\n\n“I document a large and mounting body of empirical research that shows that key market-based policies in health care have failed. Even if well intended, these policies have often not helped people make meaningful choices of medical care or insurance plans. And neither have they controlled spending, as experts promised.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In fact, they are doing exactly the opposite. They are setting people up to make poor choices and are scaffolding a massive, ineffective market bureaucracy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
One-third of people said<\/a> they would rather file their taxes than read the terms of a health plan. And reams of studies summarized in my article affirm that people do not choose well among health insurance plan options, and these errors are hard to remedy with anything short of a strong default plan\u2014in which case, one must ask whether \u201cchoice\u201d even matters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Likewise, even when people have to pay a large share of their own medical care and have easy access to price information, they still do not compare<\/a> prices or choose the lowest-price options, even for services<\/a> with little variation in quality. One partial explanation is that health care patients look<\/a> to doctors\u2014not price lists\u2014to steer their care. Patients lack the desire, time, knowledge, and skills to navigate medical decisions as \u201cconsumers.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The focus of the last several decades of health regulation has been to try to fix broken markets and flawed consumers through constant regulatory, technocratic tinkering\u2014either to spur competition or to nudge consumers toward better choices. This tinkering has fallen short, and it has produced a massive market-based bureaucracy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Thick layers of government regulations and regulators attempt to scaffold failing market-based policies. Plus, this scaffolding has deeply embedded private health care enterprises\u2014with high profits and salaries\u2014into the bureaucracy. As one example, the 2018 salary for the CEO of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan<\/a> was recently reported<\/a> to be $19 million, which is not an unusual sum among health care executives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Because markets do not meaningfully enhance choice, do not avoid bureaucracy, and have certainly not solved cost problems, it is time to stop tinkering and to seek a better foundation for the next era of health policy and regulation.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n …<\/p>\n\n\n\n “It is time to give up the false hope that health care markets and individual purchase decisions will produce a health care system that Americans want and, in the process, drive down spending. Policymakers have spent a half-century avoiding the hard questions about what values, objectives, and tradeoffs should guide health policy, by hoping that markets would magically answer these questions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The reality is that the only way to build effective health policy\u2014and, in turn, health regulation\u2014is by engaging deeply in these hard questions and the challenging political battles they necessarily provoke.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n