• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Obama Appointee on Health Care Mandates

    President Obama, who had previously opposed an individual mandate for health insurance, has now opened the door to including such a legal requirement as a central feature of health care reform.

    An excellent explanation of the difficulties involved in the implementation of such a mandate was recently outlined in a New England Journal of Medicine article, “Universal Coverage One Head at a Time—The Risks and Benefits of Individual Health Insurance Mandates” published last year by Sherry Glied, Ph.D. Dr. Glied has just been nominated to serve as the Assistant Secretary of Planning and Evaluation at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). At this crucial time in the health care reform debate, Dr. Glied’s professional judgment on this vital issue is particularly important:

    • It Won’t Be Easy: “The difficulties of finding, enrolling, and accounting for all eligible participants escalate when most of the financing is expected to come from premiums paid directly to multiple insurers rather than from funds collected centrally by the government through taxation. To address this problem, some reform models incorporate an individual mandate, a legal requirement that every person obtain insurance coverage.”
    • The Free Rider Problem Is Smaller Than Imagined: “The free-rider problem remains a central element in the argument for an individual mandate. Research verifies the existence of such a problem but suggests the magnitude is quite small. Funds diverted from uncompensated care would not be sufficient to pay for the subsidies needed to cover most uninsured people. Eliminating the free-rider problem through universal insurance might make the health care system more fair, but it wouldn’t make it less costly.” “Although the desire to curtail free riding and strategic behavior by insurers provides the philosophical underpinnings of the individual mandate, policymakers’ interest in the mandate option owes as much to its fiscal implications. Universal coverage achieved through an individual mandate could cost much less than achieving the same result by giving people subsidies for buying coverage voluntarily.”
    • Costs Will Be High: “The individual mandate responds to two lessons learned from previous efforts to expand coverage. First, although most uninsured people would like to have health insurance, the protection it offers against a potential adverse event is not an urgent priority for all of them. Many in this group are healthy. Most have relatively low incomes (see graph) and many other demands on their pocketbooks. A decade and a half of incremental expansion efforts have demonstrated that inducing all uninsured people to take up coverage will require very substantial subsidies—subsidies that might well exceed the cost of the coverage itself (graph referenced shows insurance status by income levels).” “Compounding this ‘take-up’ problem is a second characteristic of insurance coverage. As the graph shows, even in the group with incomes between 100 and 199% of the federal poverty level, more people currently hold private insurance than are uninsured. Almost all of those who hold private insurance now pay at least a portion of the premium for that coverage. If substantial subsidies were made available for the purchasing of new coverage, many who now pay for their own coverage would (eventually) make use of these subsidies instead. Subsidized coverage would crowd out existing private spending, greatly increasing the public cost of an expansion program. The individual mandate gives policymakers a new tool with which to respond to the take-up and crowd-out problems. Increasing the cost of remaining uninsured by imposing penalties in association with a mandate can promote coverage while keeping subsidy levels in check so that they do not lure the privately insured into the subsidized program.”
    • Introduces New Risks: “The individual mandate offers new options, but it also introduces risks. The mandate is in many respects analogous to a tax. It requires people to make payments for something whether they want it or not. One important concern is that the government will provide insufficient funds for the subsidies intended to accompany the mandate. In that case, the mandate will act as a very regressive tax, penalizing uninsured people who genuinely cannot afford to buy coverage. This concern has led Massachusetts to create a hardship exemption for its mandate—an escape clause that effectively undoes the mandate if subsidies are insufficient. The ease with which it is possible to lift the mandate if the legislature fails to appropriate funds may make the individual mandate a rather rickety form of universal coverage.”
    • Say Hello To Special Interests: “The relative invisibility of the mandate ’tax’ may make it easier for special interests to achieve their goals. The mandate, then, would become a means through which special interests use government to force transfers of funds from consumers to the health care sector.”
    • Unpalatable Intrusiveness: “A final concern about mandates relates to their administration. Like taxes, a mandate requires enforcement if it is to be effective. …Developing a system to promptly identify and penalize scofflaws will take effort and ingenuity, particularly in our diverse and mobile country. It may require a degree of intrusiveness and bureaucracy that some will find unpalatable.”
    • It’s Only A Symbol: “The risks associated with individual mandates suggest that they are no panacea. … Perhaps the most important benefit of mandates is symbolic.”

    Wow. In other words:

    • The freeloader justification is weaker than imagined.
    • Without a mandate, healthy, low-income people (think young people looking for change) will continue to spend their money on things they really want rather than on what the federal government tells them.
    • Without a mandate, the score from the Congressional Budget Office will be disastrous because it would show that the federal government would be spending a lot of money to subsidize those who have already decided they don’t need unless they are sufficiently “bribed” or are currently already paying for their own health insurance with only a small reduction in the number of uninsured.
    • With a mandate, the federal government and special interests will be able to hide what they have colluded to do to the citizens.
    • With a mandate, government will need to expand its surveillance powers to make certain private citizens are not cheating their government, which is there to help them.
    • A mandate may not really be a mandate, thereby tricking the health plan lobbyists.
    • Congress will soon be tearing itself apart over a symbol.
    Posted in Obamacare [slideshow_deploy]

    4 Responses to Obama Appointee on Health Care Mandates

    1. Ron Thompson says:

      I can't tell you how much this disturbs me, but it really should disturb Doctors and Lawyers. you are about to be shoved down to a level quite different than you have now. Having experience "socialized" medicine the Doctor's are overworked to the point of obtaining an attitude of just move the herd through! In a typical government run health system things such as age, physical condition of the patient play a huge part in the government deciding if you will get helped or put out to pasture to make room for others. I have a cousin in Canada who is on a waiting list for a heart transplant. Because of his age he as been slip lower on the list, and will continue so. This health care is not cheap either, expect to reduce your pay quite a bit more. this is a bad deal all the way around!

    2. Jim Tomes says:

      The mandate should be used to have people who can afford it pay for insurance. People who can't afford it will be automatically exempt. Then the level of subsidies is more of a moral vs. cost question it doesn't really affect the overall reform effort.

    3. Barb -mn says:

      Jim, you’re very thoughtful, but…

      I disagree on the terms that health care insurance is a privilege not a right. 1st thing I looked for when searching full time employment is where the benefit of healthcare is offered. Equal pay, equal cost of insurance along with choice to take it, or not, many chose not. Because many chose not to, brought on an opportunity to call it a “crisis.” Peoples’ personal health is people’s personal business and personal accountability.

      It is really not a fact that people can’t afford it, they choose not to afford it and put frivolous affordability before this practical one. If people want the less costly, government healthcare, it should be paid by the exact ones that receive it within their affordability. The rest of us should be exempt!
      Sorry to be repetitive.

    4. Vxjpqnao says:

      gAAack comment3 ,

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×