May 17th, 2012

Yesterday I speculated about what form a health reform deal between Progressives and Conservatives might look take (Universal catastrophic coverage implemented via Medicare).

Like many of the complaints about the ACA, the idea that everyone is forced to purchase the same plan is untrue–it does not mandate a one size fits all policy. Below are actuarial estimates produced by 3 insurance companies commissioned by Kaiser Family Foundation of what various insurance options to be sold in ACA exchanges would look like.

Read the rest of this entry »

May 17th, 2012

Ian Urbina of NY Times kicked off a big debate about addiction with his piece on how changes in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders will affect diagnostic prevalence rates. The new diagnostic criteria aren’t yet finished, and I am not privy to the committee’s discussions. I can however correct one prevalent misunderstanding about how diagnostic criteria are used in the alcohol field.

A number of media stories have claimed that if diagnostic criteria are widened, everyone who drinks in an unhealthy fashion will be labelled an alcoholic. This is no more true that saying that if oncologists start diagnosing polyps then everyone who has one will be diagnosed with Stage IV cancer.

Many people who drink in an unhealthy fashion are not and will never be alcoholics. Recognizing this reality has no effect on the number of people who are diagnosed with alcoholism. In medicine, the typical term uses to describe unhealthy alcohol use isn’t alcoholism but — wait for it — unhealthy alcohol use.

All “unhealthy” means in this case is that there is a significant statistical relationship between the amount and/or frequency of the person’s drinking and some bad outcome, e.g., automobile accidents. Most people who drink in an unhealthy fashion aren’t aware that they are incurring some risk. The main intervention for unhealthy users is simple information and advice e.g., “You may not be aware that you drink more than 80% of the population and as a result have a higher risk of injuries, problems at work, and family problems than you would if you drank less. You might therefore want to consider drinking less”.

My colleague John Cunningham has shown that such information and advice processes can be done on-line by problem drinkers in the privacy of their homes. Given solid information, quite a few cut back to a healthier level of drinking. It’s just not that simple with alcoholics, who typically need more involved intervention in order to change.

I don’t know what term the diagnostic criteria committee will ultimately use for the non-alcoholic segment of the problem drinking population. They might call them problem drinkers, unhealthy alcohol users, people with mild alcohol use disorders or the like. But the new diagnostic system will not call them alcoholics; the people who are writing the criteria are too knowledgeable to confuse two such different populations.

May 16th, 2012

A central claim of my book Balancing the Budget is a Progressive Priority is that slowing the rate of health care cost inflation is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition to our ever achieving a sustainable budget down the road (it will also take a tax increase). Further, it will be virtually impossible to take the very hard steps to address health care cost inflation without both political parties coming up with a set of health care reform strategies that we will actually try, and which make both sides responsible for seeing to the hard work this will take. Health reform is far more difficult than Social Security reform (in a technical sense), for example, because mailing checks is much easier than purchasing health care. We will never be done with health reform and there will be many mid course corrections.

Even though we don’t know what all the steps will be, we desperately need to take some initial ones, and we will soon know what the Supreme Court will say about the ACA. This will be a landmark decision that will have profound political and policy consequences, but in one sense, regardless of what the Supremes say, the next step is to identify a bipartisan way forward on health reform (stop laughing; we have to do it).

Central to my book is a set of health reform policies that I claim represent the type of deal that would emerge if the two sides actually negotiated with one another. For such a deal to emerge, it would take both sides being clear about what their primary interest was in health policy. For Progressives, universal coverage has always been the holy grail and dream deferred, not just of health policy, but really of all social policy. As I noted in this debate with Jim Capretta, I don’t think Conservatives have an interest that is so clear and heartfelt as universal coverage is for Progressives, but if I had to take a stab, I would claim that it is their belief that people don’t have enough “skin in the game.” As an aside, this makes little sense to me, and when I look at empirical data on cost sharing with my more conservative friends, we see different things. In a similar way, when I say that I think the lack of a predictable, universal health insurance coverage scheme is an existential mark against our nation, they don’t get my degree of feeling.

Accepting such differences is an important step, because reaching a deal will mean abiding with one other to reach a compromise.

Read the rest of this entry »

May 15th, 2012

The LA Times  reports on a new strategy that should encourage more people to get screened but may further increase our expenditure on health care.

May 15th, 2012

I have gone through a spate of watching British movies that show the country in the 1940s and 1950s (e.g., The Long Arm and Green for Danger). And also, as I always like to do, I have been spending hours over tea listening to friends in their 70s, 80s and 90s tell me about their experiences growing up here.

I was walking through Victoria Station today and it occurred to me how stunning it would be to a Londoner of 75 years ago. The quality of the construction, the cleanliness of the air, the computerized everything, the big screen television, the abundance of affordable food and drink. In material terms, it would be unimaginable luxury.

Here’s a photo taken not far from the one above, but in 1940: Read the rest of this entry »

May 15th, 2012

Fresh from helping bring the life saving 24/7 sobriety programme to the UK, Baroness Anne Jenkin appeared on the popular British TV show “Come Dine with Me”, but with the twist that she had to feed all her guests at a total cost of only a few quid. She is part of the live below the line challenge underway this month.

The challenge is to live on £1 a day of food for five straight days, which is not easy even with the refrigeration, electricity and clean water we have in developed countries. People who undertake the challenge raise money for charities that serve the more than one billion human beings who live in extreme poverty worldwide.

You can donate to Anne’s chosen charity, Restless Development, here. If you live in the UK and want to see the full “Come Dine with Me” episode it’s on line here.

May 15th, 2012

Excluding various references to God, and two where his wife Ann served as a prop to introduce the actions of a man, Romney mentioned 19 people in his speech — all male. He claimed christianity builds “heroic souls” — but, you guessed it, he couldn’t imagine that any women’s souls were the equal of watergate conspirator Chuck Colson’s, nor were any women scholars worth citing along with David Landes or Viktor Frankl (!). Ironically, the one reference to women in his speech appears to be a direct quotation of materials produced by Liberty University.

Perhaps the Cranbook ethos lives on in Romney today.

 

May 14th, 2012

Robert Frank’s new book, The Darwin Economy, is a fascinating document: pointing out, for example, the the Pareto Principle isn’t really consistent with a species driven by sexual selection.

This Friday Bob will be at UCLA, giving the Marschak Memorial Lecture. (Korn Convocation Hall at the Anderson School, 1-3.) For those who have never heard Bob lecture, it’s a treat not to be missed.

There’s a lunch beforehand. If you’re in town and want to come to the talk, it’s open. If you want to come to lunch, send me an email.

May 14th, 2012

I’m agnostic as to the merits of building the Keystone Pipeline, designed to take oil derived – with enormous environmental damage – from Canadian tar sands to Houston. It would be far better to leave the bitumen in the ground, but not building the pipeline arguably wouldn’t prevent the stuff from being mined: it might just guarantee that the product got shipped west to Vancouver and thence to China.

Right now the pipeline is being held up by environmental objections and the Obama Administration. But building it is an article of faith on the right.

The New York Times points out, in tones of shocked horror, the obvious: Keystone cannot be built without seizing right-of-way by eminent domain. Otherwise every property owner along the course of the pipe could hold out for top dollar, and the thing would be utterly uneconomic. That’s not to deny that the pipeline operator may well be abusing the eminent-domain process, or the threat of it, to offer less-than-fair compensation to the landowners.

Of course this runs into another article of the right-wing faith: that using eminent domain to seize property for private, as opposed to public, use – for economic-development projects, for example – is one short step away from the Gulag. Recall that some of the nuttier wingnuts wanted to seize Justice Souter’s home to punish him for his opinion in the Kelo case. I’d been wondering whether any of the anti-Kelo fanatics would let the eminent domain principle interfere with their support for Keystone.

Volokh Conspirators Jonathan Adler and Ilya Somin note, triumphantly, that some environmentalists have begun to appreciate that eminent domain can be used for environmentally destructive purposes. But they don’t seem interested in the fact that none of their friends on the side of inalienable property rights seems to have any problem with the use of eminent domain to build Keystone (any more than they objected to George W. Bush’s use of it to enrich himself and his business partners in the Texas Rangers by seizing private property to build, not merely a stadium, but a shopping mall).

It’s perfectly consistent to think that eminent-domain powers can be used to complete projects better left unstarted, and also to think that bad projects ought to be blocked on their merits. It’s not quite so consistent to back property rights except when the big energy companies want to confiscate them.

May 14th, 2012

The Obama campaign is going after Romney’s qualification as a businessman, portraying his career at Bain as heartless looting, extracting wealth like pensions and health care from blue-collar workers rather than creating value and sharing.  The new video is posted here (at the end of the story text), and it’s pretty heartrending.   It also suggests (visually only) another line of attack:  Romney may have hosed off the dog and the car, but he doesn’t clean up after himself, like the rich people in The Great Gatsby who create chaos and then retreat behind their wealth leaving a mess behind for others. Or like W’s Iraq, and US economy, after he and his pals finished trampling around in them.

Bain bought a steel mill, not a thing of beauty but something that worked and made stuff.  After they turned it off and put its people on the street, they left behind a landscape that looks like something Bashar Al Assad’s artillery worked over. Not a park, not a cleaned-up site for new enterprise, not some tidy piles of parts and materials for recycling:  a field of wreckage, decay and almost certainly lots of ground contamination with nasty stuff.  The video lingers on the broken fences, rusting gates, and askew signs Bain left behind to face the street and the neighbors; it’s an honest picture of what they did to the workers and the company, but can anyone be proud to turn a factory into a junkyard?

Perhaps this is a liability of being raised by a family with servants, but I know lots of former rich kids, now rich grownups, who don’t leave dirty dishes and piles of socks about for others to deal with. They either hire people to wash up, or they deal with their own coffee mugs in the office kitchen; they don’t just leave  a trail of messes.

No class, Mr. Romney.