Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

Search


Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

jr_114_9780195367195_bnr

jr_114_9780195383768_bnr

advertise-here4


FC-CO(SS)

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments

    • RJ on Ricci: Color-Blind Standards in a Race Conscious Society?

    • TJ on Ricci: Color-Blind Standards in a Race Conscious Society?

    • Christa on Must Law Practice and Scholarship be Exciting?

    • AYY on Privacy and Tattletales

    • Lsat Prep on Improving the US News Rankings: A Wish List

    • Lsat Prep on Fantasy Law School League

    • Legal Fact Finder on Ricci: Color-Blind Standards in a Race Conscious Society?

    • Observer on Ricci: Color-Blind Standards in a Race Conscious Society?

    • RJ on Ricci: Color-Blind Standards in a Race Conscious Society?

    • RJ on Ricci and Briscoe as Disparate Impact Cases

    • Mike Rich on Negligent Corpse Mishandling

    • anon on Privacy and Tattletales

    • orly lobel on At CELS, Hoping to Blog

    • harry brooks on Ricci: Color-Blind Standards in a Race Conscious Society?

    • RJ on Ricci: Color-Blind Standards in a Race Conscious Society?

  •  

    Site Meter

Testing the Public Option

posted by Michael Abramowicz

One of the most contentious issues in the current health reform debate is whether a reform bill should include a “public option,” allowing individuals and/or businesses to choose the United States as their insurer. Paul Krugman, who believes that government can deliver health care more cost-effectively than the private sector, insists that providing an additional option can’t do any harm and could do a lot of good. Greg Mankiw counters that if taxpayer funds are used to cover shortfalls, now or in the future, then the government option has a built-in advantage that could lead to universal coverage. Because in the absence of taxpayer support, the United States would essentially just be a nonprofit health plan, Mankiw argues that the public option can’t do any good and could do a lot of harm.

Mankiw likes challenging Krugman to bets, so let me propose one that could serve as a compromise on the public option issue: an experimental test of the public option. Here’s how it would work: Legislation would create a public option for a test period, perhaps three or five years. Some number of randomly selected individuals and businesses (a large number for statistical comparison purposes), but would be given some up-front cash incentive if they agreed to be randomized into either the public plan for the test period or into their choice of private plan.

An agency independent of the health agency (with, ideally, politically balanced membership) would distribute detailed health surveys to participants, particularly at the end of the period, and conduct a comparison assessment. The purpose of the surveys would be to compare the public option with all private plans (not to compare private plans with each other, especially because this would increase incentives to manipulate data).

The agency’s task then would be to compare benefits and costs. Benefits can be measured by assessing the health status of the participants. (See chapter 3 of this excellent (and free online) book for a detailed study of health impact measurement.) Ideally, the legislation would provide some indication of a scale along which individual health would be measured, and an indication of how to convert these health measurements into dollar values. The surveys and measurement would be costly, but these measurements could produce useful information quite apart from resolving the bet, by producing publicly available data, with appropriate privacy protections, that could be quite useful for research purposes. One might also factor the variance of health status by income group into the measure of total benefit, so that an approach that produces more equitable health outcomes is counted as producing greater benefit.

Meanwhile, the costs should include the sum of all private money and government subsidies spent on providing health care for both the public option and the private option, respectively. (If a participant in either plan ends up switching to Medicaid or Medicare, which would be separate from the public option, we would count these expenses to the plan to which the person was originally assigned, to reduce the danger of bias from nonrandom attrition or crossover.) The cost measure would also take into account the time costs to participants in medical visits, filling out forms, and the like.

The legislation should specify changes that would automatically occur based on the results of the experiment. If either the public or private plan produces better health at lower costs, the comparison is simple, but if one turns out to provide better outcomes for a greater cost, the legislation could include a formula determining whether the additional cost would be justified. If the public plan performed better according to the specification, then there would automatically be some expansion in the public plan at the end of the test period, for example by increasing subsidies for the public plan. If the private plan had a lower ratio, then there would be a contraction or elimination of the public option. A more nuanced approach might calculate cost/benefit ratios for different groups, based on either demographic characteristics or initial health status, and automatically result in more fine-grained modifications of the reforms.

The experiment would thus be self-executing in the sense of automatically changing the policy baseline. Of course, it would be possible to argue about the appropriate interpretation of the results even after the experiment. But it’s useful to force legislators to craft ex ante measurements and procedures for assessing and automatically changing policies. This saves the legislature from the enactment costs of subsequent changes and forces the legislature and the public to focus on what it is actually trying to achieve. Moreover, the possibility of such a public experiment should make health reform more palatable to both those who are optimistic and those who are pessimistic about the public option. As long as each side genuinely believes what it is arguing, then each side should expect the experiment ultimately to produce a reform more to its liking.


 June 9, 2009 at 7:38 am   Posted in: Health Law   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (3)

  1. JP - June 9, 2009 at 11:01 am

    This sounds like the proposals for school-voucher pilot programs, and seems likely doomed to the same inconclusive fate. Outcomes after 3 or 5 years will likely be remain very similar; it seems probable that any disparity will be statistically insignificant. Market advocates will argue that individual health doesn’t change in a material way in such a short period of time. Public option advocates will argue that the test was too small; the program will only really work if they have the economies of scale and data aggregation from a much larger program.

  2. Michael Abramowicz - June 9, 2009 at 11:07 am

    JP, I agree that ex post both sides will be able to come up with some argument for why they are still right. That’s why it’s important for policymakers to try to come up with measurements on which they have different predictions for 3-5 years out, and make policy contingent on that. I disagree that results are likely to be statistically insigificant. If we have a sufficiently large sample (say, 200,000 insureds), we should be able to measure even slight differences in effectiveness. Meanwhile, if public advocates believe that the public option will only work with a “much larger program” (i.e., single payer), then it would be helpful if the debate forced them to say that.

  3. Frank Pasquale - June 9, 2009 at 2:18 pm

    HHS has some experience in planning pilot programs (e.g., in gainsharing), and perhaps this idea could be modeled on that policy experience. My worry is that the private plans would treat the experimental subjects better than they treat customers generally. I think it would be hard to keep the subjects from telling their private plans that they were part of this experiment, and that the plan had some stake in their health status.

    I’d also focus this on the chronically ill, where most of the costs come from.

    Finally, I think that the public plan has many other goals aside from improving health outcomes. For example, even if the experimental subjects in the public plan did not have measurably better outcomes than those in private plans, they would have much more financial security than they would have without that option (something that would have many other benefits for the economy: (see
    http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/05/entrepreneurs_f.html and
    http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=a_strong_safety_net_encourages_healthy_risk_taking

    not to mention our moral standing in the world.

Leave a Reply

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove

Website
Understanding Privacy

Kaimipono Wenger

Website
SSRN Page

Dave Hoffman

Website
SSRN Page

Nate Oman

Website
SSRN Page

Frank Pasquale

Website
SSRN Page

Deven Desai

Website
SSRN Page

Danielle Citron

Website
SSRN Page

Lawrence Cunningham

Website
SSRN Page

Sarah Waldeck

Website
SSRN Page

Jaya Ramji-Nogales

Website
SSRN Page

Solangel Maldonado

Website
SSRN Page

Gerard Magliocca

Website
SSRN Page


Guests

Rachel Godsil
Alex Kreit
Anita Krishnakumar
Matthew Sag
Michael Zimmer






Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Ann Bartow
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
David Fagundes
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
John Ip
Kevin Johnson
Dan Kahan
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
David Post
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Susan Scafidi
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Sarah Waldeck
Melissa Waters
Alfred Yen
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Frank Wu
Corey Yung
Jonathan Zittrain

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress