Medicare Part D Privatization "Has Succeeded"
The author of the commentary excerpted below, won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2000.
Last year, Medicare underwent a major expansion with the addition of Part D prescription drug coverage. A controversial feature of this new program was its organization as a market in which consumers could choose among various plans offered competitively by different insurers and HMOs, rather than the single-payer, single-product model used elsewhere in the Medicare system. Proponents of this design touted the choices it would offer consumers, and the benefits of competition for product quality and cost; opponents objected that consumers would be overwhelmed by the complexity of the market, and that it was unnecessarily generous to pharmaceutical and insurance companies.
Part D is a massive social experiment on the ability of a privatized market to deliver social services effectively. With the support of the National Institute on Aging, my research group has monitored consumer choices and outcomes from the new Part D market. . . .
. . .
My overall conclusion is that, so far, the Part D program has succeeded in getting affordable prescription drugs to the senior population. Its privatized structure has not been a significant impediment to delivery of these services. Competition among insurers seems to have been effective in keeping a lid on costs, and assuring reasonable quality control. We do not have an experiment in which we can determine whether a single-product system could have done as well, or better, along these dimensions, but I think it is reasonable to say that the Part D market has performed as well as its partisans hoped, and far better than its detractors expected.
For the full commentary, see:
DANIEL L. MCFADDEN. "A Dog's Breakfast." The Wall Street Journal (Fri., February 16, 2007): A15.
(Note: ellipses added.)
