|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
PROLOGUELooking AheadLooking ahead, there are additional steps policymakers could consider as they seek to reduce the rate of growth of health care spending. Some involve drilling down into particular areas of high cost growth. Others might require major changes in law that would create winners and losers and greatly alter the health care economy. John Holahan and Alshadye Yemane examine Medicaid and conclude that the programs spending growth has largely been driven by rising enrollment. That could increase even more as the U.S. recession pushes more people into the ranks of the unemployed and uninsured, or as Congress acts to expand Medicaid eligibility. The authors cite evidence that managed care plans have saved money in Medicaid, but they argue that there is plenty of opportunity to save even more. At the top of the list: doing an even better job of managing the care costs for the sickest or most disabled enrollees, and of cracking down on aggressive state efforts to draw as heavily as possible on federal matching funds. Given the contributions of new technologies to growth in health spending, Mark Pauly suggests that policymakers take a closer look at the U.S. patent system. Patents protect up-front investments in research and development by giving drug and device makers a monopoly for a set period of time. Pauly acknowledges that its not clear whether the current patent system could be changed without jeopardizing medical innovation. But without directly addressing the costs of advancing technology, he contends, no other set of measures will be sufficient to put a lasting brake on health care spending. He suggests a number of alternative approaches that warrant investigation, including shortening the twenty-year patent term in current law.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||