essay discussion

VIEWPOINT

Public Coods, Public Utilities, and the Public's Health

Samuels. Flint

T he battle over dismantling health reform dominates today's health policy agenda. Some opposition to the Patient Protec-

tion and Affordable Care Act (PL. 111-148)—now typically referred to as the Affordable Care Act (ACA)—comes from those on the political left who see health care as a public good similar to the military, the fire department, and the court system (Physicians for a National Health Program, 2010). Only government can fund and deliver public goods, because the private market cannot be relied on to do so with the equity and efficiency required for critical services needed by everyone. Many on the political right fear "a government takeover" of the health care system that will lead to the loss of the very market-driven, creative solutions that are so desperately needed to reign in the cost escalations that threaten to make health care unaffordable.

I see the ACA as a politically shrewd compromise that captures the principal benefits of both camps and creates the least disruptive path to a workable framework that can ultimately lead to universal health insurance coverage at sustainable prices. This middle ground is achieved through the ACA's requirements shifting the health care system from a lightly regulated market commodity to a heavily regulated public utility.

Public utilities are privately owned firms that provide necessities in monopoly or near-monop- oly situations. Because unfettered monopolies can price gouge, they are required to accept extensive government regulation to ensure that they do not abuse their market power. Some public utilities are complete monopohes (for example, regional electric, water, and gas companies),and others (for example, cable television, telecommunications) have some modest competition. However, all public utilities are profit-driven, privately owned businesses, which distinguishes them from public goods that are funded and operated by the public sector.

Public utility regulation has two fundamental characteristics. First, all utilities are legally obligated to serve virtually everyone, despite the known unprofitability of certain customers and customer groups. All customers are allowed to use as much of a utility's services as they like, with occasional ex- ceptions such as temporary limits on lawn watering during droughts. Second, the prices that are charged to consumers are determined by public commis- sions rather than private corporations. Public utility commissions have essentially unrestricted access to a firm's books.This provides them with far greater insight into a company's financing than is required of publicly held companies, let alone privately owned businesses and other proprietorships.

Contrast that environment with how health insurers operated up tiO now. Insurers could select their customers and set their own prices, like any other seller of goods and services in a private mar- ket. Insurers do contend with some government regulation handled primarily at the state level, but these regulations are limited to issues such as fiscal solvency requirements, state-mandated benefits, "patient protection laws" for managed care plans, and truth-in-advertising and other marketing practices. However, state regulation does not address consumer accessibility or pricing.

In 1996, enactment of the Health Insurance Por- tabUity and Accountability Act (HIPAA) (PL. 104- 191) created federal-level regulation for insurers in the large-group and self-insured employer markets. HIPAA requires insurers to cover all group members, regardless of preexisting conditions, and to renew all insurance plans, regardless of claims experience. However, HIPAA's impact is limited in that it does not address pricing.This makes guaranteed issue and guaranteed renewability a hollow promise, because annual premiums can be hiked at the whim of the insurance company. Undesirable clients can simply be priced out of the market. And HIPAA does not

CCC Code: 0360-7283/11 $3,00 O2011 National Association of Social Workers 75

apply to the individual and small-group markets, the areas where consumer rights are most constrained.

The ACA introduces a new level of insurer regu- lation so strict that it moves the health insurance industry out of the free market industry and into the heavily regulated public utility world. As a condition for participation in the forthcoming health insur- ance exchanges, the ACA requires insurers to serve everyone at standard community rates, with some price variation permissible. Covered beneficiaries will be insured for as much medically necessary care as they require because lifetime benefit caps are outlawed.

The ACA establishes price controls through state- level health insurance rate review. States are allowed greater visibility into insurers' accounting records than current rules permit, and, most important, the ACA enacted mandatory medical loss ratios (MLRs) that give state-level rate setting real teeth.

The MLR is not a new concept. It is simply the percentage of aggregate premium dollars paid by insurers for actual medical care used by beneficia- ries. Remaining premium revenue is considered an administrative expense for costs such as marketing, office equipment, employee compensation, and prof- its. Currently, insurers regularly report their MLR by market segment to state insurance commissions; and at least two states, California and New Jersey, have tninimum MLRs of 85 percent and 80 percent, respectively (Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 2008; U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Sci- ence, and Transportation, 2010).

The ACA calls for MLRs of 80 percent for the individual and small-group markets and 85 percent for large-group markets—hardly draconian stan- dards. In 2009, the mean MLRs for the six largest commercial health insurers were 85.1 percent in the large-group market and 81.2 percent in the small-group market. The individual market, which accounts for less than one-tenth of aggregate premi- ums, had a considerably lower MLR of 73.6 percent (U.S.Senate Committee on Coinmerce,Science,and Transportation, 2010). Nonetheless, ACA standards are manageable industry targets, because insurer risks (and, consequently, insurer premiums) for the individual market will be reduced when health insurance exchanges are operational and a larger, more stable group is created for those currently in the individual market.

Under the ACA, if an insurer is not paying out the prescribed percentages of premiums for medical

care, they must provide cash rebates to covered ben- eficiaries.This mechanism should effectively prevent excessive compensation and corporate profit, and it places the health insurance industry squarely in the public utility sector of the economy.

Finally, for those who are frustrated that the ACA does not provide universal coverage from the outset, a review of European health care systems is encouraging. There is a rampant misperception that "sociahzed medicine" throughout the rest of the industrialized world means a monolithic single payer (the government), with publicly owned hos- pitals and salaried physicians employed by the state. That is a myth.

The Dutch, Germans, and Swiss enjoy universal coverage at considerably lower costs than those in our country, with well-functioning, private, niultipayer insurance systems that purchase care from privately owned and operated provider health systems and individual physicians. As in the ACA plan, beneficiaries are insured through local health insurance exchanges, with no"public option" used to hold down prices (Schoen,Helm,& Folsom,2009). There are uniform quality benchmarks, and provider reimbursement rates are negotiated for all payers, a method of determining provider payment rates that is growing in popularity here in the United States (Stremikis, Davis, & Guterman, 2010).

There is no denying that the ACA falls short on universality, the top reform priority for health advocates. However, it creates a framework that can expand decent insurance coverage to all Americans over time. I was pleased that NASW, a staunch single- payer supporter, swallowed hard and ultimately endorsed the ACA, even after the public option had to be jettisoned from the plan due to politi- cal pressure (Gorin, 2010). If the rest of the parties debating the fate of the ACA could similarly lower their voices and study the actual elements of the legislation, I believe there would be more apprecia- tion of just how effective the public utiHty model can be in resolving many of the nation's health care system ills. ITH?!

REFERENCES Gorin, S. H. (2010).The Patient Protection and Afiordable

Care Act, cost control, and the battle for health care reform [Editorial |. Heahh & Social Work, 35, 163-166.

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, PL. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936 (1996).

Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. (2008, September 3). Proposed medical loss ratio requirement in California would not address rising health care costs, insurers say (Kaiser

76 Health & Social Work VOLUME 36, NUMBER i FEBRUARY 2011

Daily Health Policy Report). Retrieved from h t t p / / ww\v.kaisernet\vork.org/daily_reports/print_report. cfm?DR_ID=5426ñ&dr_cat=3

I'atient Protection and Affordable Care Act, PL. 111-148, 119-124 Stat. 1025 (2010).

Physicians for a National Health Program. (2010, March 22). Pro-single-payer doctors: Health bill leaves 23 million uninsured—A false promise of reform [Press release]. Chicago: Author.

Schoen, C , Helms, D., & Folsom, A. (2009, December). Harnessing health care markets for the pubtic interest: Itisightijor U.S. health reform from the German and Dutch muhipayer systems (Publication No. 1352). New York:The Commonwealth Fund.

Stremikis. K., Davis, K., & Guterman, S. (2010, October). Flealth care opinion leaders' views on transparency and pricing (Publication No. 1451). NewYork:The Commonwealth Fund.

U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. (2010, April 15). Implementing health insurance reform: New tnedical loss ratio information for policymakers and consumers (Staff R e p o r t for C h a i r m a n Rocketeller). Retrieved trom http://www.pnhp.org/ sites/default/files/docs/2010/MLR-Report.pdf

Samuel S. Flint, PhD, MSM^ is assistant prcfessor and as- sociate director. School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University Northwest, Gary, IN 46408; e-mail: [email protected].

Original manuscript received November 12, 2010 Accepted November 12, 2010

READERS: WRITE TO US!

Submit your reactions to and commentsabout an article published in Health & Social Work or a contemporary issue in the field. Send your letter (three double-spaced pages or fewer) to Letters, Health & Social Work, NASW Press, 750 First Street, NE, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20002-4241.

lud

NARRATIVES -SOCIAL

J TECONOMIClUSTICE Roberta R. Greene, Harriet L. Cohen,

John Gonzalez, and Youjung Lee

Narratives of Social and Economic Justice answers the call from social work educators for academic resources that deal with cross-cutting issues and cover a broad spectrum of domains and specializations—gerontological social work, social policy, health, mental health, and social justice.

Special Features • Introductory chapters

covering the four dimensions of narrative and the normative model of resiliency

• Competency-based approach to core social work practices, with emphasis on mastery of critical thinking, diversity work, and advocacy skills

« Narratives of 11 remarkable people who thrived in spite of discrimination and oppression

• Political and historical commentaries, review questions, and exercises accompany each narrative

As an educational resource, this book will foster the insights and skills that social workers need to efièctively combat racial and ethnic disparities and promote optimal human development.

ISBN: 978-0-87101-388-0. 2009. Item #3880. 180 pages. $34.99. 1-800-227-3590 www.naswpress.org

#NA$W NASW PRESS

Code: YNSEJ09

F L I N T / Public Goods, Public Utilities, and the Public's Health 11

Copyright of Health & Social Work is the property of National Association of Social Workers and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.