Moral hazard is a term used in economics in relation to an individual who is willing to take risks because he or she will not have to bear the cost of his or her action. It is the reason purchasing health insurance was mandated under the Affordable Care Act, but it comes into play in other areas of health care as well.

It is clear that in the past and currently, many healthy young men and women who could afford health insurance have been gaming the system by making decisions not to buy it. They believed the odds were in their favor of avoiding serious illnesses or injuries and that the money required for insurance could be better utilized elsewhere. If they did suffer a significant illness or injury, care would always be available for them at an emergency room or hospital. And if the cost of their care was beyond their means, society would pay the price- health insurance costs for everyone else would be raised to pay for their care. Whether or not one agrees or disagrees with the individual mandate of the ACA, one would have to say that decisions not to buy insurance were unfair to their fellow citizens.

We also see a disregard of risk in various other behaviors by individuals in regard to their health where the costs are borne by society at large. Smoking is a major causative factor in many illnesses, including lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, peripheral vascular disease, strokes and COPD. The cost of caring for individuals who smoke and develop these conditions is astronomical. Yet in Medicare and many group insurance plans, smokers pay the same premiums as non-smokers. It’s the same with other risky conduct such as riding motorcycles, choosing to be sedentary and obese, and abusing alcohol or drugs. In addition, there are patients with chronic illnesses who are cognitively intact but non-compliant with their medical regimens which often results in more costly care down the line. And should society provide liver transplants to alcoholics and drug abusers whose conduct destroyed their livers in the first place?

How should society deal with people who are irresponsible in terms of their health and raise the cost of care for everyone else? Some might argue that smokers are paying high taxes for their cigarettes and that their money which goes into the general coffers balances out the cost of their care. But this does not pay directly for their health care and does nothing to reduce overall health care spending.

Should we charge individuals higher insurance premiums if they engage in behavior that damages their health, to defray the eventual costs and possibly mitigate some of their behavior? Unfortunately, these are often people with emotional problems or who live on the border of poverty and might drop their insurance if the price of coverage rose.

There are no easy answers. Lack of responsibility shifts the costs of health care to other people’s shoulders, but moral hazard requires that individuals should be accountable for their actions and that society should not be forced to pay for people’s disregard for good health practices.

Resurrecting Democracy

A VietNam vet and a Columbia history major who became a medical doctor, Bob Levine has watched the evolution of American politics over the past 40 years with increasing alarm. He knows he’s not alone. Partisan grid-lock, massive cash contributions and even more massive expenditures on lobbyists have undermined real democracy, and there is more than just a whiff of corruption emanating from Washington. If the nation is to overcome lockstep partisanship, restore growth to the economy and bring its debt under control, Levine argues that it will require a strong centrist third party to bring about the necessary reforms. Levine’s previous book, Shock Therapy For the American Health Care System took a realist approach to health care from a physician’s informed point of view; Resurrecting Democracy takes a similar pragmatic approach, putting aside ideology and taking a hard look at facts on the ground. In his latest book, Levine shines a light that cuts through the miasma of party propaganda and reactionary thinking, and reveals a new path for American politics. This post is cross posted from his blog.

ROBERT A. LEVINE, TMV Columnist
Sort by:   newest | oldest
WesleyV
Guest
WesleyV
4 years 1 month ago

And not a word mentioned about gunshot victims and their costs. Make gun owners pay for their victims.

dduck
Guest
dduck
4 years 1 month ago
Insurance companies have for a long time asked questions on smoking and “dangerous” activities. To get the “preferred” (lowest) premium you have to be a non-smoker for a period of time and not engage in those dangerous activities and meet certain weight, BP and cholesterol requirements. Urine, blood and physical exams for larger amounts help keep you honest. Lastly, claims can be denied after death if the insurance company was lied to on the application and of course for outright fraud. As to the gamblers, they do raise the cost for everyone, due to adverse selection (the unhealthy try to… Read more »
dduck
Guest
dduck
4 years 1 month ago

Addendum (in lieu of EDIT), the first paragraph is mainly about individual policies. Although, there is some “underwriting” on group policies.

adelinesdad
Guest
adelinesdad
4 years 1 month ago
I don’t believe you can completely eliminate moral hazards in a compassionate society. That doesn’t meant we shouldn’t be compassionate, but we should understand the price that we pay for it. In my view, a policy that creates a moral hazard does not justify other policies that restrict individual liberty in order to minimize the cost of the first policy. I’m in favor of allowing insurance companies to discriminate on behavior (not medical conditions). We would need some good regulation to ensure rates correspond to the predicted cost of certain behaviors, and to ensure companies don’t devise schemes to try… Read more »
dduck
Guest
dduck
4 years 1 month ago

A, i was following and agreeing with you until the last sentence, when I almost spit my tea out.
It’s unfortunate, but they can’t even do really simple stuff in a few hundred pages anymore.

As far as weaseling out, there are two sides to that. Yes, some claims departments are weaselly, but there are plenty of people out there committing fraud on insurance companies and government programs also.
Someone once said, trust but verify

adelinesdad
Guest
adelinesdad
4 years 1 month ago
dduck, I said *could* be done, not *would* be done. Yes, there are two sides. The position that insurance companies should be able to discriminate implies that they do have some ability to deny benefits and/or pursue those that commit fraud. But there needs to be some limits placed on their power in order to protect innocent consumers. Here’s an borderline example: If a person agrees not to smoke, and then gets lung cancer. Should the insurance company be able to go back and look for evidence that they smoked and then deny them coverage if they can prove it?… Read more »
RP
Guest
RP
4 years 1 month ago
dduck..you mention that quality will suffer when 20-30 million additional patients hit the doctors offices due to being insured. This is possible, but I wonder if this will actually happen for two reasons. One, like my doctor, physicians have a limit on the number of patients they can see and once that limit is attained, they stop accepting additional new patients. So when some of these newly insured begin calling for appointments, many doctors will nto accept them as a new patient. And two, limited reimbursement will keep other physicians from accepting these new patients that are insured by the… Read more »
dduck
Guest
dduck
4 years 1 month ago

A, I was referring to lying about smoking, for example, on an initial application, and the possibility of the insurance company denying the claim. Perhaps a better example would be someone lying about skydiving, motorcycle and snowmobile use, private plane piloting, and then having an accident.
Workman’s Compensation and Disability are rife with fraud and how many people burn down their house or business. Every month or so their is a group accused of Medicaid or Medicare fraud.
I am not an apologizer for the insurance companies, btw, just like to get two sides to a story out.

adelinesdad
Guest
adelinesdad
4 years 1 month ago
Yes, I agree and understand your point. My point is that I’d consider someone who didn’t commit fraud, which implies intentional deceit, being denied critical benefits to be a worst-case scenario. With that in mind, in order for an insurance company to deny benefits, they must prove that the person committed fraud, and the burden of proof should be very high. It’s not enough, in my view, just to show that someone did something they said they wouldn’t do. Maybe they misunderstood the agreement, or maybe they forgot that they had agreed to something years earlier. Since it may be… Read more »
slamfu
Guest
slamfu
4 years 1 month ago
“We also should be working on subsidizing doctor’s schooling, as other countries do, so we can increase the doctor supply.” Dduck, we actually have a great deal of doctors, many of whom are looking for work because the AMA gets to arbitrarily set limits on the # of licenses that get handed out. Where they get this power is beyond me, but we have LOTS of trained doctors out there that can’t get certified as a result. And when I say the AMA “arbitrarily” decides the # of licenses what I really mean is they reduce the ones for the… Read more »
slamfu
Guest
slamfu
4 years 1 month ago

Addendum. The AMA is an unregulated non-government association that wields TREMENDOUS influence over an industry that costs this nation more money than anything, and should really be looked into more.

dduck
Guest
dduck
4 years 1 month ago

Slam, there is an excess of plastic surgeons and dermatologists, but too few primary care doctors, as we speak, and many doctors are quitting because they can’t or won’t be doing “volume” business. (I invite any doubters to come sit with me in my urologist’s or oncologists office, both heavy Medicare patient loaded. 2.5 hours waiting, last time) It will get worse when the 20-30 million start showing up at PC offices.

davidpsummers
Guest
davidpsummers
4 years 1 month ago

It is indeed something where there are no easy answers. We keep addressing it piecemeal (like when we deal with the uninsured or consider smoking taxes). I think this article is good because it would be better if we could come to a consensus on the broader principal.

Rcoutme
Guest
Rcoutme
4 years 1 month ago
I watch a cable channel called TruTV. Some of the shows profile tremendously foolish acts (World’s Dumbest being the best of them). These people are (often) doing things that are much more than likely to cause them harm. Are we now going to dictate that such people are no longer free to try these things? Where would you draw the line? How would you discriminate between an idiot and a (reasoned) thrill seeker? When it comes to weight or alcohol or cigarette consumption, why should those who are doing perfectly legal acts be branded as lesser persons? Are we now… Read more »
dduck
Guest
dduck
4 years 1 month ago

RC, There will always be idiots, thrill seekers, careless sorts. That’s Ok, and sometimes, there are laws to try and protect them from themselves (helmets).
Insurance actuaries take into account some of these and price accordingly, but a good underwriting encompassing some of the more dangerous activities and health issues goes a long way towards providing a fair premium structure for a selected demographic population that they market to. Oh, and they always use a fudge factor, just in case.

adelinesdad
Guest
adelinesdad
4 years 1 month ago
rcoutme, Firstly, this conversation, partly due to my own comments, has turned in the “people doing stupid things causes our healthcare problems” direction. I fully admit this is a gross oversimplification. I think the bigger problem lies in the more subtle every-day decisions we make, such as what to eat and how much to exercise, that are much more difficult to measure and control. As I said, much care would have to be taken in constructing legislation that allows insurance companies to take such things into account. But to answer your question, there would still only be two types of… Read more »
dduck
Guest
dduck
4 years 1 month ago
A, an insurance contract, does not and never will, ask you to act a certain way (eat your broccoli), it is a commercial contract, not a social one, and each policy is filed with the insurance department of each state it offers the policy in. Yes, that means dealing with 50 state insurance departments, many of which frankly stink and are just fee gathering entities. You are trying to make insurance companies into what they are not. It’s simple, If we accept you, we insure you for any losses specified in the contract, providing you haven’t lied or misrepresented such… Read more »
adelinesdad
Guest
adelinesdad
4 years 1 month ago

dduck,

I don’t know if I’m misunderstanding you or you’re misunderstanding me, but I don’t feel like I’m disagreeing with you. Yes, an insurance contract is a commercial contract. My point is that it needs to be smartly regulated such that consumers are treated fairly and insurers and not defrauded, and to the extent possible we minimize that gray area in between.

dduck
Guest
dduck
4 years 1 month ago
A, I am saying it is well regulated, since it is filed in each state as to terms and conditions and has to be approved by that state’s insurance department. Smartly is a social term or a marketing term. Insurance companies can write the contract to cover any insurable event and then when approved, you know what you are getting. If you have a claim, it is judged against the insuring clause and approved or not. Less honest companies may try to weasel, delay or deny a claim, but the claimant has the right to avail himself of the services… Read more »
adelinesdad
Guest
adelinesdad
4 years 1 month ago

“Fairly” is a policy term, and I’m talking about the policy that regulates the insurance contracts, whether it be state or federal level policy doesn’t matter to me for the purpose of this discussion.

Yes, I understand insurance contracts are already highly regulated, especially now under ACA. I’m arguing for a way to make that regulation better. “Better” it terms of helping people with pre-existing conditions to get coverage at a reasonable rate, which the ACA does, while still allowing insurance companies to charge more for people who choose risky or unhealthy lifestyles, which the ACA does not allow.

adelinesdad
Guest
adelinesdad
4 years 1 month ago

And “better” in terms of avoiding the problem of people thinking they have coverage but then having it be cancelled when they need it (regardless of the insurance company was justified) by encouraging a mechanism of proactive compliance checking *before* a sickness or accident occurs.

dduck
Guest
dduck
4 years 1 month ago

We are talking past each other so I going to check out of this thread.

adelinesdad
Guest
adelinesdad
4 years 1 month ago

I concur.

EEllis
Guest
EEllis
4 years 1 month ago
Aren’t the “others” trying to game the system by making people who don’t need the insurance buy it so they might pay less? If I pay taxes, and I do pay property taxes, my taxes include my county hospital. That is my “insurance” for catastrophic care and I pay out of pocket for the rest. You don’t think that I’ve payed more then I will ever cost the hospital, well you are wrong I have. Now I also must also provide enough of a profit for a private company that they will lower their premiums on someone else? Or if… Read more »
wpDiscuz