Viewpoint On Public Goods, Utilities, And Public Health

Viewpointpublic Coods Public Utilitiesand The Publics Healthsamuel

Viewpointpublic Coods Public Utilitiesand The Publics Healthsamuel

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 the Affordable Care Act (PL. )—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-monopoly 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 monopolies (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 commissions 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. ) 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: /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 beneficiaries. 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.

Paper For Above instruction

Public goods and utilities play a vital role in ensuring the health and well-being of populations by addressing fundamental needs that are essential for societal functioning. In health policy, the concept of public goods pertains to services that are non-excludable and non-rivalrous—meaning everyone benefits, and one person's use does not diminish another's. Traditionally, these include clean air, water, and national defense. Public utilities, which are often privately owned but heavily regulated by governments, function similarly by providing essential services in monopolistic or near-monopolistic markets where unregulated pricing could lead to exploitation.

Understanding the distinction between public goods and public utilities is crucial for framing health care reform. Public goods are typically funded and operated by the government because private markets often fail to deliver these efficiently and equitably. Conversely, public utilities, while privately owned, are subject to extensive regulation to prevent monopolistic abuse and ensure that services are accessible to all at reasonable rates. This regulatory oversight includes mandated service to all consumers, price controls, and transparency in operations, often through public commissions that scrutinize financial records and set regulated prices.

The health care system historically has operated under a framework with limited regulation—mainly at the state level—focused on insurer solvency and marketing practices rather than consumer accessibility or affordability. The introduction of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) shifted this landscape significantly by transforming health insurers into entities akin to public utilities. This is evident in the ACA's requirements that insurers serve all individuals at community-rated prices with no lifetime caps, along with mandated transparency through medical loss ratios (MLRs). These MLRs cap administrative and profit margins, ensuring that the majority of premium revenue is directed towards actual medical care, thus aligning private insurer behavior more closely with the public utility model.

States play a vital role in overseeing insurance practices under the ACA. The legislation allows state authorities greater access to insurers' financial records and enforces MLR standards, which restrict excessive profits and administrative expenses. For example, California’s minimum MLR requirement of 85 percent and New Jersey’s 80 percent serve to protect consumers and promote efficiency. When insurers fail to meet these standards, they provide rebates to consumers, reinforcing accountability and preventing profit excesses that do not benefit patients.

Drawing from international comparisons, countries like Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland demonstrate that universal health coverage does not necessitate a single-payer system but can be achieved through tightly regulated, multi-payer private insurance models. These systems maintain lower costs and high-quality care via negotiated provider rates, standardized benchmarks, and local insurance exchanges. The ACA's framework aligns with these models by emphasizing regulated competition, transparency, and standardized provider payments.

Although the ACA does not offer immediate universal coverage—an aspiration for many health advocates—it lays a foundation upon which gradual expansion can occur. By framing health insurers as public utilities, the law seeks to curb excessive profits, improve accessibility, and control costs, addressing some of the core failures of previous health care models. The incorporation of public utility principles into health care reform offers a promising approach to balancing market efficiency with societal needs, emphasizing that strategic regulation can foster a more equitable and sustainable health system.

References

• Gorin, S. H. (2010). The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, cost control, and the battle for health care reform. Health & Social Work, 35.
• Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. (2008). Proposed medical loss ratio requirement in California would not address rising healthcare costs, insurers say. Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report. Retrieved from http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/print_report.cfm?DR_ID=5426
• Physicians for a National Health Program. (2010). Single-payer doctors: Health bill leaves 23 million uninsured—A false promise of reform. Press release.
• Schoen, C., Helm, D., & Folsom, A. (2009). Harnessing health care markets for the public interest: Insights from U.S. health reform from the German and Dutch multipayer systems. The Commonwealth Fund.
• Stremikis, K., Davis, K., & Guterman, S. (2010). Health care opinion leaders' views on transparency and pricing. The Commonwealth Fund.
• U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. (2010). Implementing health insurance reform: New medical loss ratio information for policymakers and consumers. Staff Report.
• Schoen, C., Helm, D., & Folsom, A. (2009). Harnessing health care markets for the public interest: Insights from U.S. health reform from the German and Dutch multipayer systems. The Commonwealth Fund.
• Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, PL. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936.
• Stremikis, K., Davis, K., & Guterman, S. (2010). Health care opinion leaders' views on transparency and pricing. The Commonwealth Fund.
• Gorin, S. H. (2010). The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, cost control, and the battle for health care reform. Health & Social Work, 35.