Which Economist Do You Trust?

by Don Boudreaux on March 8, 2006

in Health

In his January 16, 2006, New York Times column, Paul Krugman denied that people can be trusted to make their own health-care decisions:

But the case of diabetes and other evidence suggest that a third
problem with health savings accounts may be even more important: in
practice, people who are forced to pay for medical care out of pocket
don’t have the ability to make good decisions about what care to
purchase. ”Consumer driven” is a nice slogan, but it turns out that
buying health care isn’t at all like buying clothing.

In today’s Wall Street Journal, my Nobel Laureate colleague Vernon Smith writes about health care (and, by the way, also about higher education).  Vernon’s perspective is about as far from Krugman’s as you can imagine.  Here’s Vernon:

Here is a bare-bones way to think about this situation: A is the
customer, B is the service provider. B informs A what A should buy from
B, and a third entity, C, pays for it from a common pool of funds.

Stated this way, the problem has no known economic solution because
there is no equilibrium. There is no automatic balance between
willingness to pay by the consumer and willingness to accept by the
producer that constrains and limits the choices of each….

….if third-party deep pockets pay whatever is the price
B charges A this year, the effect is to reinforce the incentive to
raise the price next year. Spending escalates, which leads to a demand
for cost control. In health care there is increasing control over
access to medical services. Insurance companies disallow patient free
choice of physicians, clinics and hospitals outside their approved
network. Physicians and medical organizations face escalating
administrative costs of complying with ever more detailed regulations.
The system is overwhelmed by the administrative cost of attempting to
control the cost of medical service delivery….

If there is a solution to this problem, it will take
the form of changing the incentive structure: empowering the consumer
by channeling third-party payment allowances through the patients or
students who are choosing and consuming the service. Each pays the
difference between the price of the service and the insurance or
subsidy allowance. Since he who pays the physician or college calls the
tune, we have a better chance of disciplining cost and tailoring
services to the customer’s willingness to pay.

Many will say that neither the patients nor the
students are competent to make choices. If that is true today, it is
mostly due to the fact that they cannot choose and have no reason to
become competent! Service providers are oriented to whoever pays:
physicians to the insurance companies and the government; universities
to their legislatures. Both should pay more heed to their customers –
which they will if that is where they collect their fees.

Vernon ends his sound economic analysis with this plea: "Would some one please just trust the customer?"

If Vernon Smith trusts people to choose, why doesn’t Paul Krugman do so?

View Comments    Share Share    Print Print    Email Email

  • Unfortunately for the mad libertarians, on this one there's real dta from the massive Rand Health insurance experiment. Quickly summarized, the care that was forgone by individuals because of extra costs was both "necessary" and "unnecessary". In other words people can't tell the difference, as logically you'd realize if you put yourself in the position of someone who feels sick. Could be bad, could be nothing. You don't know. That's Krugman's point, and commonsense as well as data suggest that he's right.


    That's why we have doctors...

  • Why this difference between the two economists? Who is to be believed? This issue strikes at a key issue studied in economics -- who has the best information to make choices for you? You or someone you don't even know? Someone you have never spoken to? Someone who doesn't know your name, age, weight, family history or anything else about you? Krugman in noticeably silent about who he proposes would do this choosing for you. Presumably, he would propose to put this power in the hand of politicians in DC who are perfect examples of people lacking knowledge about anything personal about you. Notice, I am not doubting the intentions of the politicians, only their ability to do the job many propose they do. Even the most benevolent among them would not be able to do an adequate job at this.


    If we need more intelligent people making choices for us, why not trust them to tell us what cars to buy, what clothes to wear, who to marry, what items we're allowed to buy from the grocery store and where we can live? Surely many of these things matter just as much to our overall well-being as health care.


    More thoughts on this issue on my blog: http://thinkingonthemargin.blogspot.com/2006/03...>

  • I gave poor examples in that, yes, procedures deemed by the plan to be "preventative" are covered. But, by definition, a high deductible plan does not cover "first dollar" care -- that's what your deductible is.


    Anyway, that's sort of tangential to my point. The point is that the problem of health care costs in this country is not one of a large number of people overconsuming routine and inexpensive medical care. If it were, then yes, slapping a $1,000 deductible on an individual policy or a $5,000 deductible on a family policy would help stem that tide.


    Of course, the HSA part of the HSA/HDHP structure can also eat away at most of the disincentive, so I'm not convinced, even there, that they make all that much of a difference.


    But no, the problem is almost entirely at the other end of the spectrum -- a vanishingly small number of people with chronic or terminal conditions who consume an amazingly outsized portion of health care resources. HSA/HDHPs do nothing to address that problem, and without addressing it, you're just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

  • Lehmann:


    You're wrong. HSA+HDHPs cover preventative care ("first dollar care") normally.


    Non-distorted economics already takes care of your concerns: insurance companies, faced with limited consumer ability to pay premiums, must keep costs down by encouraging prevention.


    That is, under a complete HSA+HDHP system, not the quasi-modo version we have now.


    But anyway, I have a HSA+HDHP right now, and it covers preventative care.

  • Strophyx

    So physicians in general have better information about medicine than the general public. I fail to see how that means that people in general are incapable of making their own choices. Name any product or service you like. There certainly is a relatively small, identifiable subset of the population that knows much more about this than the average consumer. All the poor, ignorant consumer needs to do is either seek advice from a trusted member of this group, or observe their choices and follow their lead. I've got a medical problem, so what do I do? Some would claim that, since I'll never accumulate as much information and understanding as the top specialists in thie area have, I should let some bureaucrat make the decisions for me. I haven't personally test driven every car on the market nor do I know as much about cars as Dale Earnhardt Jr, but I somehow manage to buy one that suits both my style and budget. I suspect the Paul Krugman wouldn't claim that we would all be so much better of if only we had some engineering-design-political troika established to make this sort of complicated decision for us. He certainly wouldn't if he'd ever ridden in a Zaporozhets. If I don't trust a bureaucracy to pick my car for me, why would I trust one with my health decisions?

  • Henri Hein

    In regards to the last couple of comments, there's a "gulf of expertise" between consumers vs. builders, car-makers and computer makers, but people do reasonably well buying homes, SUVs and PCs.


    It's a complete fallacy that the consumer must be at a certain level of expertise to make informed decisions. There are lots of ways to guide a purchasing decision: independent quality organizations, magazine reviews, recommendations from friends and family, etc. Krugman seems to think that traditional avenues for guiding complex purchases won't work for health, but there's no a priori reason why this should be.


    On a slightly different note, I can say that as someone who has been subjected to a nationalized health care system: it is not something I would wish on my worst enemy. The prospect of going in that direction is gut-wrenchingly scary.





  • Krugman's point is that health care can't be bought like a new shirt, because there is a gulf of expertise between the doctor and the patient. This gulf doesn't exist with regard to shirts. This asymetrical distribution of information strongly disadvantages consumers in their health-care "negotiations" and may make "consumer-driven" healthcare essentially meaningless.


    The same could be said about getting your car repaired. Hell, I KNOW I'm getting ripped off there, but I have no idea when I'm being ripped off and when the mechanic is being honest and charging me a fair price.

  • [[The thrust of Krugman's article is to criticize as naive the idea that decisions over health-care are best left to individuals seeking health-care.]]


    Considering the vast gulf in intelligence and medical training between doctors and the average patient, how is this false?


    I have had a host a kidney problems over the course of my life. As an intelligent and interested layman, I've come to learn quite a lot about kidneys, how they work, what they do, and their relation to the health of the body. That puts me probably in the top 0.01% of all humans in kidney knowledge. But I wouldn't think for a second that I have a better understanding of kidneys than a trained nephrologist. The gulf between my knowledge and expertise and a nephrologist's knowledge and expertise is vast.


    Krugman's point is that health care can't be bought like a new shirt, because there is a gulf of expertise between the doctor and the patient. This gulf doesn't exist with regard to shirts. This asymetrical distribution of information strongly disadvantages consumers in their health-care "negotiations" and may make "consumer-driven" healthcare essentially meaningless.


    - Josh

  • Don Boudreaux

    Mark: The thrust of Krugman's article is to criticize as naive the idea that decisions over health-care are best left to individuals seeking health-care.

  • mark

    Where in the Krugman excerpt does he say that people "can't be trusted?" It sounds to me like he's saying that "people have differing levels of ability to make medical decisions".


    Wait a minute! Not everyone's abilities are identical? That sounds almost like something an economist would say!

  • Mcwop

    Anecdotally, I make decisions all the time, based on the info that my doctor gives me. I have Ulcerative Colitis, and have chosen treatments and medicines. I do factor in cost, because even with insurance I have out-of-pocket expenses.


    Additionally, I choose to go to an urgent care center versus the emergency room for many things. Stitches at an urgent care center are about $150 versus $500 in the emergency room. Yet people still go to the emergency room wbecuase it is "free", rather than learn about any alternatives.


    Recently friend had cancer, now deceased, but she chose her treatments. She lived past the doctor's expectations.


    I suspect people can choose with some education, maybe not on everything, but many things. There is no reason HSA's could not be used in a single payer system too.

  • Today, most health care providers don't set prices any more than Wal-Mart's vendors do. They can bill whatever they want, but third party payers pay what they determine is the correct price. Some private practices no longer take Medicaid patients for this reason. They lose money on reimbursements, can't pass on the difference to poor patients, and can't even give them free care, because technically they have to give the same lowest price to all Medicaid patients. To do otherwise is considered fraud.


    As R.J. Lehmann's comment points out, costs in the system aren't evenly distributed across all people and treatments, either. Less costly preventive measures may ultimately save more money and more lives than expensive late-course treatments. Will people who are killing themselves now with preventable, chronic diseases make more rational choices if they write they check? One can hope, but...


    I just rode my bike to the store instead of driving, paid $12 a pound for coffee, and chose a can of beans solely because it was 2 cents cheaper than the next brand. Shopping differently, no doubt, was the demographically identical woman next in line who came in the SUV she bought because it was "safer."


    Consumer behavior is complex enough in the grocery store. I'll read with interest how economists sort it through as we price our life and death.

  • Yeah, pardon me if I ventured slightly off topic, but I was reacting just to the general notion of HSA/HDHPs as the "end all-be all" of consumer-directed care. In some ways, they are a step in the right direction, but the flaws also run pretty deep.


    As to trusting the consumer, there are a great many medical decisions where it is clear that no one BUT the consumer is qualified to make the call. Does a breast cancer patient want the greatest certainty against recurrence? Or does she want to at least try to preserve her breasts? If the former, she'll likely want masectomy, if the latter, lumpectomy. No doctor is in a position to tell the patient which things they should value.


    But then, I also think you have to at least tacitly concede that there are other areas about which consumers really CAN'T be presumed perfectly qualified to assess. There are reasons why we send doctors to school for a decade. This doesn't necessarily mean that decisions shouldn't be left, ultimately, to their discretion (hell, I don't have any idea if my mechanic is telling the truth when he tells me what's wrong with my car, but I still want final say in whether something gets done) but it does suggest that a better health care system will include incentives for fiduciary agents to assist consumers in making these decisions. And those agents probably ought be someone other than the doctors, who may be in a conflict of interests.


    As it is, we're a long way from worrying about such problems. Let's focus first on getting good data on what things actually cost, because as it stands, not even the providers or the payors tend to know that with any reasonable degree of certainty.

  • The problem with the HSA/HDHP structure is that it encourages scrimping on first-dollar care (much of which -- simple check-ups, breast exams, blood cultures, etc. -- is, on net extremely cost-effective) but does absolutely nothing about LAST dollar care, which is where almost all of the system's true cost drivers lie.


    In the current system, 22% of costs are accounted for by just 1% of the people, and 50% of costs are accounted for by 5% of patients. Those patients will all be covered by catastrophic insurance coverage and HSAs wouldn't provide any savings there whatsoever. In fact, once they pass that deductible threshold, they have an incentive to pile on.


    Moreover, if you're looking at the real cost drivers of the third party payer system, it lies in the blind and uncritical adoption by doctors of whatever is the latest drug or device to come to market. And here, HSAs provide a very strong incentive for exactly the wrong kind of technology development.


    Just think -- if you're a medical tech or pharmaceutical company executive, the best way to guarantee money back on your investment is to ensure you pass that $5,000 threshold, so it will be covered by insurance rather than the discretion of individuals. It practically builds the sort of inflationary trend we've been seeing right into the system.


    Clearly, yes, cost transparency and evidence based medicine are the keys to improving the system. But as currently constructed, HSAs do terribly little to address either of those issues, and in some ways they actually make the problems worse.

  • Mike

    Mr. Evil,


    In a u chicago book chapter i wrote with a colleague i found that at public flagships increases in pell grants are met with nearly dollar for dollar increases in tuition. the lit is not consistent in this finding however.


    -mike

  • Well, if Krugman's point is that smart people only hang out with other smart people so they don't realize how stupid the average person is, then it's a good point.


    However, the biggest problem with our healthcare system is that there are no free market incentives. People are unable to decide how much healthcare they want to purchase, providers have no incentive to offer lower prices, or better service for higher prices.

  • gary

    It seems to me that the only explanation is that Krugman whats people like him to dictate those decisions. Its astounding that in a disciple where more choice is deemed better, Krugman wants to restrict choice. And as Vernon Smith said, if competing medical companies seek to win customers, then they have every incentive to make such decisions easily interpretable to consumers.

  • Elitists. They always know what's best for anyone else.

  • Evil Scientist

    I wonder what the exact relation is between the amount of money contributed by a third-party and the incentive of the seller to raise prices. For example, many universities receive only a small portion of their revenues from the grants offered by the government; does this lead to dollar-for-dollar increases in tuition or something else?

  • Don, for those who don't know, you ought to have mentioned what Smith won his Nobel for: behavioral economics. It's ironic and telling that the guy who's more intimately familiar with the imperfections of human rationality and takes such things seriously trusts the consumer more than the mathematical economist.

  • Krugman's concerns might be valid in a sense but his unrepentant association with some the worse economics ignoramuses out there (read the Democrat US party) means that his credibility is far too overrated.


    It's like if you hear a class-warfarist saying "Gee, there might be some sort of exploitation going on here."... you know where he's headed.


    Ad hominems aside, people learn. Sure, trial and error in matters of health is a stark prospect but I'm skeptical of the alternatives.


    People learn so they'll learn also how to better handle their healthcare. Many already do.

blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: