Brad DeLong on the causes and cures of the great recession and why the many supposed cures floating around in politics are wrong.
1, 2
Posts
Monday Night
5 hours ago
Monday, March 21, 2011
Friday, March 11, 2011
Research = rationing?
We have Mike Huckabee objecting to comparative effectiveness research:
However we need to find out what treatments work better than others. Surely, having more knowledge in this area is not a bad thing. If this will lead to rationing, why not just abolish any research done to test treatments? If comparative effectiveness research would lead to rationing, so would any research at all.
And even if we would use this information to encourage the use of the cheaper treatment in Medicare, would that be a bad thing? Many insurance plans already do something similar by requiring higher co-pays for brand name drugs versus the generic version.
The bigger point though is that he is saying if the government isn't willing to pay for something, then it is rationing. However, there are millions of uninsured people who aren't able to pay for their own care. As a result, they do not receive care. If this is rationing, their plan (which is to not provide universal coverage) would also lead to rationing. Their plan is to ration by price instead.
Rationing by prices will not always lead to the most desired goods going to those who need them most. If everyone had the same level of wealth, we could allocate goods to those who are willing to pay the most for them. These people would also be the people who value them the most.
However, clearly we do not live in a world where everyone has the same amount of income to draw from. As a result, the good of healthcare will go to the ones who can pay more. So, any attempt to level the playing field (through say Medicaid or the healthcare bill) attempts to fix this income effect so markets can work better.
The despair Huckabee finds in the fact that government may at some point attempt to control its costs by encouraging Medicare recipients to use less costly (but just as effective) treatments is astounding. His view of government would leave millions uninsured with no ability to pay for care. This should lead Huckabee to much more despair and corresponding support of the healthcare bill. Yet, consistency is not his strong suit. This may be the most despairing thing of all.
See these two blog posts for similar points: The "Rationing" Switcheroo and Cutting Off Your Nose to Spite Your Face.
Tucked away in the $787 billion stimulus was the establishment of the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness, which will become our version of Britain’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the ironically and Orwellian-named NICE. NICE decides who lives and who dies based on age and the cost of treatment. So the stimulus didn’t just waste your money; it planted the seeds from which the poisonous tree of death panels will grow…After Sarah Palin invoked death panels in her critique of the health care bill, it has become a standard objection that buried somewhere in the healthcare bill (or in any other bill), there is something that will lead to health care rationing. This is a fact and we don't need very much argument to prove it.
However we need to find out what treatments work better than others. Surely, having more knowledge in this area is not a bad thing. If this will lead to rationing, why not just abolish any research done to test treatments? If comparative effectiveness research would lead to rationing, so would any research at all.
And even if we would use this information to encourage the use of the cheaper treatment in Medicare, would that be a bad thing? Many insurance plans already do something similar by requiring higher co-pays for brand name drugs versus the generic version.
The bigger point though is that he is saying if the government isn't willing to pay for something, then it is rationing. However, there are millions of uninsured people who aren't able to pay for their own care. As a result, they do not receive care. If this is rationing, their plan (which is to not provide universal coverage) would also lead to rationing. Their plan is to ration by price instead.
Rationing by prices will not always lead to the most desired goods going to those who need them most. If everyone had the same level of wealth, we could allocate goods to those who are willing to pay the most for them. These people would also be the people who value them the most.
However, clearly we do not live in a world where everyone has the same amount of income to draw from. As a result, the good of healthcare will go to the ones who can pay more. So, any attempt to level the playing field (through say Medicaid or the healthcare bill) attempts to fix this income effect so markets can work better.
The despair Huckabee finds in the fact that government may at some point attempt to control its costs by encouraging Medicare recipients to use less costly (but just as effective) treatments is astounding. His view of government would leave millions uninsured with no ability to pay for care. This should lead Huckabee to much more despair and corresponding support of the healthcare bill. Yet, consistency is not his strong suit. This may be the most despairing thing of all.
See these two blog posts for similar points: The "Rationing" Switcheroo and Cutting Off Your Nose to Spite Your Face.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)