Page images

hardship, while also making the future development of health care more responsive to the preferences of the people.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Supplemental material follows:]


[blocks in formation]



3. Hospital labor costs, 1955-73:

Labor cost per hospital day (up).
Labor cost as fraction of total hospital costs:


Increase in hospital wage rates, 1955–73 (up).
Increase in all private wage rates, 1955-73 (up).
"Excess" increase in hospital wages.,
"Excess" wage increase as percent of total increase in average cost per day.

62 56 188 130 58 14

Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI. Professor Klarman.



Mr. KLARMAN. I am Herbert E. Klarman professor of economics at the Graduate School of Public Administration, New York University. I feel highly privileged to appear here today. This is a splendid opportunity for me, a longtime observer and student of the health care scene in this country, to participate in the mutual exchange that characterizes a congressional hearing and to try to convey to this committee what I think about some of the major issues, problems, and possible solutions in the health care field.

Following staff instructions, I have made my statement brief. There is a good deal that has been left out, which may be developed in the question period I look forward to.

At the outset, let me confess to certain biases or assumptions that should be made explicit. One, in my judgment there is no health care crisis in this country today, though we have many serious problems, including those of cost, access, quality, and so on.

Two, some of our present problems reflect, in part past successes, not only failures.

Three, concerning some of the problems facing us, firm empirical knowledge is lacking. More research and close attention to emerging tendencies are, therefore, indicated. This will include the monitoring of the effects of programs, some of which effects are bound to be unexpected.

This statement consists of three parts. The first part has to do with the criteria for national health insurance. The second part has to do with problems that call for early attention with or without national health insurance, and the third part has to do with the elaboration of certain issues, whatever the day that national health insurance is enacted.

Part I deals, then, with national health insurance, which once again is on this Nation's active political agenda. It belongs there, because the combination of voluntary health insurance, medicare, and medicaid has been largely successful, yet defective in certain respects and inadequate for some individuals and families.

That health care is a so-called right for all is not a new, 1960's notion. It represented a wide consensus across the political spectrum as long ago as 1940, as Edwin Witte reported. What is controversial is how such a right might be implemented.

In a public lecture I delivered in the spring of 1974 at the University of Western Michigan, in Kalamazoo, Mich., I proposed five criteria for a national health insurance program. The first criterion is universal enrollment, not merely the opportunity to enroll. The second one is a broad and deep package of related benefits, in order to encompass the possible range of substitute services and to cover large expenses. The third criterion is adequate attention to establishing reimbursement mechanisms and formulas for paying the providers of services.

The fourth criterion is ease of compliance by consumers, so that they may be assured of getting what the law promises in print.

The fifth criterion is that of aiming at a single level of health services for all, at least as a longer term target.

This list of criteria is very short, much shorter than usual. Why? For two different reasons.

The first reason is that I view national health insurance narrowly as a financing instrument though with broad consequences, and therefore, as only one of the available instruments for allocating resources to the health care sector and for distributing the use of these resources.

The second reason is that a large number of criteria can only be confusing in any attempt to weigh one criterion against another.

In this same lecture, I suggested that several potential elements of a national health insurance program, such as the question of costsharing or the question of the responsibilities assigned to fiscal intermediaries, might best be left to a process of cumulative factfinding. Moreover, the second item is suitable for political negotiation and accommodation.

Nevertheless, it is none too soon to start exploring the future role of facilities owned and operated by government, including Veterans' Administration hospitals and municipal institutions.

To my mind, the absence of a health care crisis does not permit us to defer indefinitely the enactment of a national health insurance program. Certain urgent problems, such as the financing of outpatient care in hospitals, may not be attended to because everybody expects national health insurance to take care of them.

Part II of this statement deals with problems calling for early attention. Certain problems in health care are so serious that they would demand early action without waiting for national health insurance, if enough were known about suitable remedies, it seems to me that two problems, both on the supply side of the equation, meet the criteria of seriousness and knowledge. I refer to the supply of short-term hospital beds and to methods of reimbursing hospitals.

With or without national health insurance, it makes sense to begin to move toward limiting and curtailing the supply of general hospital beds. Hospital care is the largest and most expensive item of expenditure for health care; under conditions of prepayment, the number of hospital beds used is equal, by and large, to the number in operation; and there is no evidence to suggest that more hospital care improves health status.

Limiting and curtailing the supply of hospital beds is a sound policy to be applied promptly by health planning agencies at local and regional levels. My reason for advocating this policy is not that the occupancy rate of hospitals is low, nor that some patients occupy hospital beds without medical need, but, rather, that a policy of lower hospital bed use will do no individual harm and can achieve substantial savings. As low a bed saving as 10 percent would yield a reduction in expenditures of $3 billion a year.

Whether the proposed policy can be carried out successfully will depend, in my opinion, largely on the provisions of suitable hospital staff appointments for the physicians who are directly affected by a decision to build fewer beds or not to build at all.

As for hospital reimbursement, it is widely recognized that paying individual hospitals at cost determined on a retroactive basis is conducive to rising cost. Moreover, although cost reimbursement is the general method of payment, the formulas that are applied differ among the three major sources of direct payment-Blue Cross plans, medicare, medicaid. By itself no single source of payment has enough influence to offset the disincentive effects of retroactive cost reimbursement.

Accordingly, as suggested earlier in my list of criteria, it is necessary to establish mechanisms for paying individual hospitals in behalf of all major third-party payers. Such an agency, with jurisdiction over a local or regional area, would have to negotiate rates on a prospective basis, since automatic formulas linked to index numbers have not worked out in the past. Such negotiations can take a hospital's proposed budget for the coming year as the point of departure.

Both of these steps, limiting the number of beds and establishing effective reimbursement mechanisms, are indicated because, with or without national health insurance, the post-World War II movement toward third-party payment cannot—and should not—be reversed.

Part III of the statement deals with other important issues. Here I should like to invite the committee's attention to three problem areas: long-term care, health planning, and certain aspects of regulation.

All pending bills on national health insurance agree in neglecting or excluding long-term care. I believe that long-term care should be included under a national health insurance program. Why? Such care is usually health related. It is costly, often paid for by medicaid; and its inclusion would permit consideration of alternative modes of care, not only institutional care.

At present the entire field of long-term care is covered by a noxious fog of scandal. The data base is skimpy and analytical studies are few. Notwithstanding, some things are known,

Nursing home care is different from hospital care in that a physician is not directly involved in placing the patient. The patient or relative or friend is able to judge the quality of nursing home care, unlike hospital care. Therefore, it is not necessary to pay nursing homes at individual rates, the way hospitals are paid.

It is also apparent that prolonged institutionalization is essentially irreversible. It follows institutional care must be timely in order to be effective. Information, referral, and followup networks are required in every local area.

For all these services in behalf of long-term patients financing is necessary, but it is not sufficient. It is also necessary to organize and operate such services. Where experienced organizations exist, they can take the lead; elsewhere it will be necessary to experiment and evaluate performance.

With respect to health planning, the new law establishes numerous area and State-wide agencies and consolidates old grant and loan programs to help pay for construction. The act is long and detailed.

In a public lecture I delivered at the University of Missouri in January 1975 I suggested that the primary reason for health planning are the numerous instances in which the interests of the individual health care institution and those of the community may diverge, as in the case of hospital staff appointments for physicians. I noted, too, that it is much more difficult technically to plan for health services at the local level than nationally. Yet, since health services are mostly provided at the local health level, health planning must be geared to the local situation, that is, to solving concrete local problems. However, the local agency could advantageously make use of outside, Federal assistance.

In the past decade local health planning has been hampered by the unreliability and instability of Federal funding through project grants. The absence of national policies and guidelines for health planning has led to a constant search for innovative ideas and periodic fads. The requirement of consumer representation, in the absence of substantive concerns, has led to a preoccupation with the mechanism and process of planning and to the neglect of real health care problems.

What is required, in addition to more steady funding, is a fostering of institutional capabilities for health planning. Such organizations at the local or regional level will require a good many full counts from the U.S. Census. They can use the example of leadership from the Federal Government in working on susbtantive problems. They will require a good deal of technical assistance in the form of concrete ideas on ways to enhance the flexibility and versatility of health facilities and personnel; monitoring natural experiments and learning their lessons; and elucidating for the intelligent public the policy implications of empirical research findings and even of pertinent theoretical propositions. In certain circumstances the Federal Government is also expected to serve as the superseding decisionmaker.

Reflecting on this lecture, delivered only 6 months ago, I should like to emphasize three points.

1. To be useful, health planning must deal with substantive problems and abandon the preoccupation with mechanism and process.

2. Problems are usually specific to a local area. These are likely to differ among areas.

3. A need has been created for educating and training large numbers of health planning staff. It is not evident who will perform this task and how.

Let me conclude with a comment on one, perhaps unusual aspect of Government regulation in health care. Although process is no substi

tute for substance, process is important. One's participation in arriving at a decision is likely to render it much more acceptable to a person who may not approve of the decision.

More important, however, is the threat and burden that a regulatory agency can impose on an organization under its jurisdiction, as illustrated by my own experience as a board member of a Blue Shield plan in New York. There is the further danger I have witnessed that the flow of financial and statistical information will be blocked unilaterally, thereby limiting empirical analysis and the free debate of issues that such analysis makes possible.

Finally, it is incumbent upon all of us as the trend toward regulalation rises to try to arrest the tendency for so many transactions in the health field to take on the character of adversary legal proceedings.

Thank you very much.
Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI. Thank you very much.
Mr. Cohen ?


Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, it is always a pleasure for me to be back in this room where I have spent a large portion of my life. I would like to state my biases first.

First, I do not favor enactment of any of the health insurance bills now pending before this committee. I feel that the bill that ultimately is to be enacted has not yet been introduced.

While there are various provisions of various bills that have merit, it will be a long and continuing process to find the accommodation between legislative objectives and administrative reality, which has to be achieved to formulate an effective national health insurance bill.

Second, I think that providers and consumers must be fully consulted in the development of a bill and I don't think you can do that solely through the legislative process. I think that must be done in large part by the executive branch and the executive branch is not competent at the present time to do so. Its recent history of handling this subject is one of tragic incompetence, and I think, therefore, you have to wait until at least another secretary has demonstrated his ability to put together the administrative and technical competence by which this accommodation process can be achieved.

I think, therefore, this is not the year in which the Ways and Means Committee ought to enact national health insurance legislation. How long that should be postponed will depend upon a number of factors which I cannot quite foresee, but I think it will be much longer than most people expect.

A comprehensive public information and health education program is vitally necessary to obtain public support for any legislation that you enact, for an understanding of the key issues and to avoid excessive demands on a medical care system when you inaugurate it. Therefore, in any such program you must provide a public information and health information program substantially before any new, significant benefits begin and no bill pending before your committee does that, and that is a key deficiency of all of them.

Important new benefits, whatever they are, should begin preferably between April and October in order to avoid paying for services during

« PreviousContinue »