Sunday, Jan. 14, 2024 | 2 a.m.
View more of the Sun's opinion section
Democrats and Republicans are further apart than they’ve been in half a century, according to the Pew Research Center. But nearly 4 in 10 tell pollsters that they’d be open to supporting a candidate from a different political party whose top priority was reducing health care costs.
Many Democrats have been clear about how they’d rein in health spending — by creating one government-run “Medicare for All” health plan that would limit the scope and availability of private insurance.
Republicans have historically been much quieter about how they’d reduce health costs. But they’d be smart to start sharing their ideas for health care reform. Voters want to hear them.
Over the past five decades, U.S. health care spending has grown steadily, not just in total but also on a per-person basis and as a percentage of gross domestic product. Health expenditures now account for 18.3% of GDP — more than one in every six dollars that flows through the U.S. economy.
It’s no wonder that nearly two-thirds of the country says that the affordability of health care is a “very big problem.”
Fortunately, there are plenty of commonsense strategies for reducing health care costs — without shifting them all to taxpayers, as Medicare for All would.
Let’s start by removing red tape that drives up costs. Thirty-five states have “certificate-of-need” laws on the books. These decades-old statutes require any business wishing to build or expand a health care facility to apply for government approval. Some states mandate that providers secure a certificate of need before offering ambulance services or additional hospital or nursing home beds.
These laws were originally intended to avoid duplication and waste. But they’ve created formidable barriers to entry that squash competition. In some cases, they permit incumbent providers to lobby against the introduction of competitors.
A study by the Mercatus Center found that states with certificate-of-need laws have fewer hospitals, surgical centers, hospice facilities and dialysis clinics.
Further, there’s no evidence that certificates of need have improved quality of care or restrained health care spending. In many states, they’ve increased spending. For example, Mercatus estimated that in Ohio, Illinois, Florida and New York, health care spending would be at least $200 less per capita without certificate-of-need laws.
Politicians and state bureaucrats shouldn’t have the power to tell a private business that it can’t open or expand — or to dictate what the market supposedly needs.
In the same vein, policymakers can bring down health costs by insisting that providers be transparent about their prices.
Americans can shop around for almost anything. Generally speaking, we have access to more information than we can handle on quality and cost for just about every good or service under the sun. We can read restaurant reviewers from dining critics or ordinary patrons. We can consult professional product reviewers or browse social media for tips on everything from vacuum cleaners to handymen. And we can comparison-shop for the best deal with just a few clicks or taps.
And yet, when we’re in the market for health care, it’s often impossible to find out how much something costs — or which provider is best. Some recent efforts designed to promote clarity, like the federal rule requiring hospitals to publish their prices in a consumer-friendly format, have helped.
But many hospitals still aren’t complying with the rule — nearly three years after it took effect. Politicians who hold hospitals to account — and arm consumers with the information they need to make smart health care decisions — will attract voters.
The 2024 election is less than a year away. Voters want to hear how the candidates asking for their support will bring down the cost of health care. Neither candidates nor the American people can afford silence.
Sally Pipes is president, CEO and Thomas W. Smith fellow in health care policy at the Pacific Research Institute.
