Gentle Reader –
Mr. Gebelhoff, an assistant editor and opinions contributor for the Washington Post, published the above-cited piece today, 3 January, 2019. I detail the URL for the piece below, and then detail a brief criticism laying out why I think he is off base in his analysis.
Mr. Gebelhoff –
1. The cost of MfA: we currently spend about $3.5 trillion yearly for health care. That’s government spending and what citizens must add in terms of non-coverage, co-pay, drugs, etc. That’s $ 35 trillion, give or take a few billion, over 10 years. About $3 trillion more than MfA costs. With MfA, there would be significant savings due to decreased administrative costs – one study puts these at 30 cents of every dollar spent for health care. That’s another $ 1.05 trillion yearly. Then there is the decrease in drug costs through negotiated prices. Further, there is Evidence Based Medicine which will decrease waste by no less than 20%, another $700 billion yearly.
2. So to the 10 yr cost of MfA $ 32 trillion subtract at least $ 17.5 trillion, leaving $ 14.5 trillion cost over 10 yrs. Then subtract what we pay now – about $ 35 trillion in a decade. That leaves a net positive gain of $ 20.5 trillion. It is less costly. And drug savings aren’t figured into these numbers.
The challenge will be in the transition; in what is covered and what isn’t; and a host of ethical and operational issues. MfA is a first step, not the end.
I would be pleased to discuss with you electronically or some other way if you wish.
PAYGO is a separate issue.