Why We Need an Individual Mandate for Health Insurance

By Mark Thoma | Nov 13, 2009 |

There’s a similarity between used cars and health care.

Let’s start with used cars. “The Market for Lemons” by George Akerlof is a famous paper in economics demonstrating how markets can break down when buyers and sellers are differentially informed. For example, suppose that there are 1,001 used cars worth from $0 to $1,000, i.e. one car is worth $0, one is worth $1, the next is worth $2, and so on up to a car valued at $1,000. Assume that the car owners can assess the value of the cars they are selling accurately, but buyers can’t discern any difference in quality from examining the cars. That is, sellers are better informed than buyers about the car’s quality.

In such a market, a buyer would expect to receive a car of average quality, and the price would settle at $500 (the exact price doesn’t matter, all that’s required is that the market sets some price below $1,000). But at a price of $500, all the sellers with cars valued from $501 to $1,000 would withdraw their cars from the market since the price of $500 is less than their cars are worth.

At this point, the only cars left on the market are valued between $0 and $500, and with buyers once again expecting to receive a car of average quality, the price would fall to $250. At this price, all the people with cars valued from $251 to $500 would take their cars off the market, and the cars left on the market would now be valued between $0 and $250.

The process repeats itself, the price drops to $125, more cars drop out, and this continues until there is just one car on the market selling for $0, that is, the market for used cars breaks down.

The technical term for this is an adverse selection problem, and there are many ways to solve it. The buyer can hire a mechanic to determine the value of a car before the purchase, the sellers can offer insurance against the car breaking down, the sellers might have a desire to maintain a reputation for quality (dealers selling cars that fall apart shortly after purchase will lose their reputations and go out of business), and so forth.

What does this have to do with health care? The adverse selection problem is one of the reasons we need an individual mandate for health care insurance (i.e. a requirement that everyone must purchase insurance that is part of the proposed health care reform package).

To explain how the adverse selection problem arises in these markets, note that people purchasing health insurance generally have better information about their health status than the people selling the insurance. If insurance is offered in this market at somewhere near the average cost of care for the group, people will use the superior information they have about their own health status to determine if this is a good deal for them, and all of the people expecting to pay less for health care than the price the companies are asking for the insurance will drop out of the market (the young and healthy for the most part; all that is actually needed is that some people are willing to take a chance and go without insurance). With the relatively healthy people dropping out of the insurance pool, the price of insurance must go up, and when it does, more people drop out, the price goes up again, and the result is just like in the used car example above: the market breaks down and nobody (or hardly anybody) can purchase insurance.

But since we do not want people ruined or unable to get care when they are struck with a costly health problem, we need health insurance, and that insurance must be distributed over a wide variety of people so that the average cost of care will be affordable. One way to ensure that the pool is broad-based is to require that anyone who might need health care — i.e. everyone — purchase health insurance. (For a further discussion of these issues, see here. In the past, the broad-based pools needed to make insurance work were obtained through a large tax break to induce firms to provide insurance to their employees combined with a requirement that if the insurance is offered, it must be available to all employees. But the steady erosion in the employer-based system is one of the motivations for reforming the health care system.)

Without an individual mandate, the health insurance market is likely to break down due to the adverse selection problem, but such a mandate can place a considerable burden on some households. Thus, while the individual mandate is necessary to make these markets work, it is also necessary to provide subsides to lower and middle class households who wouldn’t be able to purchase the insurance without such help.

 
Reply to Story

MoneyWatch TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

  •  
    1

    willid3

    11/13/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why We Need an Individual Mandate for Health Insurance

    the other reason that you need a mandate is this. if you buy insurance (not as group) the insurance company looks to actuarial tables to see how similar people have health conditions (or the odds of getting any particular condition). as individual your odds are never 0, they maybe small, but they never will be 0. in a group of 100, the odds are different (if say the odds of getting a certain condition are 1 in 100) there are 99 people who will likely not get that condition. the other way insurance is supposed to work is that is spreads the risk over a group, as opposed to an individual having to cover a risk. consider if you had to cover the risk of having a car accident out of your own pocket. you would end up having have a large some of cash easily available to cover the eventuality of having a wreck and damaging or injuring some body else. and that amount would keep growing every month or day. to the point that it would be impossible to have a car at all.

  •  
    2

    qedbnet

    11/13/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why We Need an Individual Mandate for Health Insurance

    The Republican criticisms of the individual mandate tells me they have no concept of how insurance works.

  •  
    3

    RichardUrich

    11/13/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why We Need an Individual Mandate for Health Insurance

    You say "The technical term for this is an adverse selection problem, and there are many ways to solve it." Then you insist the only way to solve health care's adverse selection problem is an individual mandate. How does that make any sense at all?

    Some people do not want to be forced to be included in the group. Why take away their freedom when many other ways exist to solve the problem?

  •  
    4

    RichardUrich

    11/13/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why We Need an Individual Mandate for Health Insurance

    qedbnet, I'll grant you that forcing healthier people into an insurance pool allows you to charge the healthier people more than their actual risk in order to charge the sicker people less than their actual risk. That is exactly what the proposed legislation attempts to do.

    The reason the mandate is so terrible, outside of freedom concerns, is what it does to the benefits capitalism can offer. If customers are guaranteed to insurance companies, why would they try to reduce your insurance premium? Why would they try to improve quality? The big insurance players, who are exempt from anti-trust regulation, can collude and price-fix at higher rates. They can also buy any starting company who tries to offer a cheaper, better insurance product. If you believe they won't do this, you don't understand publicly-traded companies. Increasing shareholder value is far more important to a CEO than being nice to customers, and any CEO unwilling to do the "dirty" business required to maximize profits will be replaced with someone who is willing.

  •  
    5

    allene222

    11/13/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why We Need an Individual Mandate for Health Insurance

    The other reason is that if you require insurance companies to
    insure people with per existing conditions, everyone will opt out
    until they have a condition and need coverage.

    Allen

  •  
    6

    William.Glennon@...

    11/13/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why We Need an Individual Mandate for Health Insurance

    "Why take away their freedom when many other ways exist to solve the problem?"

    How many other ways with sixty Senate votes are there?

  •  
    7

    mbilodea

    11/13/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why We Need an Individual Mandate for Health Insurance

    There is another way to "solve" the adverse selection problem. The insurance companies can subject the applicant to a thorough medical exam before determining the insurance premium (i.e., charge more to those found to be less healthy), and deny coverage for any preexisting condition. Actually, this is what is going on already and what needs reforming. The purpose of health insurance is to spread the risk. In a mutual insurance scheme, everyone puts money in a pot, and those who have the misfortune to be sick take it out to pay the cost of their treatment. This works best if everyone, healthy and sick, contributes. If the healthy decide to take their chance and go without insurance until they become sick, then the scheme collapses. To continue the automobile metaphor, think what would happen if people could wait until after they had an accident to buy insurance to cover the damages. That scheme would collapse too. Fortunately for automobile insurance, it is pretty easy for insurance sellers to determine whether an accident occured before or after the consumer bought a policy and insurance companies would deny claims for accidents that happened prior to the start of the policy. This is a lot more difficult to do for health insurance because it is difficult and often impossible to pinpoint accurately when a disease began. The only way to avoid pre-existing conditions is to have everyone insured at all times. That is what mandates aim to do.

  •  
    8

    ken melvin

    11/13/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why We Need an Individual Mandate for Health Insurance

    It is not clear at all that we need insurance in order to have health care.

  •  
    9

    ken melvin

    11/13/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why We Need an Individual Mandate for Health Insurance

    It's not clear to me that we need insurance in order to have health care.

  •  
    10

    steve from virginia

    11/13/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why We Need an Individual Mandate for Health Insurance


    With all due respect Mr. Thoma, your argument is completely frivolous, incompetent and without merit. Adverse selection is irrelevant.

    Medical care is a 'good', it's the outcome of acts on human bodies by other humans. It requires a workplace, tools, time and art. At some point all humans need some medical care.

    Insurance is a derivative, a claim against heath care. It is an abstraction; insurance is not integral to the care 'good' but 'financial innovation' superimposed upon it. Think of insurance as a kind of credit default swap.

    The 'client' pays the broker a fee in return for which he is eligible to receive a sum of money under certain 'default' conditions. With a CDS, the broker pays the default sum and receives the defaulted credit instrument in return. With the health care default swap, the broker pays the sum and in return gains ... what, exactly? The urn containing the client's ashes?

    As is usual in post- modern America, attention is lavished upon the financial intermediaries and the derivatives. Meanwhile, the good itself falls farther out of the reach of the end- users. The reason for this the inflationary effect of the brokers' collusional payment regime; medical care has become another asset 'bubble'.

    The end of your argument is the requirement for 'universal derivatives' . I cannot conceive of anything more outrageous!

    I don't recall when you became a pitchman for the financial services industry, the same industry which has invaded every aspect of American citizens' lives, picking every American's pocket. The government has become the ally and enabler of this industry, becoming universally despised in the process.

    Despised, Mr. Thoma, despised!

    The endless intermediation and attendant claims is shameful and egregious; is there no end to it? What are you aiming for, a violent revolution? Much more of this and the tycoons will be swinging from lampposts. Every on the mob can get their hands on!

    What you desire is a bailout of yet another part of the Wall Street cabal this time by individuals. What new devilry is this? The bailout will be forced out of us by the police powers of the state! Over my dead body!

    I don't believe it but that crank Hayak was right!

    You should be ashamed of yourself. No wonder economists have a bad name!

  •  
    11

    Eric Schurenberg

    11/14/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why We Need an Individual Mandate for Health Insurance

    Obviously Mark is right that you can't reform health care without a universal mandate. Adverse selection would eat the system alive, as alene222 points out.

    I do worry, though, that the House reform bill does nothing to the pervers incentives built into the fee-for-service model. Maybe even worse, the minimum-care mandates expose the system to every lobbyist who wants to his health care service covered by federal mandate. CBS MoneyWatch colleage Kathy Kristof commissioned a study on this, and the results are not pretty. You can read it here: http://moneywatch.bnet.com/saving-money/blog/devil-details/health-reform-rates-are-all-about-mandates/816/

  •  
    12

    WaltFrench@...

    11/14/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why We Need an Individual Mandate for Health Insurance

    Why... many other ways exist to solve the problem?

    OK, let's start counting ?

    1. ? uhh, maybe this is harder than we think.

  •  
    13

    mario_

    11/14/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why We Need an Individual Mandate for Health Insurance

    Sigh. No. The Individual Mandate will, in practice, merely ensure that members of subnational groups that fear the state--that is, blacks, Asian Americans of recent extraction, nearly the entire Latino population--will suffer massively disproportionate health outcomes. In other words, it will massively reenforce the privilege of white males like myself.

    Let me explain. Poor people are poor because they have no money. They become a class when their access to money is systematically denied. This can be because of factors that one can change--like attainment of education--and because of factors one cannot--like racism.

    I am not of the poor class because I have privilege; in other words, that I made less than $20,000 was a choice for me. This is not true for the vast majority of people who make so little.

    Having no money--emphatically not being younger and healthier--is the primary cause of not having health care. The groups I mentioned above are disproportionately poor, yes, but also are disproportionately the victims of adverse effects of the law. Anyone who has worked in any social service can tell you this; so can any number of statistics about crime, like sentencing disparity information.

    (Another reference group is anyone who has worked for the *Census*, in which the only groups who want to be included are white suburbanites.)

    So here's actually what happens with the individual mandate: poor people do not buy insurance as much as more wealthy people do. Of society, a disproportionate number of the poor are Latino, black, and Asian. When the poor get sick and need care, then, they are not going to go to the doctor as often, because the penalties for them are severe. Have you ever been to any hospital in a heavily non-white area? The receiving rooms are swarming with police.

    What you have with an individual mandate, then, is a group of people who can get care because they have nothing to fear from the state, and a group of people *who are already disproportionately disempowered and disenfranchised* who will not.

    Let me go further: white people of privilege, like me, will get care; people of color, who are and continue to be systematically excluded from opportunities across society, will not get care.

    The individual mandate is morally wrong.

  •  
    14

    baileyc

    11/15/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why We Need an Individual Mandate for Health Insurance

    I have individual health care thru blue cross blue shield. I have seen my health insurance go up from 166. per month to 479. per month,every year it has gone up at least 25.00 nomatter what. plus my co pays and my deductable. are still there. They just tell me sorry health care is going up. Every five years it increases as well.( 45 50 55 etc.). This coverage does not include dental, mental health. I would like to have a reasonable plan that covers everything. should I just drop my healthcare .Its getting to the point where I can,t afford it anymore, but I am getting older and I am scared that if I get a debilitating illness i will be out of luck. I make 40,000 dollars a year, alittle saving , alittle retirment, I work in the medical field where I see many people just walk in and get taken care of and they are illegal or just don,t pay. They have their property and valuables hidden. They work for cash under the table. I have tried to get catatrophic coverage and pay for my medical upkeep. but they won,t sell me that kind of a policy. I am 59 and in good shape. do you have any advive for me. right in the middle. seewhalen@yahoo.com

  •  
    15

    prague81

    12/11/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why We Need an Individual Mandate for Health Insurance

    I am an attorney who has a (growing) number of plaintiffs lining up to challenge the constitutionality of the individual healthcare mandate.

    While the individual mandate may be the only remedy to the free rider problem discussed in this article, it does not necessarily follow that such a remedy is within the power of Congress to enact.

    The decision not to purchase a product is not commerce sufficient to trigger Congress's power to regulate under the Commerce Clause. Further, the unitary status of not having health insurance is not, in and of itself, a problem for commerce (even in the aggregate). At minimum, the problem is a four step process: first, an individual does not have insurance; second the individual gets ill; third, the individual makes an affirmative chioce to enter the health care market to get treatment; fourth, the individual fails to pay his bill. It is only the fourth step in this chain of events (after the thrid step to make an affirmate choice to engage in healthcare related commerce) which arguably has any impact on interestate commerce.

    Congress could under the CC impose a fine on an individual who obtains health care but who does not pay his bill. However, this does not mean that Congress has the authority to push this proposed fine back toward conduct which does not implicate interestate commerce.

    To make the point further, a few of my plaintiffs are sufficiently wealthy so as to be self-insured. When they get sick, they have the funds to pay their bills directly. Theeir lack of insurance, even in the aggregate has no impact on interstate commerce. Other plaintiffs are part of non-binding religious compacts which pay their medical bills when they get sick. These compact, however, do not constitue insurance sufficient to satisfy the mandate - but their medical bills are always paid such that their lack of insurance has zero impact on interestate commerce.

    At bottom, Congress simply lacks the power to impose any remedy on any perceived problem upon which is casts its greed eyes. To be blunt, the current system is preferable to an unconstrained federal government. If Congress has the power to compel any affirmate economic conduct, then it has the power to compel every citizen to purchase a Prius (i.e., save the environment blather) within a certain period of time (even those who have no intention on purchasing a car within that time period) upon pain of a large fine (say $20,000).

    That is an America worth fighting against. And I assue you this fight will be fought.

    Paul A. Rossi, Esq.
    paularossi@comcast.net

  •  
    16

    vinylcam

    01/20/10 | Report as spam

    RE: Why We Need an Individual Mandate for Health Insurance

    Mark,

    you are engaging in a strenuous process of advocacy for a problem that virtually doesn't exist - except in the realm of geek theory. Studies have reliably determined that the so-called 'free-riders' only account for 3 percent of the nation's healthcare spending - max. For this you would cause further destruction to our Constitution? What - we can't send these people, these 'free-riders' to a collection agency? Of course we can't because the vast majority of them are illegal aliens who use Emergency room care and if we were vigorously enforcing existing immigration laws, wouldn't even be here. Nice try, but you aren't fooling anyone except an increasingly small percentage of uninformed and naive citizens.

Please add your comment:

  1. You are currently: a Guest |
  2.  

Basic HTML tags that work in comments are: bold (<b></b>), italic (<i></i>), underline (<u></u>), and hyperlink (<a href></a)

advertisement
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
  • Click Here

Mark Thoma

Mark Thoma is a macroeconomist and time-series econometrician at the University of Oregon. His research focuses on how monetary policy affects the economy, and he has also worked on political business cycle models and models of transportation dynamics. Mark blogs daily at Economist's View.

Mark Thoma

track your portfolio