Share

Health Care Reform Is an Economic Necessity

by: Christina Romer  |  Yahoo News

photo
Jim Hann tends to his wife Hannah. Christina Romer, the chair of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, believes health care reform is an economic necessity. (Photo: Hyungwon Kang / Reuters Pictures)

    Washington, DC - Health care reform is more than a social imperative - it is an economic necessity. A new study by the President's Council of Economic Advisers demonstrates that the current American health care system is on an unsustainable path. Without health care reform, American workers and families will continue to experience eroding health care benefits and stagnating wages caused by the pressure of escalating health insurance premiums. And without reform, rising spending on Medicare and Medicaid will lead to massive and unsustainable Federal budget deficits.

    Years of diagnosis on the ills of the U.S. health system have produced no cure. Health care expenditures in this country are currently 18 percent of GDP and, without change, will keep rising, until they account for nearly one-third of our total output by 2040. Even with this exorbitant bill, about 46 million Americans lack health insurance coverage today, and this number is predicted to rise to 72 million over the next three decades.

    The President has articulated his goal of health care reform that slows the growth rate of health care costs, preserves choice of doctors and plans, and assures quality, affordable health care for all Americans. Over the long term, heeding President Obama's call for change will lead to faster economic growth, higher take-home pay for workers, greater employment opportunities, a more level playing field between small and large businesses, and deficit control.

    The administration and health industry leaders have pledged to work toward a goal of reducing health care cost growth by 1.5 percentage points per year. And, the Administration is committed to working toward ensuring that all Americans have access to health insurance coverage. If we can achieve and sustain this ambitious rate of cost containment and expand coverage, the results would be significant. For example:

  • Impact on income: For a typical family of four, income would be higher than it otherwise would have been by approximately $2,600 in 2020 (in 2009 dollars) and by nearly $10,000 in 2030.

  • Impact on GDP: Real GDP would be 2 percent higher in 2020 than it otherwise would have been, nearly 8 percent higher in 2030, and nearly 16 percent higher in 2040. The key source of this improved growth would be increased efficiency in the health sector and increased investment stimulated by a reduction in the government budget deficit.

  • Impact on the budget deficit: CEA estimates that slowing the growth of health care costs by 1.5 percentage points would reduce the budget deficit in 2030 by 3 percent of GDP relative to the no-reform baseline.

  • Impact on unemployment: Controlling health care cost growth would allow lower unemployment in the short and medium run, without putting pressure on inflation. Employment could be 500,000 higher for a number of years.

  • Improvements in economic well-being from greater coverage: We use the best estimates available to quantify the costs and benefits of expanding coverage. Among the benefits we attempt to put a dollar value on are the increased life expectancy that results from access to health care and the decreased chance of financial ruin from high medical bills. We find that the net benefits - the benefits minus the costs - are on the order of $100 billion each year.

  • Labor market improvements: By increasing access to insurance coverage and removing limitations on coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, health care reform is likely to increase the labor supply and make it easier for workers to switch jobs and feel confident of their coverage no matter what happens. It will also improve the competitiveness of small businesses by lessening the disadvantage they face in competing with large firms that have lower insurance costs.
  •     As we know from past failures, the process of achieving comprehensive health care reform will not be easy. Controlling cost growth cannot just be a lofty goal, it must become a hard reality. To do this, we will need reforms that emphasize quality over quantity, patient involvement, and reward prevention and wellness. The evidence suggests that up to 30 percent of health care costs, or about 5 percent of GDP, could be saved without compromising health outcomes in the United States.

        The bottom line of the CEA report is that doing health care reform right is incredibly important. If we can put in place reforms that slow cost growth significantly and expand coverage, the benefits to American families, firms, and government budgets would be enormous. To put it simply, good health care reform is good economic policy.

        --------

        Christina Romer is the chair of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers.

      

    »


    Comments

    This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

    Single payer Medicare for

    Single payer Medicare for all with everybody in and nobody out, doing WITHOUT the fat cat insurance companys draining our resources into their bottom lines, would go a long way to making our health care system affordable for all of us. We really don't need the insurance companies and we should do away with them in this area of our economy.

    It's so sad and true about

    It's so sad and true about chronic patients not being able to afford healthcare. I did some research online and stumble across a new search engine that finds generic prescriptions within your ZIP code. It's called Medtipster. I volunteer at a local community rec place and often hear stories from elders about skipping dosages and choosing grocery over medications. I started referring Medtipster to my friends and some of them have saved money and time from the website www.medtipster.com

    The issue is not whether we

    The issue is not whether we need changes, but what constitutes effective changes. Health care should not be a "business." Eric Rogers is so right. It is the insurance companies who rake in our money, while denying coverage to those who need it. It was so disheartening to see the fat cats hovering around President Obama, making ridiculous promises to "cut costs" and "improve the health care system" and the President and Sen. Baucus refusing to include at the table for discussion health care professionals advocating single payer health care. The hogwash about "socialism" is just that. You don't hear the right wingers claiming that the military or homeland security is "socialist" or that public libraries or public schools are "socialist." People must at least be given a choice between public health care and the insurance companies' bloated costs. Public health care being on the table is the only road to getting the insurance companies to cut costs. Otherwise they will do as they have always done: make a public promise, then continue to raise rates. It is incredibly disappointing.

    I know none of the

    I know none of the politicians want to take a position in opposition to the health care insurance industry but without doing so will inevitably lead to health care reform dictated by the very companies at the root of the problem. Please advise the president that we've got his political back on this crucial issue. He'd likely get voted most beloved leader in history if he can get national universal health care coverage enacted. Single payer health care......accept no substitute!

    Single-payer is the only

    Single-payer is the only proposed program which can contain and regulate medical costs. Any public option which does not control costs will fail. Any mandated inclusion which feeds for-profit insurers will fail. No reform would be better than false reform.

    I worked in Health Care for

    I worked in Health Care for approx. 8 yrs. It took that long to realize Insurance companies are like God. They determine who lives and who dies period. When a doctor gets more money to NOT treat someone - that is just plain wrong. The cost of treatments - is a joke - Prescription drugs - cost is a joke .. insane expenses An example - my dad has cancer-- for (1) pill- the cost is well over $500 .. for one stinking pill. Are these people insane . Insurance companies need to be reigned in .. Most people do not go to the doctor until they are sick - why ? because of cost ... Money needs to be spent on ( Preventive care ) and that includes Dentists.. preventive care! I know of people who refused treatment at all..because of costs they chose to die - instead of saddling their family with huge bills. The entire system is in dire DIRE need of an overhaul.

    Treatment options within the

    Treatment options within the system preclude the nutritional approaches that really work, in favor of the toxic patented drug approaches that are killing us. It is the diagnosis and treatment itself that is fundamentally flawed - not just the funding. Study the real AIDS crisis and learn how money has turned a toxicological problem into a grand scientific fraud - Peter Duesberg and Kary Mullis (Nobel Laureate) are heavyweights in the world of virology, but they are not where the money is because they tell it like it is - look it up, it will blow your mind.

    The real question is:

    The real question is: should health care be a commodity? or an "INDUSTRY". The mentality of the MBA has taken over from common sense and common decency. Why should Insurance companies, that contribute NOTHING to actual health care be protected (e.g. from 'competition'?) who determine costs and remedies regardless of good sense, for their own profit, who take fully 1/3 of every premium in profit be in the system at all? (Put that 1/3 into a public single-payer system and the costs would fall, not rise!) As for 'socialized' medicine scare tactics.... Health Care is like the Police, the Firefighters, the Armed Forces, the Post Office and Education.... a 'social' right of citizens under the 'Social Contract' , not up for sale. If other -civilized- countries like Canada, the EU and Australia can manage to do this, why can;t we?