Category Archives: Health Care

Rent-Seeking Watch: Former Rep. Jason Altmire

Back when he was a congressman, Jason Altmire (D-PA) bucked his own party and voted against the Affordable Care Act. He left office earlier this year and now works for a health insurance company in Florida. Seeing as the law legally requires people to buy his employer’s product, he unsurprisingly now supports the law.

Possible Unintended Consequences in New Health Care Regulation

The Affordable Care Act bans health insurers from denying people coverage if they have certain pre-existing medical conditions. A regulation partially implementing that policy appeared in today’s Federal Register. It is the first “economically significant” regulation ($100 million or more in annual economic impact) to appear since April 18. This interim final rule extends the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) program through 2014.

How much does it cost? The analysis accompanying the rule is vague. It does say that the Health and Human Services Department “is authorized to disperse $5 billion to pay claims and the administrative costs of the PCIP program that are in excess of premiums collected from enrollees.” Essentially, if insurers and providers are required to take losses on some of their patients, Washington has agreed to subsidize some of the difference with taxpayer dollars.

Since this is government spending, I won’t include this $5 billion in my running tally of compliance costs for this year’s economically significant rules (currently ranging from $5.58 billion to $10.19 billion, as of the most recent Battered Business Bureau post).

The rule acknowledges administrative costs, but claims they will be minimal since they build on existing systems. It gives no numbers.

The cost analysis also states, “With respect to other parties, we lack data with which to quantify costs associated with this regulation.” Since the bread and butter of this regulation is a series of price controls and subsidies, it can be hard to quantify how patients and providers might change their behavior.

Some providers, because of the price controls and paperwork involved with the PCIP, might opt to simply refuse to treat patients in the PCIP program. The rule acknowledges this:

While we understand that the decision to no longer treat PCIP enrollees is possible, we believe and are hopeful that most facilities and providers will accept the new payment rates established in this interim final rule given the serious health conditions many federally-administered PCIP enrollees have and the prospect that such reduced payment is temporary until 2014 when no one can generally be denied health coverage because of a pre-existing condition.

People change their behavior when their incentives change. The PCIP program gives health care providers an incentive to refuse treatment to people who desperately need it. And that unintended consequence, as opposed to paperwork, may be the true cost of today’s regulation.

CEI Podcast for May 2, 2013: Small Business Owners Sue Over IRS Obamacare Power Grab

gavel
Have a listen here.

Small business owners and individuals in six states, with help from CEI, are suing the IRS over what General Counsel Sam Kazman calls a flagrantly illegal expansion of the Affordable Care Act.

Lobbying Can Be a Great Investment

Health insurance companies spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying on the health care bill. In return for that investment, they convinced the government to require everyone in the country to buy their products, on pain of a fine. As it turns out, the law has done more than grow their customer base — the Washington Post reports today that those customers will soon be paying through the nose:

Some Americans could see their insurance bills double next year as the health care overhaul law expands coverage to millions of people.

The nation’s big health insurers say they expect premiums — or the cost for insurance coverage — to rise from 20 to 100 percent for millions of people due to changes that will occur when key provisions of the Affordable Care Act roll out in January 2014.

Rent-seeking can be a very lucrative investment. Imagine how many billions of dollars health insurer’s eight-figure million lobbying investment will yield in profit. With a rate of return like that, it’s a wonder that most businessmen are still honest.

Orwell Is Smiling

Politico headline: White House: Mandate not a tax, but a choice

CEI Podcast: June 28, 2012: The Health Care Decision


Have a listen here.

General Counsel Sam Kazman shares his thoughts on the Supreme Court’s health care decision, the Commerce Clause, Congress’ taxation power, and more.

Quick Thoughts on the Health Care Ruling

The Supreme Court upheld the health care bill, as you’ve no doubt heard by now. Over at the Daily Caller, I add a few quick thoughts about how Randy Barnett’s Commerce Clause argument also applies to Congress’ taxation power, on the Court’s reluctance to check the other branches’ excesses, and how happy rent-seeking insurance companies must be right now.

Read the whole thing here.

No to Broccoli Mandate, Yes to Health Insurance Mandate?


I was looking over the latest Reason-Rupe poll and found something strange: 87 percent of people think a federal broccoli mandate would be unconstitutional, while 62 percent think a health insurance mandate would be unconstitutional. That’s a 25 percent difference even though the basic principle is exactly the same. These two mandates were compared during this week’s Supreme Court oral arguments on the health care bill.

Over at the Daily Caller, I go over some possible explanations for the different results and conclude:

Public opinion has precisely nothing to do with whether a policy is a good idea or not; anyone who thinks otherwise would do well to read Shirley Jackson’s short story “The Lottery.” But since I think that government should not have the power to mandate that people buy certain products — think of the lobbying and rent-seeking by companies that stand to benefit! — it is heartening that the majority of Americans think the same way as I do about broccoli. And, to a lesser extent, health insurance.

More importantly, we’ll soon find out how the Supreme Court polls on the broccoli mandate issue. Er, health insurance mandate. Same principle.

Read the whole thing here.

Supreme Court Hears the Health Care Case


Over at CNN, law professor Ilya Somin explains why he believes the health care bill is unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court should strike it down. He argues on commerce clause grounds:

[E]very previous case expanding the commerce power involved some sort of “economic activity,” such as operating a business or consuming a product. Failure to purchase health insurance is neither commerce nor an interstate activity. Indeed, it is the absence of commerce.

If Congress could use that clause to regulate mere failure to buy a product on the grounds that such inaction has an economic effect, there would be no structural limits to its power.

In other words, the real question being decided is whether or not there are limits to Congress’ power. If Congress has unlimited power, the insurance mandate stands. If there are limits to Congress’ power, it has to be struck down. It’s pretty easy to see that this case will have consequences far beyond the piece of legislation that sparked the case.

It’s too early to tell how it will turn out. Today is the first of three days of oral arguments, and the Court probably won’t release its decision until June.

In the meantime, a bit of advice to court watchers of all ideological stripes: don’t confuse the Constitution with constitutional law. They are very different things. That’s why this case really could go either way.

CEI Podcast for February 16, 2012: Washington’s Prescription Drug Shortage


Have a listen here.

Patients are suffering from a nationwide shortage of more than 260 different prescription drugs, many of them for different types of cancer. Senior Fellow Greg Conko explains why the biggest culprit for the drug shortage is Washington. DEA and FDA regulations make it difficult to ramp up supply, or to change prices to more accurately reflect demand.