By Kip Sullivan for PNHP -
The people who brought us the �public option� began their campaign promising one thing but now promote something entirely different. To make matters worse, they have not told the public they have backpedalled. The campaign for the �public option� resembles the classic bait-and-switch scam: tell your customers you�ve got one thing for sale when in fact you�re selling something very different.
When the �public option� campaign began, its leaders promoted a huge �Medicare-like� program that would enroll about 130 million people. Such a program would dwarf even Medicare, which, with its 45 million enrollees, is the nation�s largest health insurer, public or private. But today �public option� advocates sing the praises of tiny �public options� contained in congressional legislation sponsored by leading Democrats that bear no resemblance to the original model.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the �public options� described in the Democrats� legislation might enroll 10 million people and will have virtually no effect on health care costs, which means the �public options� cannot, by themselves, have any effect on the number of uninsured. But the leaders of the �public option� movement haven�t told the public they have abandoned their original vision. It�s high time they did.
The bait
�Public option� refers to a proposal, as Timothy Noah put it, �dreamed up� by Jacob Hacker when Hacker was still a graduate student working on a degree in political science. In two papers, one published in 2001 and the second in 2007, Hacker, now a professor of political science at Berkeley, proposed that Congress create an enormous �Medicare-like� program that would sell health insurance to the non-elderly in competition with the 1,000 to 1,500 health insurance companies that sell insurance today.
Hacker claimed the program, which he called �Medicare Plus� in 2001 and �Health Care for America Plan� in 2007, would enjoy the advantages that make Medicare so efficient � large size, low provider payment rates and low overhead. (Medicare is the nation�s largest health insurance program, public or private. It pays doctors and hospitals about 20 percent less than the insurance industry does, and its administrative costs account for only 2 percent of its expenditures compared with 20 percent for the insurance industry.)
Hacker predicted that his proposed public program would so closely resemble Medicare that it would be able to set its premiums far below those of other insurance companies and enroll at least half the non-elderly population. These predictions were confirmed by the Lewin Group, a very mainstream consulting firm. In its report on Hacker�s 2001 paper, Lewin concluded Hacker�s �Medicare Plus� program would enroll 113 million people (46 percent of the non-elderly) and cut the number of uninsured to 5 million. In its report on Hacker�s 2007 paper, Lewin concluded Hacker�s �Health Care for America Plan� would enroll 129 million people (50 percent of the nonelderly population) and cut the uninsured to 2 million.
Until last year, Hacker and his allies were not the least bit shy about highlighting the enormous size of Hacker�s proposed public program. For example, in his 2001 paper Hacker stated:
[A]pproximately 50 to 70 percent of the non-elderly population would be enrolled in Medicare Plus�. Put more simply, the plan would be very large�. [C]ritics will resurface whatever the size of the public plan. But this is an area where an intuitive and widely held notion � that displacement of employment-based coverage should be avoided at all costs � is fundamentally at odds with good public policy. A large public plan should be embraced, not avoided. It is, in fact, key to fulfilling the goals of this proposal. (page 17)
In his 2007 paper, Hacker stated:
For millions of Americans who are now uninsured or lack � affordable work place coverage, the Health Care for America Plan would be an extremely attractive option. Through it, roughly half of non-elderly Americans would have access to a good public insurance plan�. A single national insurance pool covering nearly half the population would create huge administrative efficiencies. (page 5)
Hacker�s papers and the Lewin Group�s analyses of them have been cited by numerous �public option� advocates. For example, when Hacker released his 2007 paper, Campaign for America�s Future (CAF) published a press release praising it and drawing attention to the large size of Hacker�s proposed public program. The release, entitled �Activists and experts hail Health Care for America plan,� stated:
Detailed micro-simulation estimates suggest that roughly half of non-elderly Americans would remain in workplace health insurance, with the other half enrolled in Health Care for America�. A single national insurance pool covering nearly half the population would create huge administrative efficiencies�. Because Medicare and Health Care for America would bargain jointly for lower prices �, they would have enormous combined leverage to hold down costs.
When the Lewin Group released its 2008 analysis of Hacker�s 2007 paper, CAF�s Roger Hickey wrote in the Huffington Post, �efficiencies achievable � through Hacker�s public health insurance program� would save so much money that the US could �cover everyone� for no more than we spend now.
The switch
Now let�s compare the �single national health insurance pool covering nearly half the population� that Hacker and other �public option� advocates enthusiastically championed with the �public option� proposed by Democrats in Congress, and then let�s inquire what Hacker and company said about it.
As readers of this blog no doubt know, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, and three House committee chairman working jointly, published draft health care �reform� bills in June. (The third committee with bill-writing authority, the Senate Finance Committee, has yet to produce a bill.) According to the Congressional Budget Office, the �public option� proposed in the House �tri-committee� bill might insure 10 million people and would leave 16 to 17 million people uninsured. The �public option� proposed by the Senate HELP committee, again according to the Congressional Budget Office, is unlikely to insure anyone and would hence leave 33 to 34 million uninsured. The CBO said its estimate of 10 million for the House bill was highly uncertain, which is not surprising given how vaguely the House legislation describes the �public option.�
Here is what the CBO had to say about the HELP committee bill:
The new draft also includes provisions regarding a �public plan,� but those provisions did not have a substantial effect on the cost or enrollment projections, largely because the public plan would pay providers of health care at rates comparable to privately negotiated rates � and thus was not projected to have premiums lower than those charged by private insurance plans. (page 3)
Obviously the �public option� in the Senate HELP committee bill (zero enrollees; 34 million people left uninsured) and the �public option� in the House bill (10 million enrollees (maybe!); 17 million people left uninsured) are a far cry from the �public option� originally proposed by Professor Hacker (129 million enrollees; 2 million people left uninsured). Have we heard the Democrats in Congress who drafted these provisions utter a word about how different their �public options� are from the large Medicare-like program that Hacker proposed and his allies publicized? What have Professor Hacker and his allies had to say?
In public comments about the Democrats� �public option� provisions, the leading lights of the �public option� movement imply that Hacker�s model is what Congress is debating. Sometimes they come right out and praise the Democrats� version as �robust� and �strong.� But I cannot find a single example of a a statement by a �public option� advocate warning the public of the vast difference between Hacker�s original elephantine, �Medicare-like� program and the Democrats� mouse version.
For example, on June 23, Hacker testified before the House Education and Labor Committee that �the draft legislation prepared by [the] special tri-committee promises enormous progress.� He went on to enumerate all the benefits of a �public option.� Yet the House tri-committee proposal bore no resemblance to the public plan he described in his papers and that the Lewin Group analyzed. Later, when Kaiser Health News asked Hacker in a July 6 interview why �your signature idea � a public plan � has become central to the health care reform debate,� Hacker again praised his �public plan� proposal and offered no hint that the �public option� so �central to the debate� was very different from the one he originally proposed.
Ditto for Hacker�s allies. Representatives of Health Care for America Now (HCAN), the organization most responsible for popularizing the �public option,� repeatedly describe the House and Senate HELP committee bills as �strong� or �robust,� always without any justification for this claim, and have repeatedly failed to warn the public that the �public options� they promote today are mere shadows of the �public options� they endorsed in the past. On July 15, the day the HELP committee passed its bill, Jason Rosenbaum blogged for HCAN:
The Senate HELP Committee has just referred a bill to the floor of the Senate with a strong public option.
Searching the websites of the organizations that serve on HCAN�s steering committee � AFSCME, Democracy for America, Moveon.org and SEIU, for example � one will find not a shred of information that would help the reader comprehend how small and ineffective the �public options� proposed in the Democrats� bills are, nor how different these are from the one Hacker originally proposed. Yet these groups continue to urge their members and the public to �tell Congress to support a public option.�
Hacker�s original model compared with the Democrats� mouse model
It has become fashionable among advocates of a �public option� to trash the expertise and the motives of the Congressional Budget Office. But the CBO�s characterization of the �public option� proposed in the Democrats� legislation is entirely reasonable. This becomes apparent the moment we compare Hacker�s blueprint for his original �Medicare Plus� and �Health Care for America� programs with the �blueprints� (if tabula rasas can be called �blueprints�) contained in the Senate HELP Committee and House bills.
Hacker�s papers laid out these five criteria that he and the Lewin Group said were critical to the success of the �public option�:
� The PO had to be pre-populated with tens of millions of people, that is, it had to begin like Medicare did representing a large pool of people the day it commenced operations (Hacker proposed shifting all or most uninsured people as well as Medicaid and SCHIP enrollees into his public program);
� Subsidies to individuals to buy insurance would be substantial, and only PO enrollees could get subsidies (people who chose to buy insurance from insurance companies could not get subsidies);
� The PO and its subsidies had to be available to all nonelderly Americans (not just the uninsured and employees of small employers);
� The PO had to be given authority to use Medicare�s provider reimbursement rates; and
� The insurance industry had to be required to offer the same minimum level of benefits the PO had to offer.
Hacker predicted, and both of the Lewin Group reports concluded, that if these specifications were met Hacker�s plan would enjoy all three of Medicare�s advantages � it would be huge, it would have low overhead costs, and it would pay providers less than the insurance industry did. As a result, the �public option� would be able to set its premiums below those of the insurance industry and seize nearly half the non-elderly market from the insurance industry. According to the Lewin Group�s 2008 report, Hacker�s version of the �public option� would, as of 2007:
� Enroll 129 million enrollees (or 50 percent of the non-elderly);
� Have overhead costs equal to 3 percent of expenditures;
� Pay hospitals 26 percent less and doctors 17 percent less than the insurance industry (but these discounts would be offset to some degree by increases in payments to providers treating former Medicaid enrollees); and,
� Set its premiums 23 below those of the average insurance company.
I question some of Hacker�s and the Lewin Group�s assumptions, including their assumption that any public program that has to sell health insurance in competition with insurance companies could keep its overhead costs anywhere near those of Medicare (Medicare is a single-payer program that has no competition), especially during the early years when the public program will be scrambling to sign up enrollees. A public program will have to hire a sales force and advertise. It will have to open offices. It will have to negotiate rates, and perhaps contracts, with thousands of hospitals and hundreds of thousands of clinics, chemical treatment facilities, rehab units, home health agencies, etc. Or it will have to contract with someone to do all that. But I have little doubt that if a public program were to open with a large enough customer base, and it had the advantage of a law requiring that only its customers receive substantial subsidies, it could do what the Lewin Group said it could do.
Now let us compare Hacker�s original model with the mousey �public options� proposed by the Senate HELP Committee and the House. Of Hacker�s five criteria, only one is met by these bills! Both proposals require the insurance industry to cover the same benefits the �public option� must cover. None of the other four criteria are met. The �public option� is not pre-populated, the subsidies to employers and to individuals go to the �public option� and the insurance industry, employees of large employers cannot buy insurance from the �public option� in the first few years after the plan opens for business and maybe never (that decision will be made by whoever is President around 2015), and the �public option� is not authorized to use Medicare�s provider payment rates. (The House bill comes the closest to authorizing use of Medicare�s rates; it authorizes Medicare�s rates plus 5 percent).
Is it any wonder the CBO concluded the Democrats� �public option� will be a tiny little creature incapable of doing much of anything? More curious is that CBO gave the House �public option� any credit at all (you will recall CBO said it would enroll maybe 10 million people). The CBO should have asked, Can the �public option� – as presented in either bill – survive?
Put yourself in the �public option� director�s shoes
To see why the �public option� proposed by congressional Democrats remains at great risk of stillbirth, let�s engage in a frustrating thought experiment. Let�s imagine Congress has enacted the House version (it is not quite as weak as the HELP Committee model and thus gives us the greatest opportunity in our thought experiment to imagine a scenario in which the �public option� actually survives its start-up phase). Let us imagine furthermore that you have been foolish enough to apply for the job of executive director of the new �public option,� and the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the federal agency within which the program will be housed) decided to hire you. It�s your first day on the job.
You know the House bill did not create a ready-made pool of enrollees for you to work with the way the 1965 Medicare law created a ready-made pool of seniors prior to the day Medicare commenced operations. You realize, in other words, that you represent not a single soul, much less tens of millions of enrollees. You will have to build a pool of enrollees from scratch. You also know the House bill authorized some start-up money for you, so you�ll be able to hire some staff, including sales people if you choose. You can also open offices around the country, and advertise if you think it necessary. But you know you can�t pay out too much money getting the �public option� started because the House bill requires that you pay back whatever start-up costs you incur within ten years. In other words, you may hire enough people and open enough offices and buy enough advertising to create a critical mass of enrollees nationwide, but you must do it quickly so that your start-up costs don�t sink the �public option� during its first decade.
The only other feature in the House bill that appears to give you any advantage over the insurance industry is the provision requiring you to use Medicare�s rates plus 5 percent, which essentially means you are authorized to pay providers 15 percent less than the insurance industry pays on average. But the House bill also says providers are free to refuse to participate in the plan you run.
So what do you do? Let�s say you open offices in dozens or hundreds of cities, you hire a sales force to fan out across the country to sign up customers, you advertise on radio and TV to get potential customers (employers and individuals) to call your new sales force to inquire about the new �public option� insurance policy. What happens when potential customers ask your salespeople two obvious questions: what will the premium be and which doctors they can see? What do your employees say? They can�t say anything. They haven�t talked to any clinics or hospitals about participating at the 15-percent-below-industry-average payment rate, so they have no idea which providers if any will agree to participate. They also have no idea what the �public option� premium will be because they don�t know whether providers will accept the low rates the plan is authorized to pay. And they have no idea about several other factors that will affect the premiums, including how much overhead the �public option� will rack up before it reaches a state of viability, or who the �public option� will be insuring � healthy people, sick people, or people of average health status.
So, let�s say you redeploy your sales force. Now instead of talking to potential customers, you direct them to focus on providers first. But when your salespeople call on doctors and hospital administrators and ask them if they�ll agree to take enrollees at below-average payment rates, providers ask how many people the �public option� will enroll in their area. Providers explain to your salespeople that they are already giving huge discounts, some as high as 30 to 40 percent off their customary charge, to the largest insurers in their area and they are not eager to do that for the �public option� unless the plan will have such a large share of the market in their area that it will deliver many patients to them. If the �public option� cannot do that, providers tell your salespeople, they will not agree to accept below-average payment rates.
In other words, you find that the �public option� is at the mercy of the private insurance market, not the other way around.
This thought experiment illustrates for you the mind-numbing chicken-and-egg problem created by any �public option� project that does not meet Hacker�s criteria, most notably, the criterion requiring pre-population of the �public option.� If the pre-population criterion isn�t met, the poor chump who has to create the �public option� is essentially being asked to solve a problem that is as difficult as describing the sound of one hand clapping. You need both hands to clap.
How did the mouse replace the elephant?
How did the �Medicare Plus� proposal of 2001 (when Hacker first proposed it) get transformed into the tiny �public options� contained in the Democrats� 2009 legislation? The answer is that somewhere along the line it became obvious that the Hacker model was too difficult to enact and had to be stripped down to something more mouse-like in order to pass. Did the leading �public option� advocates realize this early in the campaign? Or midway through the campaign when the insurance industry began to attack the �public option�? Or late in the campaign when they found it difficult to persuade members of Congress to support Hacker�s original model? Whatever the answer, will they find it in their hearts to tell their followers their original strategy was wrong?
I suspect the answer is different for different actors within the �public option� movement. Hacker surely knew what was in his original proposal and surely knows now that the Democrats� bills don�t reflect his original proposal. Hacker and others familiar with his original proposal were probably betrayed by the process. As the �public option� concept became famous and edged its way toward the centers of power, they couldn�t find the courage to resist the transformation of the original proposal into the mouse model.
For other actors within the �public option� movement, ignorance of Hacker�s original proposal and of health policy in general may have led them to rely on more knowledgeable leaders in the movement. Their error, in other words, was to trust the wrong people and, as the �public option� came under attack, to cave in to group think. This error was facilitated by the �public option� movement�s decision to avoid mentioning any details of the �public option� whenever possible.
What next?
Those of us in the American single-payer movement must continue to educate Congress and the public on the need for a single-payer system. We must also convince advocates of the �public option� that they have made two serious mistakes and, if they learn quickly from these mistakes, that real reform is still possible.
The first mistake was to think that a �public option� that merely took over a large chunk of the non-elderly market (as opposed to one that took over the entire market) could substantially reduce health care costs and thereby make universal coverage politically feasible. Any proposal that leaves in place a multiple-payer system � even a multiple-payer system with a large government-run program in the middle of it � is going to save very little money. Even if Hacker�s original Health Care for America Plan had taken over half the non-elderly market and then reached homeostasis (something Hacker swore up and down it would do), the savings would have been relatively small. The reason for that is twofold. First, any insurance program, public or private, that has to compete with other insurers is going to have overhead costs substantially higher than Medicare�s. (It is precisely because Medicare is a single-payer program that its overhead costs are low.) Second, the multiple-payer system Hacker would leave in place would continue to impose unnecessarily large overhead costs on providers.
The second mistake the �public option� movement made was to think the insurance industry and the right wing would treat a �public option� more gently than a single-payer. Conservatives have a long history of treating small incremental proposals such as �comparative effectiveness research� as the equivalent of �a government takeover of the health care system.� It should have been no surprise to anyone that conservatives would shriek �socialism!� at the sight of the �public option,� even the mouse model proposed by the Democrats.
The bait-and-switch strategy adopted by the �public option� movement has put the Democrats in a terrible quandary. Seduced by the false advertising about the potency of the �public option� to lower costs, Democrats have raised public expectations for reform to unprecedented levels. Failing to meet those expectations during the 2009 session of Congress, which is inevitable if the Democrats continue to promote legislation like the bills released in June, is going to have unpleasant consequences. Is there no way out of this quandary?
Conventional wisdom holds that if the Democrats don�t pass a health care reform bill by December, they will have to wait till 2013 to try again. But if the �public option� movement were to join forces with the single-payer movement, the two movements could prove the conventional wisdom wrong. This won�t happen, obviously, if the �public option� movement fails to perceive the reasons it failed.
It is conceivable the �public option� movement could decide the bait-and-switch strategy was wrong and that their only error was not to stick with Hacker�s original model. It should be obvious now that that would also be a tactical blunder. We have plenty of evidence now that conservatives will react to the mousey version of the �public option� as if it were �a stalking horse for single-payer.� We can predict with complete certainty they will treat Hacker�s original version as something even closer to single-payer. If a proposal is going to be abused as if it were single-payer, why not actually propose a single-payer? At least then, when a particular session of Congress comes and goes and we haven�t enacted a single-payer system, we will have educated the public about the benefits of a single-payer and have further strengthened the single-payer movement.
To sum up, �public option� advocates must choose between continuing to promote the �public option� and seeing their hopes for cost containment and universal coverage go up in smoke for another four years, and throwing their considerable influence behind single-payer legislation. At this late date in the 2009 session, it is unlikely that a single-payer bill could be passed even if unity within the universal coverage movement could be achieved. But if the �public option� wing and the single-payer wing join together to demand that Congress enact a single-payer system, December 2009 need not constitute a deadline.
Kip Sullivan belongs to the steering committee of the Minnesota chapter of Physicians for a National Health Program.
