Thursday, August 27, 2009

A health insurance approach based on responsible individual freedom

As I said in my last posting, for me to offer a health insurance proposal is rather like a weatherman offering to design a jet fighter: though he's familiar with its operating conditions, odds are that his ideas won't fly. That said, I suppose I have at least as much expertise on the subject as, say, leftist politicos like Barack Obama, an observation that emboldens me to share the thought experiment that follows.

I strongly believe that it's often a good idea to start a discussion by clarifying in simple terms exactly what it is we're talking about. Health care becomes an issue of public policy concern mainly with regard to the approach we take to paying for health services. If everyone had as much money as Bill Gates or Donald Trump, I doubt there would be much fodder for political discussion. Still, since money is so much of the issue, it might not hurt to think about how we'd handle things if we did have their resources. We'd have the freedom to do what we thought would most effectively and rationally maximize our health and longevity.

So assume for a moment that you are a person of relatively unlimited resources that you can allocate in any way you choose. Let's also assume that, being a person of good sense and will, you want to take care of your own needs and reasonable desires, while maximizing the surplus that remains to be devoted to some good that you want to achieve. Having a sane regard for you personal comfort and safety, you want to take care of your health. What would be your most reasonable course of action?

Let's say that you are start out in a state of good health. So your first concern is to maintain it. You would budget a certain amount of money for this purpose. It might include an allocation for a fitness regimen; for developing and maintaining a healthy diet; and for regular consultations with health professionals (fitness coach, diet specialist, personal physician) who use appropriate measures to check your overall state of health. Let's call this the health maintenance allocation. Your budget might also include money that you may need in order to deal with emergencies (in the broadest sense) including accidents and occasional bouts of illness. Ideally this allocation would be reserved in the form of some productive investment, so that the money involved, though readily available, would be fruitful and multiply as time passed.

In addition to this basic budget, you might designate an additional amount meant to accrue value over the longer term. This would ideally provide the wherewithal to handle the anticipated inevitable effects of aging, as well as longer term care that might be for chronic, incapacitating illness or during the period of acute decline prior to natural death.

Given your relatively unlimited resources, more extreme and hard to anticipated emergencies would have to be handled by extra budgetary allocations, taken out of the surplus that would normally be devoted to such other good as you are trying to achieve.

Now, most people don't have relatively unlimited resources. Some might be in a position to maintain a reasonable budget for ordinary health related expenses, but many would have trouble dealing with foreseeable health emergencies, much less the more extreme exigencies. Any extra budgetary allocations would probably have to be financed by borrowing. But people with relatively little surplus income beyond what's needed to maintain their everyday life are limited in their ability to service debt, especially in the large amounts that might suddenly be needed to meet a health emergency. At any given moment, however, the risk that any given individual will face such an emergency is relatively small. Spread that risk over a sufficient number of people, and the burden of meeting it in any given case can be met by a fund replenished through small, regular contributions that each of them can afford. Thus the basic concept of emergency health insurance emerges. It's intended to allow people who must live on a wage or other regular but limited income to provide for needed health services that they could otherwise not afford.

Though we call it insurance because of the fund's purpose, we should keep in mind that it is actually much like a special purpose savings bank. Like any such bank, some of its income is properly generated from prudent investment of part of its available resources. Thus its gross income for any given period consists of the total amount of the regular individual contributions plus interest or dividends derived from investment. The total value of the fund at any given time includes, in addition to operational balances, the total value of the invested capital. For any given period, the bank may generate a surplus that consists of the total income for that period minus the sum of its operating costs and any outlays for health emergencies during that period.

Looked at in this way, we immediately notice one difference between the operation of the insurance savings scheme and other kinds of savings banks. At other banks, those who provide the funds the bank uses for lending and other investments receive some interest on their deposits. If they leave them untouched, the value of these deposits increases over time. Depositors therefore have a certain incentive to leave them untouched, in order to maximize their growth. In effect, the bank's profits, in any given period, are divided between the owners of the bank and its depositors, who own the accounts that constitute the bulk of the bank's liquid assets.

The contributors to the insurance fund do not 'own' or derive income from the total amount accounted for by their contributions during any given period. Their premiums pay for the right to borrow from the fund to meet any health emergencies that occur during the period.

In comparison with a savings bank, however, the insuring bank has less control over the amount the bank may be called upon to lend during any given period; they also can't control the relationship between the amount they lend to any given individual and the total amount of the regular contributions they receive from that individual after the emergency has been handled. They can't be sure the loan will be fully repaid (much less any interest that would otherwise accrue.) To compensate for this, they must have a stream of new income from a) new contributors signing on to the fund; b) the bank's investments; c) sale of stock in the company. They must also find ways to manage the overall risk distributed among their contributors so that the fund continues to grow enough to prevent shortfalls on account of any individuals from gradually reducing the fund below the level needed to fulfill its obligation to pay (at any given time) for the needed health services of its contributors.

Assuming however that all this is done competently, (and that unexpectedly adverse conditions do not consume its income producing assets) the insurance savings (or fund management) scheme (what we, somewhat misleadingly, call the insurance provider) could generate a profit over time. As things stand that profit goes entirely to the owners and/or stockholders of the bank. After all, they provide the critically important initial and ongoing capitalization needed to launch and sustain the insurance scheme. But without garnering sufficient contributors to form an adequate risk pool, would the scheme work for very long? Probably not; it would become a rather expensive and short lived form of charitable giving. The money derived from individual contributions, as well as the health and behavior of the individual contributors, form an essential part of its real and ongoing capitalization.

Given this fact, as well as our overall goal of respecting individual liberty (choice and responsibility) in dealing with health matters, does it make sense to leave the whole incentive for managing risk to the banking institution? For better or worse, the individual's behavior contributes to the success or failure of the risk management task. Under present arrangements, some efforts are made to enlist individual cooperation by offering lower contribution requirements (premiums) in exchange for certain behavior modifications. But the accrued value of this incentive is hidden, so that it is psychologically consumed almost at once, and rapidly decreases even further over time. Wouldn't it be more effective (since an ongoing commitment is needed) to offer incentives in a form that persists and grows in perception over time, so that as individuals maintain a state of health that keeps down their withdrawals from the general fund, they see an appreciable increase in the value of the incentive?

Without such an appreciably increasing incentive, as healthy people contribute to the general insurance fund, the perceived value they derive from it decreases in direct proportion to their success in staying healthy. In effect, their good health over any given period subsidizes the outlays made for those who have less successful health maintenance records during that period. The longer their good health lasts, the greater the total amount of this subsidy. In terms of value for money, there is actually an incentive after a certain time, to become more casual about resorting to health services, less prone to reflect much on the real necessity for doing so.

Given this perverse incentive structure, why do we marvel at the present insurance system's tendency to generate higher outlays? How can we alter this incentive structure to reward people who maintain their health, so that the longer they sustain their successful health record, the larger the reward's value to them appears to be? The answer is simple: their good health habits must be seen to contribute to their accrued assets over time so that sustained health translates into increased wealth, thereby encouraging their commitment to healthy behavior.

By combining the wealthy individual's common sense approach to maximizing the surplus available to do other good things, with an insurance fund incentive structure that maximizes individual contributors' commitment to good health habits, we arrive at a health insurance approach that might have features like this:


  • Coverage of all aspects of basic health maintenance including the maintenance of good fitness and diet regimens and routine check-ups.
  • Premiums that, in addition to producing regular operating funds and the money needed to meet the costs of contributors' basic health maintenance services generate the surplus needed in any given period to meet foreseeable health emergencies.
  • A category of additional premiums going into a separate fund reserved for a) acute emergencies and health situations requiring longer term care; b) the increased costs associated with the inevitable health effects of aging and/or the special care required during the decline toward death.
  • All regular premiums to be credited to individually denominated, interest bearing checking accounts, associated with an interest free health credit line capped at an appropriately determined quarterly limit. Individuals agree to pay for all health related expenses with funds disbursed from this account. Emergencies requiring disbursements beyond the predetermined credit cap would require a limit increase approved by the insurance fund manager according to a predetermined schedule of step increases, up to the limit set for foreseeable health emergencies. Beyond that limit, disbursements would come from funds obtained out of the acute emergency/longer term care fund.
  • All acute emergency/longer term care premiums to be credited to individually denominated, interest bearing money market checking accounts, with disbursements according to the model established for the regular premium account, but with a separate schedule of disbursement caps.
  • Unused balances in the individually denominated accounts, plus interest accrued, would rollover and accumulate from quarter to quarter.
  • A schedule of discounts would be applied to premiums in one or the other, or both categories, related to an individual's commitment to maintain a fitness and dietary regimen developed and supervised by health professionals and facilities chosen by the contributor, but approved and accredited by the insurance institution. The regimen would include regular evaluations and reports (based on agreed upon measures and areas of evaluation) as to the individuals' active compliance with their regimen's fitness and dietary provisions.
  • A schedule of interest rates for the interest bearing accounts such that the rate increases in relation to the length of time a) the individual successfully maintains the commitment to an appropriate dietary and fitness regime; and b) maintains a state of health and fitness within predefined age appropriate parameters.


This list of features is obviously intended mainly for illustrative purposes. In considering them, it's important to keep in focus the objective at which they aim, which is to eliminate third party administration of the disbursement of health funds, placing choice and responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the individuals who actually experience the provided health services. At the same time, the incentives connected with individual ownership and wealth creation are mobilized to encourage individual behavior that improves health prospects while reducing casually inconsiderate drains on overall health fund reserves. There are probably other and better features with which to achieve these objectives. The advantage of advocating freedom, rather than socialist government control, is that creative individuals and institutions are left free to think through and implement them. The key to defending their freedom, however, is to fund the individually owned accounts the incentive structure requires in a way that respects the power and prerequisites of a free market, while providing effectively for the hard cases that the socialists claim only coercively raised tax dollars can insure. In the next and final installment of this series we'll consider where that key (or at least a serviceable impression of it) may be found.

9 comments:

chiu_chunling said...

I would tend to argue that designing any particular scheme to pay for unpredictable emergency care (the only kind for which it makes any sense to buy or sell insurance) falls short of the goal of revising the entire health care system while preserving freedom. In a free system, everybody should be permitted a variety of different options, including options which we might consider unwise.

Of the first rank would be the generation of a personal reserve of wealth, wisely invested to generate some return. For most people, this would be a primary residence or other real properties which could be mortgaged in the event of an emergency. Yes, I don't see what the problem is with using your house as security on a loan to pay for your own health care. The wealth reserve could be in other forms, but for most people with the financial reserves to pay for unanticipated emergencies themselves, their house is a reasonable chunk of that reserve of wealth.

Then we have people who do not have a reserve of wealth sufficient to cover possible but unlikely emergencies, yet have a strong income. Most of these people are good candidates for some kind of insurance coverage, the combination of strong income and low probability of emergencies with a lack of established wealth tends to occur in the younger working population (though really it could include people at any age). Because health emergencies tend to disrupt income for this group, it makes sense for them to have an "assured" source of income to cover emergencies. It is worth noting that government regulation of insurance coverage has historically tended to mandate that provided coverage does not meet the typical needs of this group, the only group which would rationally want insurance, and as a result many members of this group become voluntarily un/underinsured.

Finally we have all the people who do not make enough money to pay for insurance or have enough money to meet possible emergencies without insurance. The determination of how affordable insurance would be has to be left to the judgment (whether or not anyone else agrees) with the person who must pay the premiums, so a lot of people who we might want to assign to the previous category end up here (particularly due to high premiums on required coverage which they don't need). For people in this group (children, some elderly poor, young workers unwilling to pay for unsuitable coverage plans), the main options are to pray they don't have an emergency or--the emergency having occurred, pray that someone else (parents, children, friends) will pay the bill.

There are those who would prefer not to receive emergency medical care under any circumstances, but they do not require discussion in this topic, which is necessarily restricted to those who want care.

In any case, looking at the above categories, we can see that only a fraction of the population should be insured at all. This fits in well with the idea that, under a free system, insurance should be an option rather than a requirement. Generally speaking, only about 10 percent of the adult population should have health insurance of any kind, and that only covering true emergencies.

So why is America even having the current debate?

Make no mistake, that is the critical question.

Keith D. Rodebush said...

While I agree with the attempt to bring responsibility into the equation, any time you develop such a complicated system that is necessarily going to require government oversight you are asking for more trouble down the road. The key is to get the federal government out of it and put the power back to a state and local level. Allow states to set up community clinics like we used to have to care for the day to day sniffles of the indigent children, and allow free access for all to insurance for catastrophic care only. Again, freedom to have a 'cadillac' plan if you wish, but access to a smaller plan. Also, do not allow insurance companies to drop coverage for an arbitrary age or a sudden illness. This will raise rates, but coupled with tort reform could actually lower rates. Competition being restored by providers will cause prices to regulate. If you are interested I too, posted about this very subject.

http://tinyurl.com/l5qpux

Keith D. Rodebush

Derek P. said...

"So why is America even having the current debate?"

"Make no mistake, that is the critical question." (chiu_chunling)

Money. It's about protecting wealth. Current, and, just as important, potential.

Alan Keyes said...

Keith Rodebush,
Is there something in the ideas I've presented that involves government regulation? The features I've proposed are suggestions about the direction private plans might consider, not proposed requirements that the government would mandate. In the article to come I'll talk about possibly relevant government action, but the kind of regulation you speak of (imposing positive obligations and restrictions on insuring entities) will play little or no part in it. Of course, government has the right to govern its own actions,(what it does or refrains from doing) and that is the direction I'm looking in.
The steps you suggest involve the perpetuation of government's current regulatory role, however truncated. I see no reason why the government should be telling private individuals or insurance institutions what they must do or not do with their own resources. I oppose the idea of requiring individuals to have health insurance. I also oppose the idea of government financed subsidies (open or hidden)for individuals who decide to forgo insurance. Part of individual responsibility is facing the consequences when your choices go awry. (This in no implies that private,voluntarily funded charitable institutions should not help people in such situations to deal with those consequences.)
Of course, government's proper role in dealing with fraudulent or other criminal behavior, and the adjudication and enforcement of contract obligations in the civil courts are not in question.

gilbertabrett said...

The government already does not do what it is supposed to do according to the Constitution. They do not need ANYTHING more to add to their oh so busy work schedule. Too bad they do not have to abide by the minimum wage laws they use to pander votes.

I agree that people should be free to make the choices about their health without government interference. Then, as Dr. Keyes said, people will learn to make better choices - or at least have the chance to learn. Now, we are all being pushed into the Democratic Party's plantation. If you want to know what that looks like, ask any person that lives on welfare/food stamps, etc. in the projects. People don't realize the Democrats NEVER supported Civil Rights until they had found a way to not only keep black people in poverty, but also look good to those black people AND get ahead politically in doing so. What a horrible joke... Now they have found a way to bring MORE people onto the plantation to keep Massa Hussein well fed.

And just when you thought you were safe, Senator Kennedy dies. Sad, but the 2nd - 5th paragraphs of this post sounded exactly like him. Rich and able to buy all kinds of medical care. But in the end... Now he is being used as a political pawn before he can cool in the earth, just as he used so many during his sad life. So what is the lesson in the end? You reap what you sow. I doubt he would even be surprised that his memory is being used to promote this farce. He would probably be proud.

I always heard from the old folks when I was growing up that GOD only gives you one body. Of course, older people are not respected in this country anymore and neither is GOD. It all boils down to that disregard and disrespect of GOD for many I know. The fact that we continue to kick GOD out of everything leaves us only to look to ourselves OR someone with hope and change to take care of us. Some choice...

Sara said...

Here is a great chance to drive a large number of visitors to your blogs and websites for free.

Submit your websites, blogs, videos to http://www.zillionsb.com and get 1000s of targeted visitors everyday for free. It also helps your websites/blogs gain valuable backlinks.

Let the other bloggers cast their votes to push your posts up for a greater visibility. Enjoy a free, huge traffic to your sites.

Thanks

Sara
http://www.zillionsb.com

Daddy said...

WOW! your website have the great information about
insurance

I'm sure I will be again.

Jack said...

Wow really very nice and good information you share here. I read your entire post and really superb information you share here on funny stuff thanks for your information.

charlesdowney said...

If you only know where you should look, it is not impossible to find a low cost health insurance. Aside from being able to find an insurance that will not break your bank, you will also not need to sacrifice your coverage, or risk being under covered.

Post a Comment

Be advised that this comment section is moderated in order to assure respect for civil proprieties. Posts that use obscenities, scurrilous epithets or that are gratuitously disrespectful of others will be removed ASAP. If you think a comment offensive in this way, report it in an email to alan@loyaltoliberty.com.