Healthcare
in America: Some Free-Market Solutions
by J. L. Bryan
by J.L. Bryan
Recently
by J.L. Bryan: Blood
and Treasure
With healthcare
costs spiraling ever higher, and millions of Americans without health
insurance, many have turned to the state for answers. We can have
socialized medicine, with its attendant shortages and rationing,
for the low cost of several hundred billion tax dollars per year.
To the student of Austrian economics, it is obvious that state control
of medicine – as with state control of anything – can only lead
to higher costs and shrinking quality. It is the free market that
provides lower cost and higher quality, as providers compete for
customers.
If we see growing
costs and shrinking quality now, this indicates there is not a free
market in healthcare. Free-market solutions could greatly reduce
the cost and increase the supply of healthcare, at zero cost to
the taxpayer. The key is to find existing state constraints on supply
and remove them.
Here are just
a few solutions to America’s costly healthcare situation (lawmakers
out there, please feel free to swipe these ideas!):
1) A free market
in drugs.
a. Allow the
free importing of drugs from foreign countries. Some senior citizens
have become drug smugglers, sneaking to Canada and back for the
prescription drugs they need.
b. Make all
drugs available over the counter. Not only would this reduce costly,
time-consuming doctor visits, but it would eliminate the "War
on Drugs" mindset that causes unnecessary patient suffering.
If you’ve ever been in an emergency room or hospital, begging for
pain medicine while the staff sneers and treats you like some kind
of junkie, you know what I mean.
c. Abolish
the FDA. The most common complaints about the FDA are that it either
approves a drug with minimal testing or drags out the approval process
for several years. Generally, we expect that drugs produced by large,
politically-connected pharmaceutical firms will be quickly approved,
while less-connected and foreign firms will have to wait a long
time. This monopoly should be eliminated. Multiple, competing drug-certifying
companies could take its place on the market, and they would need
to rely entirely on their reputation for good testing, since they
would not be backed by state power. Individual doctors, patients
and insurers could decide which certifying agencies they trust and
which they do not – the internet and medical journals will help
them stay informed.
d.
End the War on Drugs. This would reduce the amount of addiction
and health problems associated with recreational drugs. During alcohol
prohibition, the softer versions of alcohol – beer and wine – vanished
from the market, since producers and smugglers only wanted to deal
in the highest-profit product, liquor. In 19th-century
America, when there was a free market in drugs, there were no epidemics
of drug addiction. People drank small amounts of cocaine in soft
drinks, rather than smoking crack; they smoked opium rather than
injecting heroin. With softer version of recreational drugs available,
experimenters are less likely to develop a deep addiction, and addicts
are less likely to develop a high tolerance that drives them to
take ever-larger quantities of the most dangerous version of their
drugs. Additionally, if drug use is not criminal, addicts will be
much more willing to admit to their problems and seek treatment,
without fear of law enforcement issues.
2) Remove the
state monopoly on medical licensing. Allow competing businesses
or nonprofits to provide certification, so that doctors unhappy
with the current system can break out and form their own organizations.
Monopoly licensing can restrain doctors from giving what they know
to be the best advice.
Consider basic
but widespread problems, like stress, anxiety and depression. A
regular practice of meditation, ten minutes a day, can go a long
way towards reducing these problems, as well as the behaviors they
drive, such as overeating, smoking, and excessive drinking – which
themselves lead to numerous medical problems. Meditation costs nothing
and can be done by anyone, without any health risk at all. How many
doctors recommend meditation first, rather than Valium or Zoloft?
How many might prefer to try some milder herbal or vitamin remedies
before breaking out the Big Pharma? How far are they restrained
by the threat of the state monopoly pulling their license to practice?
A free market
in medical certification would allow doctors to try many different
approaches to solving problems, not just the monopoly-approved practices.
It would also make it easier for immigrant medical professionals
to work in the United States, as well as clear the way for the next
couple of improvements…
3) Allow independent
nursing practices. An experienced nurse knows how to perform basic
check-ups, treat typical ailments such as the common cold, and likely
has other areas of expertise and experience. Consumers may at times
decide that a nurse is sufficient for their needs, and thereby save
money over seeing the doctor. (I picked this idea up at LRC or Mises.org,
but now can’t find the source.)
4) Reduce the
requirements for becoming a doctor. Does a general practitioner
really need ten or twelve years of schooling? Of course, they must
study anatomy and biology – but why all the calculus and physics
requirements for a pre-med degree? Just in case doctors want to
design rocket ships in their spare time? Advanced specialties, such
as neurosurgery, certainly require additional education. In general,
however, it would seem that the amount of required schooling could
be reduced in favor of more apprenticeship, continuing education,
and greater focus on the doctor’s particular specialty. Education
should center on what the doctor is actually going to do in the
course of a medical practice. This would reduce the cost of a medical
education, and so increase the supply of doctors.
5)
Shorten patent terms on drugs and medical technology. This would
allow producers to learn from each other’s research much faster,
allowing a greater supply of needed drugs and devices while accelerating
the overall pace of research. Greater supply and rapid technological
advances mean lower price and better products.
6) Deregulate
health insurance and HMO’s. Heavy regulation restricts supply. Through
the typical Iron
Triangle process, the most politically influential companies
will get to choose the rules and the regulators for their own industry
– using state power to protect themselves while attacking competitors.
As with medical licensing, independent third parties could rate
the quality of different insurers, but without the arbitrary state
power to create monopoly or oligopoly conditions in the industry.
With the internet, it easier than ever for consumers to find and
share important information when choosing an insurer – including
complaints or recommendations from the insurer’s existing clients.
All of these
reforms would cost the government (and therefore taxpayers) no money
– just the kind of solutions needed in a recession. By simply removing
constraints on supply, we can open up the floodgates to cheap medical
care.
These are just
a few obvious suggestions. If anyone has more (and I know from correspondence
that a lot of medical professionals read LRC!), please let me know.
If there are enough new suggestions, and Lew permitting, I’ll post
a follow-up with more ways we can improve healthcare in America.
July
31, 2009
J.
L. Bryan
[send him mail] lives
in Atlanta. His novel Dominion
is free at his website.
Healthcare in America: Some Free-Market Solutions by JL
Bryan is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.
The
Best of J. L. Bryan
|