Drug Approvals

Dr Henry Miller, ex of the FDA where he founded the agency’s Office of Biotechnology, had some thoughts on how to speed up vaccine approval procedures in his Wednesday op-ed. They’re good ideas; although many of them only niggle around the edges of a long-ish procedure.

I have an additional idea.

Allow doctors to broadly prescribe the vaccine—or any drug—once it’s been shown to be safe. Such drugs should be clearly marked, and the patient clearly advised, that while the vaccine has been shown to be safe, it hasn’t been shown to be effective.

This would vastly broaden the subject base for assessing effectiveness, and so greatly accelerate the assessments, and it would put what turns out to be effective drugs into the hands of doctors and patients much sooner.

Patients that get what turns out to be ineffective—but safe—vaccines will be no worse off than they would have been had no drug been permitted yet.

The market place should determine what should be available as effectiveness or ineffectiveness of particular vaccines becomes widely known rather than leaving the decision solely to government bureaucrats, no matter how well-intended they might be.

Medicare for All

Simon Johnson, of the MIT Sloan School of Management and an “informal” advisor to Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and Senator Elizabeth Warren’s (D, MA) presidential campaign, thinks her Medicare for All scheme is the cat’s meow.  It would, he claims

cut costs by reducing inefficiency, eliminating predatory pricing (for example, for prescription drugs) and using the purchasing power of a single-payer system. Her plan would also constrain the growth rate of underlying medical costs.

This, of course, is utter nonsense.  While Johnson correctly notes that our present health care burden hangs around the neck of every company in America, and this dead weight gets heavier each year, government intervention only makes things worse, as each of the points he makes, ostensibly in support of his contention, illustrate clearly. Medicare for All schemes—not only Warrens, but all of them—only and severely exacerbate that government intervention and increase the costs heavily.

First, there is the onerous contribution most companies are required to make through employer-sponsored insurance. Every business owner wants employees and their families to have health insurance, but the cost rises inexorably.

Labor market competition and labor unions are the source of this “requirement,” and the government-mandated restrictions on businesses’ ability to band together—unless they’re in a narrowly defined “similar” business—denies them the market power to negotiate effectively.

Second, companies cannot by themselves easily constrain health-insurance premiums. They need healthy workers who are not ruined financially when a family member is rushed to the emergency room. In most competitive markets across the US, if an employer cuts back on health benefits (or raises deductibles, copays or out-of-pocket expenses), it raises the burden on employees and increases the risk that the best will leave.

See above regarding labor market competition, union power, and government-mandated limits on businesses’ negotiating power.

Third, the unpredictable nature of health-care costs makes it significantly harder to start and run a company. Every year, entrepreneurs and managers hold their breath while insurance companies decide what to charge them.

Again, see above regarding businesses’ government-mandated limits on negotiating power, now in contrast with the unpredictability of realized health care needs.

Nor is Medicare for all damaging only fiscally: such schemes eliminate choice; in fact, their proponents say that we Americans are too stupid to make our own choices; each of the plans’ proponents would throw the millions of us who have private health coverage, coverage better tailored to our individually determined needs, from one source or another off those plans.

 

Further restricting our choice—our right to decide for ourselves on what we’ll spend our property, our money, is Medicare for All’s requirement that we buy that one-size-fits-all government insurance—even though we judge ourselves healthy enough to not need a coverage plan or to not need Government’s dictated plan, or we just choose to run the risk and spend our money on our own needs and wants.  After all, these Progressive-Democrats Know Better, so by their fiat, we are to be denied.

 

Then Johnson sneers at efforts to switch to competition, but as the political economist should know, the failures here are failures of Republicans and failures of Progressive-Democrat obstructionism. The failures have nothing to do with competition.

Finally, the health care coverage costs—which are apart from health care needs—exist and burgeon by government fiat at the State level as well as the Federal, and the costs inflicted have little to do with health care provision or cost of provision, nor are they related to the likelihood of any particular health care need. Businesses—and we consumers—are not allowed to trade across state lines, and State insurance commissions set the range of premiums health care coverage entities are allowed to charge.

Obamacare made that even more explicit at the Federal level: the coverage plans carried coverages for matters we consumers neither want nor need and at fixed prices that are by design independent of the likelihoods of those mandated coverages. Beyond that, Obamacare forced millions of consumers off our privately held plans that we preferred and forced us to buy from the Federal government’s “market.”

Medicare for All is just an extreme version of Obamacare. In every respect. At trillions of dollars of higher cost.

Obamacare Premiums

Stephanie Armour noted that Obamacare premiums are expected to be lower in 2020 than they are this year, and she wondered whether that means Obamacare is working, or if there remain problems to be fixed.

The drop doesn’t address the core problem with Obamacare: it’s a government welfare program that mandates coverages at prices independent of the risk being transferred.

Falling premiums? They’re still much too high, as are deductibles (which Armour completely omitted from her article), especially when compared to what would be the case in a free market, and they’re for coverages that aren’t, generally, needed, to boot.

To the extent subsidies are legitimate and truly needed to help offset [excessively high] premium costs, those just as easily can be paid in conjunction with policies bought through employers or privately in a free market.

Racism in School Admissions

Federal District Judge Allison Burroughs, of the Massachusetts District, has ruled in a Harvard admissions case that racism in its admissions process is entirely jake.

Race conscious admissions will always penalize to some extent the groups that are not being advantaged by the process, but this is justified by the compelling interest in diversity and all the benefits that flow from a diverse college population.

With that, Burroughs has exposed her own racist bent.  Her “justification” is just her cynical rationalization of her racism. It stinks.

The WSJ editors in that piece also noted Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s own tortured effort to correct racism in school admissions in his Fisher v University of Texas opinion:

…he wrote that different treatment of an individual because of race is “inherently suspect” and requires “strict scrutiny.”

No, different treatment of an individual because of race wants no strict scrutiny; it wants no scrutiny at all. Such treatment needs to be proscribed altogether from our schools.  To start with.

These folks, Harvard management personnel and bench-sitters alike, more than merely being racist, insult minorities, and actively hold them down, by insisting they just can’t cut it in an evenly done endeavor; they must have that artificial handicap applied. It’s redolent of Woodrow Wilson on segregation: “segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen.”

And they punish the successful by telling them they’re too good for their own good.

Only Part of the Story

New Hampshire publishes on a State Web site the prices charged by hospitals in the State, and President Donald Trump is working up an Executive Order that would, with some differences in breadth (including information on the prices negotiated with insurers), make the practice a nationwide one.

Price transparency is a Critical Item in controlling—bringing down—the cost of health care, but it’s only part of the story.  A measure of cost transparency would be useful, too, not only for the consumer, but for governments as they look for (non-subsidy, non-tax) ways to further price competition.

Most costs are legitimately proprietary, especially in the competitive market environment that’s optimal for constraining prices.  One cost, though, would be useful: how much of the price charged through insurance to a consumer goes to covering the cost to the hospital of treating an uninsured consumer—both the voluntarily cash-paying consumer and the consumer who can’t otherwise afford the prices charged.  Within that cost, too, are useful data on how it is split between the hospital and the insurer(s) with which it has contracted.