• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Medicare Costs Are Higher, Not Lower

    In his testimony before the House Education and Labor Committee on the Tri-Committee Health Care Reform bill, Dr. Jacob Hacker (the architect of the now famous “public plan option”) continues to suggest that a public plan has the benefit of lower administrative costs compared to private coverage:

    Perhaps the most pressing of these problems is skyrocketing costs. Public health insurance has much lower administrative expenses than private plans, it obtains larger volume discounts because of its broad reach, and it does not have to earn profits as many private plans do. Furthermore, experience suggests that these lower costs are accompanied by a superior ability to control spending over time.

    Dr. Robert Book, in a new Web Memo entitled “Medicare Administrative Costs Are Higher, Not Lower, Than for Private Insurance,” argues against the claims put forth by Dr. Hacker:

    Health care reform is a complex problem, of which administrative costs is only one component. However, for policymakers and ordinary Americans to understand these issues, journalists, analysts, and advocates have an obligation to avoid “playing with numbers”–either through inadvertent misunderstanding of what the numbers represent or through a deliberate choice of misleading numbers that appear to support a desired policy.

    The fact is that, in recent years, Medicare administrative costs per beneficiary have substantially exceeded those costs for the private sector, this despite the fact that, as critics note, private insurance is subject to many expenses not incurred by Medicare. Contrary to the claims of public plan advocates, moving millions of Americans from private insurance to a Medicare-like program will result in program administrative costs that are higher per person and higher, not lower, for the nation as a whole.

    Posted in Obamacare [slideshow_deploy]

    9 Responses to Medicare Costs Are Higher, Not Lower

    1. Frank Wasicki says:

      If my memory is correct, Adm. costs of social security are in the 20% range. I doubt insurance companies cost of Adm. is that high.- Frank Wasicki

    2. Spiritof76 says:

      Common sense is lost in this country. Please tell me that the Post Office is operating successfully. Please tell me that Amtrack is operating in the black. Please tell me that both Social Security and Medicare are in sound financial condition. The common thread here is all those organizations and programs are operated by federal government. Efficiency and government are oxymorons. They will screw up the health care for everybody except for themselves. Why didn't Kennedy opt for a garden variety treatment just like millions of Americans? Why was he able to receive experimental treatment adminstered by the country's best while denying the same opportunity to other Americans under his government care? Reminds me of the Soviet Union.

    3. Thomas Lanphier, Tra says:

      I would so love to see the research behind the numbers…I have even heard recently from a supporter of Obama-care that, "…costs for Medicaid are much lower than in the private sector".

      No matter how outrageous the lie, repeat it often enough…

      Thanks to all of you for your great work,

      Tom Lanphier

    4. Todd Walker - Mounta says:

      Have not read or heard any comments on COBRA under the stimulus package that, signed into 2/17/2009, retroactive to 9/1/2008 and goes to 9/1/2010, that allows all COBRA participants to pay only 35% of the premium. ER's pay the other 65% and then pay the Fed Gov't for FICA (Soc Sec and Medicare) and take that discount of 65% of all COBRA participants. It puzzles me why the the media doesn't understand that Medicare is now bankrupt 2014 instead of 2017. We have, what 3M people unemployed, and now only have to pay 35% of the premium? Since the FICA is not really funded, it is a shell game. Crisis, chaos and we have to move now!!!

      Todd Walker

      CEO

    5. Marsh, Wisconsin says:

      It is unfortunate, one of the most likely outcomes of a government plan will be even more limited benefits for those on Medicare. Additional reductions in Medicare benefits have already been proposed to help pay for the bill should it become law!!

      A government plan will likely include limited or no treatment for a second occurrence of a disease like cancer.

    6. Barb -mn says:

      Dr. Hacker, the ARCHITECT of this "public plan" is deliberately misleading.

      Not to mention "government" hires people at their (governments) will, not according to qualifications or requirements necessary in the health care OR ANYTHING GOVERNMENT RUN industry. "Government" is never "practical" as it isn't THEIR money or health they lose. In turn, less or no accountability.

      Dr. Hacker, you are now labelled untrustworthy.

      Thank you, Dr. Book, for sharing actual facts and logic to how this public health plan will result. A future of more government driven manufactured crisis' like this one.

    7. hoads says:

      How about the fact that Medicare's claim processing is outsourced to Blue Cross Blue Shield? Imagine if it were done by government. The government knows it can't do what BCBS does more efficiently and I assume the "public plan option" will also be outsourced to private entities.

    8. BruSays says:

      Folks, we're not inventing the wheel here. If we want to lower costs and improve our health care (we pay on average twice what other industrialized countries pay and yet we rank #36 in the World Health Organization's list) we need to secure a Single Payer (or Universal Health Care) program like one of these nations ALREADY have:

      Argentina

      Austria

      Belgium

      Bosnia and Herzegovina

      Brazil

      Brunei

      Bulgaria

      Canada

      Chile

      China

      Costa Rica

      Croatia

      Czech Republic

      Cuba

      Denmark

      Estonia

      Finland

      France

      Georgia

      Germany

      Greece

      Hong Kong

      Hungary

      Iceland

      India,

      Ireland

      Israel

      Italy

      Japan

      Kuwait

      Latvia

      Liechtenstein

      Lithuania

      Luxembourg

      Malta

      Mexico

      Netherlands

      Norway

      Pakistan

      Panama

      Poland

      Portugal

      Romania

      Russia

      Saudi Arabia

      Serbia

      Seychelles

      Singapore

      Slovakia

      Slovenia

      South Korea

      Spain

      Sri Lanka

      Sweden

      Switzerland

      Taiwan

      Thailand

      U.K.

      Ukraine

      Uruguay

      Venezuela

    9. Glen, FL says:

      When private companies stop screening out preexisting conditions, stop denying care and coverage, stop limiting the doctors you can use, and stop spending billions to deny claims, maybe we can compare them to a government plan.

    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.

    ×