Medicare Myths--Don't Blame The Boomerrs

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:01


Issues? Remember them?  Well, this has to do with a big one: Health Care, and the government role therein.

You probably know that the Social Security "crisis" is a myth.  You probably also know that the Boston Red Sox finally broke the curse of The Bambino.  But what about the "fact" that Baby Boomers are going to break the bank on Medicare?

Turns out, not so much.  The real problem is not aging Boomers.  It's a crazy incentive system that drives "innovation" and costs much faster and higher than it drives health results.  So resports Maggie Mahar, who blogs at Health Beat, a Century Foundation project, in an Alternet article, "The Mythology of Boomers Bankrupting Our Healthcare System".

In the 1 picture=1k words department, dig this:

Mahar's article is based on a presentation at the recent three-day "World Health Care Congress Europe" (WHCCE), by Princeton economist Uwe Reinhardt:

The only American to speak at WHCCE, Reinhardt focused on what he called "the folklore that people bring to the healthcare policy table." By nature an iconoclast, Reinhardt spent the next 20 minutes shattering some of the myths that have become part of the received wisdom among policymakers.

That picture above is from one of his slides.

More goodies on the flip....

Paul Rosenberg :: Medicare Myths--Don't Blame The Boomerrs
Not The Boomers

As I said before, it's not the aging Boomers....

It turns out that when you look at estimates of growth in healthcare spending from 1990 to 2030, a senescent citizenry plays only a minor role in the projected jump from $585 billion (what we laid out for healthcare in 1990) to $14,026 billion (what analysts say we'll ante up in 2030, assuming we continue in our profligate ways).

What will be the biggest factor pushing the tab so much higher? Innovation. "The healthcare industry will continue developing new stuff for every age group," Reinhardt explains. Will that "new stuff" -- in the form of new drugs, devices, tests and procedures -- be worth it? Some of it will be. Some won't. Indeed as this article from Health Affairs reveals, over the past 12 years, rising spending on new medical technologies designed to address heart disease has not meant that more patients have survived. In many areas, we seem to have reached a point of diminishing returns. This also is true in the drug industry, where most new entries are "me too drugs" -- little different from products already on the market.

As I have often discussed, it is usually suppliers, not "patient demand," that drives healthcare inflation. The big ticket items are not the ones patients ask for; they're the ones companies advertise -- or that doctors and hospitals tell us we need. Few chronically ill patients ask to be hospitalized; not many cry out for dialysis, or the chance to spend thousands on cancer drugs; it's the rare person who asks if he can die in an ICU.

The Age Wave-Not A Tsunami

"In truth, the aging of the population is not a big problem," Reinhardt says. We really don't have to worry about greedy geezers suddenly clamoring for more care than we can afford. For one, they won't grow old all at once. They'll grow old just as they were born -- over a period of many years.

But You Can Make It Look Like A Tsunami

As Reinhardt mentioned earlier, a speaker who wants to grab his audience's attention may well scale a chart so that the demographic change looks like a wave that could wipe us out -- but the truth is much less sensational.

This doesn't mean that healthcare spending won't continue to levitate. "But what will drive costs in coming years, will come, not from the demand side of the equation, but from the supply side," says Reinhardt, repeating his theme. We can be certain that, without some significant reforms, suppliers will continue to invent new products for every age group, charging us more and selling us more -- using whatever methods it takes, from direct-to-consumer advertising to promises of near immortality and perpetual youth (just as 120 can be the new 80, 55 can be the new 35!) -- if we just swallow enough pills and replace enough body parts. (Of course remembering to swallow the pills could become a problem around 101, but that's another post).

Moreover, healthcare is labor intensive -- and by 2070, the number of U.S. workers per Medicare beneficiary will have dropped from 3.4 (in 2000) to 1.9. We are already experiencing a shortage of registered nurses -- which has helped raise wages. "Today a RN in California often makes more than a pediatrician," Reinhardt notes. (Though this says more about how niggardly we are when paying our pediatricians than how extravagant we are when paying nurses. See this post on physicians' pay).

I don't want to pilfer Mahar's whole post.  So I'll just snare one more chart, which shows another thing you won't hear a lot about-how immigrants (including the undocumented) are easing (though certainly not eliminating) the problem of an aging population:

Sweden To The Rescue!

Oh, what the hell! I'll wanted to end with a quick plug for Sweden, the socialist paradise we're never supposed to think about.  But there just wasn't a good place to stop:

Finally, Sweden offers proof that an aging population doesn't have to spell financial disaster. The second day of the conference I interviewed Mona Heurgren, an economist at Sweden's National Board of Health and Welfare, and she pointed out that "while we have the oldest population in the EU, our healthcare costs haven't been rising. Over the last 15 years or so, the share of our citizens who are older has been growing, yet healthcare spending has stayed level at about 9 percent of GDP."

How has Sweden managed the buck the trend? For one, 95 percent of the country's hospitals and doctors use electronic medical records, which guarantee fewer errors and much greater efficiency. (As of three years ago, only 15 percent to 20 percent of U.S doctors' offices and 20 percent to 25 percent of U.S. hospitals had implemented electronic medical records, and adoption continues to move slowly as we try to decide who should pay for healthcare IT).

Moreover, in Sweden, preventive care is free. So no one is tempted to skip a needed Pap smear. Diabetics go for their eye checkups. In the United States, by contrast, many 50-something patients put off care that they can't afford, waiting until they reach the magic age of 65 and qualify for Medicare. At that point, the catch-up care they need can be very expensive and in some cases, their health has been permanently damaged.

Finally, in Sweden, long-term care is included in the national healthcare package, which is financed almost entirely through income taxes. Heurgren estimates that the share of a family's taxes that is used to fund healthcare equals roughly 10 percent of the average household's income. This is roughly what a median-income family in the United States lays out for health insurance -- if it is lucky enough to have an employer able and willing to pay slightly more than 50 percent of the family's healthcare premiums. (Comprehensive insurance for a family now fetches close to $13,000; if the employer pays $7,000, that leaves a family earning $60,000 with premiums of $6,000. Of course, in the United States that family also would face co-pays and deductibles, making healthcare more expensive, as a percentage of gross income, than in Sweden).

But as Heurgren puts it, with a modest shrug, "We're just a small country in the north." She is suggesting that Sweden is too small to serve as a model for larger nations. It is easier, in many ways, for Sweden to manage the challenges of 21st century medicine in a country where most people are middle-class and social solidarity is part of the culture.

Or, as Act-Up might put it:

COWBOY INDIVIDUALISM=DEATH.


Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Boomer Tsunami (0.00 / 0)
I'm not a statistician, but the whole "boomer tsunami" scenario never made a lot of sense to me.

I could see it leading to a short-term deficit, I suppose, but our population is always growing, so why wouldn't the difference just be made up in the long term as the work force continued to grow?

Seems like the "boomer tsunami" arguments never look at the out years, after the boomer wave is over. You see the wave crashing, but never subsiding.

Again, I'm not a statistician, so I could be wrong.


Everything's Relative (0.00 / 0)
As shown in the two charts with different scales, it's not hard to make the wave seem like a tsunami--and there's even some truth in it.  If you get a 10% increase in any population, and you only have the capacity to absorb 1% change in the short run, that's going to cause real problems.  The over-65 population will increase even more than this.  But it's still managable for precisely the reasons you cite.

What's not managable are the other factors that make our health care system so far outside the international norm.  Pehaps if we lived 10 year longer than everyone else, this would be a very good bargain.  But, of course, we do not.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Take most of the profit out (0.00 / 0)
That's the way to reduce health care costs.  Eliminate the insurers by requiring community rating, prohibiting them from denying coverage and having a government alternative that people can use instead of traditional for-profit insurers.  Keep drug prices down by having the gov't negotiate deals.  Don't allow deduction of advertising costs as a business expense.  Emphasize preventive care.

Having all electronic medical records is a good idea.  Privacy wouldn't be an issue with universal coverage because people wouldn't be afraid of losing their health care or becoming unemployable.  Until then, good luck.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


Right as Rain, Mon Mimi (0.00 / 0)
Now, which presidential candidate is proposing such reforms?

Erm, None of them, you say?

Verdad? Can this be true?

But how? Have not all the candidates pledged to 'change' the system?

Are they all lying?

Oh...


[ Parent ]
This is a key indicator (0.00 / 0)
I wish that Obama and Clinton would lead on this issue, but I'm not particularly offended by their timidity. When it comes to challenging the insurance industry, the leaders aren't going to lead until they can be assured of popular support. So, the followers are going to have to do the leading.

I do believe we are on the path to change, and that either the big C or the big O could be pushed. I think Clinton's once burned. Obama is building a coalition that may take the ideas of hope and change into new issues.... we'll see.

There is tremendous support for single payer within the activists of the Democratic Party. In swing districts Single Payer is viewed as risky. But, in liberal districts, candidates are finding it hard to win the primary without explicitly supporting single payer. So, one tipping point to watch for is the spread of this litmus test.

Per my comments in the first paragraph, this will be a trailing indicator of popular support.


[ Parent ]
It's amazing that helath insurance companies don't push (4.00 / 2)
preventative and long term care really aggressively.  It just goes to show how absurdly short sighted they can be

The "cowboy individualism" is certainly a big part of the problem, (0.00 / 0)
along with worn-out folk sayings, such as "God helps those who help themselves." It is incredibly important to keep producing diaries such as this one in order to dispel so many of the harmful myths about health care in this country.

nice catch (0.00 / 0)
Yup, it's more spin for two things, more global migration/corporate cheap labor agenda and to privatize SS and further reduce the US safety net/middle class.

Over on EP is blog post I wrote on the comparison/contrast Frontline documentary on other health care systems.

It's just criminal how much the US is paying in medical services, that should come out clearly.

Nice plug for Sweden, you might pump up Finland too, a nation of 3 million people who magically can make things work out quite nicely for their people.  (remember, the US is hitting 304 million so obviously flooding the US with more cheap labor is truly a lie in terms of making our social safety net solvent and functional).

Excellent post Paul, you've outdone yourself.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist


Who is a boomer? (0.00 / 0)
I was born in 1953 and for most of my life I was never a baby boomer. It was only recently that I and those born through 1963 are now considered baby boomers.

Baby boomers were originally identified as those born after the second world war up until 1951. All my life I was not a baby boomer. The up tick in births were from the returning soldiers. It was not deemed an entire generation until they wanted to rob the SS Administration and paint it as not able to handle a whole generation of elderly from an increase of births over a twenty year span.

What garbage people are being duped into swallowing. There has to be government figures out there and news reports to substantiate what I am saying. Don't buy the nonsense that there was a whole generation of baby boomers.


I Think You're Being A Bit Paranoid Here (0.00 / 0)
I was born in '49, my sister in '52 and my brother in '54.  We were always all Boomers as far as I was aware.

Generations have generally meant 20-25 years or so for quite some time, so the limited window you refer to would be the exception here.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox