the Washington Post. His answer is:
Under health-care reform, there are at least three bulwarks against the monopoly-profits scenario: Inter-insurer competition, regulators, and the tax on excessive premiums. Two of these mechanisms don’t exist in the current market. One — the market itself — is much weaker and more opaque, and individuals have a far harder time navigating it.
Even if the insurance market is competitive, it’s not clear what’s happening to the costs of inputs, drugs, doctors’ fees, hospitals, administration etc.
Secret deals with Pharma, the AMA, death panels and tea partiers, the random movements of Lieberman, Ben Nelson’s signaling to the voters in Nebraska….not as exciting as the primaries and the general election but pretty close. That rollercoaster had to end November 4. Will this one end December 24?

5 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 18, 2009 at 1:06 pm
The Incidental Economist
But the public option that had been close to being in play would not have been available to those with employer offers. So it wouldn’t have made the group market more competitive, and the situation described in Dafny’s paper would have remained.
Thus, the loss of the public option doesn’t really change things that much with respect to health care costs and consumer prices. It is and has been a distraction because a strong version of it has never been viable.
I don’t think we’re substantially any closer to the nightmare than before. Moreover, I don’t think the source of the real nightmare is insurers. It’s providers, about which Ezra and I have written extensively.
December 18, 2009 at 1:14 pm
sandeep
Good Point re weakness of public option in play.
Can you add a comment with links to your posts re providers?
thx.
December 18, 2009 at 1:37 pm
The Incidental Economist
There are so many.
This collection is a start. It links to prior posts on the issue: http://theincidentaleconomist.com/tag/health-care-market-theory/
Perhaps the single best post is: http://theincidentaleconomist.com/health-care-costs/
December 18, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Noah Yetter
Another thing to consider is that the mandate is extremely weak so free-riding will continue. Among certain segments (e.g. young healthy professionals) it may increase, as the penalty costs much less than actual health plan premiums, and you can always sign up for a plan later if you need it since refusing to cover pre-existing conditions will no longer be allowed.
December 19, 2009 at 4:50 am
tomdegan
This is another victory for the plutocracy, the Republican party and Joe Liebermann. There will never be, in our lifetime, reasonable health care in this country. We had better face the nasty facts. Ours is not a government “of the people, by the people, for the people”. We’re just kidding ourselves.
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com
Tom Degan