Showing posts with label risk. Show all posts
Showing posts with label risk. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Risk and the Affordable Care Act



Storm-tossed ship at sea
Life is risk. Only inanimate objects need not deal with it.

All organisms have evolved ingenious ways to manage risk (or become extinct as a penalty for not doing so).  A squirrel buries its acorns in multiple locations to avoid starvation if a single cache were compromised. Field mice use a keen sense of smell to locate food under cover of darkness. Early humans, while successful hunters, learned to avoid SabreTooth Cats (the South American variety having 12 inch canines and weighing in at 1,000 pounds).

As mankind’s civilization became more robust, the daily risks of predation and starvation faded. The business of trade created a huge new requirement for risk management. Storm tossed seas, brigands, and shifting desert sands imperiled many a caravan and convoy. Trade was risky and techniques evolved to manage it. Four thousand years ago, the Chinese divided up shipments over many vessels when traversing dangerous rapids, a technique possibly borrowed in concept from squirrels.  All of these human and animal techniques are a form of insurance, a method to protect against risk.

The first hint of commercial insurance emerged nearly 3,000 years ago when Babylonian merchants paid a premium on their cargo loans in exchange for a promise that the loan would be discharged if the cargo were lost or stolen. The premiums could be steep, but the expense was far preferable to a total loss.

In the United States, commercial insurance was pioneered by, perhaps not unsurprisingly, our own Benjamin Franklin. As well as having invented the Franklin stove, Ben also developed a means to insure property owners from fire losses. The concept was to spread the risk of fire over a large population, with owners paying premiums into a common pool. Franklin as well developed the concept of risk mitigation by refusing to insure high risk properties (all-wooden structures). This was intended to modify the behavior of builders and buyers, and it worked.

Later in the 19th and 20th centuries, commercial insurance companies did much to reduce the risk of fire by sharing statistics with state and local governments and suggesting building codes to reduce the incidence of accidental fires. By refusing to insure noncompliant properties, the industry was able to influence builder and buyer behavior and further reduce the risk of loss. During this time, commercial insurance expanded widely beyond property to include coverage for life and accidents. The key was statistical analysis by actuaries who determined risks, probability of losses, and set the required premiums.

Health insurance evolved slowly beginning early in the last century. Medical fees then were typically handled directly between the patient and the provider (doctor or hospital). This could be financially devastating if a serious or chronic health condition occurred. Baylor Hospital in Dallas Texas approached the problem by offering a prepaid plan where participants (subscribers) would be assured up to 21 days of hospitalization for $6 per year. This evolved into the Blue Cross Plans.

At about the same time, lumber and mining camps in the Pacific Northwest wanted to provide medical care for their employees (it’s hard to think of more dangerous occupations). The camp owners paid monthly fees to “medical service bureaus,” groups of physicians, who then provided medical services to the lumberjacks and miners. In 1939, the first Blue Shield Plan was established in California based on this model.  In 1982, the hospital and doctor groups joined to become the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association.

Broad employer-based health insurance emerged as a consequence of government wage controls during World War II. Competing for scarce labor, companies created non-wage fringe benefits to attract workers. Company paid sick leave and health insurance became a standard offering. In an odd way, we have Hitler and Hirohito to thank for our current system. Perhaps that was their way of getting even.

So here we are, about to embark on the next great phase of health insurance now promised to all Americans. It was inevitable and only the mechanisms remain to be debated. What are some factors to be considered? Here are a few:

1. The third-party payer system we use insulates us from price information. We have no idea how much a knee replacement is going to cost and little incentive to find out. Yet a study by a large California employer revealed that arthroscopic knee surgery varied from $4,300 to over $26,000 across a number of reputable hospitals. There is no incentive for the patient to shop around and no competitive pressure on the hospitals to rein in prices.

2. Economists have written much on the moral hazards of insurance. These range from arson fires for profit to murder in order to collect life insurance, but also include the overutilization of services simply because one knows that one is insured. It is this overutilization that is most pertinent to our consideration.

3. Community rating rather than risk-based premiums reduces the incentive to avoid risky behavior. For instance, imagine if fire insurance premiums were the same for all regardless of property conditions. The owner of a tumbledown wreck of a building with open fireplaces and candles in every window would pay the same rate as a modern structure built of fire-retardant materials and utilizing the latest in monitoring and fire suppression technology. That doesn’t seem right because it isn’t. But that’s precisely what we’re doing with health insurance.

There is one existing model that directly addresses these issues and has already proven successful. Policymakers should do more to encourage Health Savings Account (HSA) plans. With these, the employee and employer regularly deposit funds in a tax-advantaged account which can be invested and grow over time. The important distinction is that this money is yours – it belongs to you. Medical expenses are paid from this account as they occur. You are highly incented to avoid unnecessary services and to seek out the most favorable pricing. Further, you will optimize healthy habits (diet, nutrition, and exercise) out of enlightened self interest. You are protected from catastrophic expenses by a deductible provision in the policy. 

If a broad swath of Americans used HSA accounts, we would see improved health and, for the first time, downward pressure on medical costs. (HSA plans are allowable under the Affordable Care Act – this would require no new legislation).

As for any plan, there are critics. But this seems a rational place to begin. Assuming, that is, that you view the majority of people as responsible adults, capable of successfully leading their lives as they please. If not, that’s a pretty dismal outlook on your fellow humans.

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Socialization and social comity

President William Howard Taft
The CDC has spoken and we are fat. The worst state, Mississippi, has an obesity rate of 35%. Massachusetts, the third best, has nothing to brag about with nearly one out of four citizens tipping the scales at “unhealthy.” This 2011 study was based on self-reporting and people tend to gild the lily. Another more rigorous report which involved weighing participants estimates that 36% of all Americans are overweight.  We are in the midst of a true epidemic.

Obesity is serious because it increases the incidence of diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and stroke among other ailments. Quality of life is worsened and mortality rate increased. Obesity results in significantly elevated health care costs.  And while it is easy to make rationalizations, obesity is a choice. What and how much we put in our mouths, whether and how frequently we exercise; these are personal choices.

We hear the term “socialization” tossed about frequently. By this, we don’t mean the process of making your puppy play well with others, but rather, the spreading of risks and costs across a large group of people.

It is a familiar concept.  One common example of socializing risk is automobile insurance.  Every driver (at least in Massachusetts) is required to carry automobile insurance.  In a given period, not everyone will have an accident, but everyone pays premiums.  The unlucky few who actually suffer a loss are compensated from the pool.

But this is not, in itself, socialization of risk.  If a 19-year-old from Roxbury paid a premium based on his actual risk of loss, it might be $10,000 per year.  Meanwhile, a 50-year-old woman in rural western Massachusetts might pay only $400.  But that’s not how we do it.  The state, in its wisdom, has deemed that we should all pay more so that the young scofflaw in Roxbury pays less.  This is true socialization of risk, the salient point being that it is actuarially unfair. (Unfair in that the woman from western Mass, along with most of us, pay more than we should while the young man pays far less than he should). This leveling of risk premium removes from the young man in Roxbury the incentive to drive exceedingly carefully.

In other words, socialization of risk distorts our decision making process and leads to more risky behavior (because risk, and hence cost to the individual, is subsidized).  It is always true that to get less of something, tax it; to get more, subsidize it. Subsidizing risky behavior is a sure fire way to get more.

Any form of national health care is another variety of risk socialization. Our increasingly socialized health care system does not charge premiums based on risk factors.  For instance, an inveterate rock climber does not pay higher health insurance premiums than you do, but she takes much greater risks.  Likewise, a motorcycle racer, skier, pilot, scuba diver, or lumberjack do not pay higher premiums than you do.  Health risks are subsidized.

It was different in an earlier era.

William Howard Taft, our 27th president, served from 1909-1913.  He was morbidly obese, suffered from high blood pressure, severe sleep apnea, and died of a heart attack. But at that time, each was responsible for his own behaviors and the resultant consequences. Taft ate richly and drank to excess, did not exercise, packed on the pounds, and suffered poor health as a result. But no one had to pay Taft’s physician except Taft.

In this day of increasingly socialized medicine, where poor personal choices engender no individual costs but burden the public fisc, it is difficult to observe such profligacy without comment, or at least smoldering resentment.  Socialization is making us downright rude.

But government, which is adept in creating such a mess, can further intervene. A recent article in The Telegraph (London) offered such a solution:

“Ridiculing someone as 'fat' or 'obese' could become a hate crime under an idea being floated by a group of MPs and a leading charity.”

This is a solution of sorts.

Friday, April 29, 2011

Perfect order, perfect horror


“Perfect order is the forerunner of perfect horror.” This “Thought for the Day” was offered in the ABC News “Today in History” feature on 4/26/11. Credited to the great Mexican writer Carlos Fuentes, you are left on your own to ponder his meaning. Google itemizes over 5,000 websites that contain the quotation, mostly compilation sites that aggregate famous quotations, they offer nothing to the question of meaning. One writing blog posits that Fuentes is offering advice on how to write horror fiction à la Stephen King.
The quotation comes from Fuentes’ epic historical novel Terra Nostra written in 1975. In a chapter titled “Stages of the Night” set in Rome, Brother Julian is instructed that the night has seven stages: “crepusculum; fax, the moment at which the torches are lighted; concubium, the hour of sleep; nox intempesta, the time when all activity is suspended; gallicinium, the cock’s crow; conticinium, silence; and aurora”. Brother Julian rebels at this arbitrary partitioning. “The night is natural... and its division into phases a mere convention…”
Brother Julian concludes that “…perfect order is the forerunner of perfect horror; nature rejects that order, preferring instead to proceed with the multiple disorder of the certainty of freedom.”
In a later section, one of Fuente’s characters dreams "I travel from spirit to matter. I return from matter to spirit. There are no frontiers. Nothing is forbidden to me.” Absolute freedom seems the theme.
So rather than Fuentes giving us advice on how to write horror novels, I believe he is making an observation on the relationships between order and security, risk and freedom.
At one time, children played in the dirt, knee-torn trousers, scabby elbows and all. There was no hue and cry to equip them with alcohol hand wipes and helmets, and yet they thrived. In our security-burdened psyches today, perfect safety is the goal. As a result, we have arrived at such warped outcomes as TSA agents fondling the nether regions of 6-year-old girls and their great grandmothers.
The expansion of the nanny state has grown largely on citizens' fears and their desire to be safe. But unwilling to content themselves with personal choice, your neighbors are asking legislators to limit your choices as well. I don't personally smoke nor consume trans fats, but who am I to say that you can't enjoy a French fry? Laws banning foods or behaviors or practices remove from the individual the necessity to exercise common sense, to take personal responsibility for their life, to actually live their life.
Living entails risk. To be alive is to be exposed to risk. One could and should take reasonable measures to mitigate risk, but beware that in the act of doing so, you are always trading off freedom for security. For that reason, it is important that the bulk of these tradeoffs be made by personal choice, not a stultifying government.
Recognize that dreams of perfect order result in the nightmares of its victims. Witness Nazi Germany and the Soviet archipelago.
Accept some risks, manage them, and live your life. Remember that the only way to be perfectly safe is to be perfectly dead.