George R. Fisher, III, M.D.

Obituary

George R. Fisher, III, M.D.

Age: 97 of Philadelphia, formerly of Haddonfield Dr George Fisher III

Dr. George Ross Fisher of Philadelphia died on March 9, 2023, surrounded by his loving family.

Born in 1925 in Erie, Pennsylvania, to two teachers, George and Margaret Fisher, he grew up in Pittsburgh, later attending The Lawrenceville School and Yale University (graduating early because of the war). He was very proud of the fact that he was the only person who ever graduated from Yale with a Bachelor of Science in English Literature. He attended Columbia University’s College of Physicians and Surgeons where he met the love of his life, fellow medical student, and future renowned Philadelphia radiologist Mary Stuart Blakely. While dating, they entertained themselves by dressing up in evening attire and crashing fancy Manhattan weddings. They married in 1950 and were each other’s true loves, mutual admirers, and life partners until Mary Stuart passed away in 2006. A Columbia faculty member wrote of him, “This young man’s personality is way off the beaten track, and cannot be evaluated by the customary methods.”

After training at the Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia where he was Chief Resident in Medicine, and spending a year at the NIH, he opened a practice in Endocrinology on Spruce Street where he practiced for sixty years. He also consulted regularly for the employees of Strawbridge and Clothier as well as the Hospital for the Mentally Retarded at Stockley, Delaware. He was beloved by his patients, his guiding philosophy being the adage, “Listen to your patient – he’s telling you his diagnosis.” His patients also told him their stories which gave him an education in all things Philadelphia, the city he passionately loved and which he went on to chronicle in this online blog. Many of these blogs were adapted into a history-oriented tour book, Philadelphia Revelations: Twenty Tours of the Delaware Valley.

He was a true Renaissance Man, interested in everything and everyone, remembering everything he read or heard in complete detail, and endowed with a penetrating intellect which cut to the heart of whatever was being discussed, whether it be medicine, history, literature, economics, investments, politics, science or even lawn care for his home in Haddonfield, NJ where he and his wife raised their four children. He was an “early adopter.” Memories of his children from the 1960s include being taken to visit his colleagues working on the UNIVAC computer at Penn; the air-mail version of the London Economist on the dining room table; and his work on developing a proprietary medical office software using Fortran. His dedication to patients and to his profession extended to his many years representing Pennsylvania to the American Medical Association.

After retiring from his practice in 2003, he started his pioneering “just-in-time” Ross & Perry publishing company, which printed more than 300 new and reprint titles, ranging from Flight Manual for the SR-71 Blackbird Spy Plane (his best seller!) to Terse Verse, a collection of a hundred mostly humorous haikus. He authored four books. In 2013 at age 88, he ran as a Republican for New Jersey Assemblyman for the 6th district (he lost).

A gregarious extrovert, he loved meeting his fellow Philadelphians well into his nineties at the Shakespeare Society, the Global Interdependence Center, the College of Physicians, the Right Angle Club, the Union League, the Haddonfield 65 Club, and the Franklin Inn. He faithfully attended Quaker Meeting in Haddonfield NJ for over 60 years. Later in life he was fortunate to be joined in his life, travels, and adventures by his dear friend Dr. Janice Gordon.

He passed away peacefully, held in the Light and surrounded by his family as they sang to him and read aloud the love letters that he and his wife penned throughout their courtship. In addition to his children – George, Miriam, Margaret, and Stuart – he leaves his three children-in-law, eight grandchildren, three great-grandchildren, and his younger brother, John.

A memorial service, followed by a reception, will be held at the Friends Meeting in Haddonfield New Jersey on April 1 at one in the afternoon. Memorial contributions may be sent to Haddonfield Friends Meeting, 47 Friends Avenue, Haddonfield, NJ 08033.

Political Parties, Absent and Unmentionable

King George III

BECAUSE America had recently revolted to rid itself of King George III, the Constitutional framers of 1787 sought to construct a government forever free from one-man rule. Inefficiency could be accepted but central dictatorial power, never. It is unrealistic however to expect a wind-up toy to keep working forever, and our Constitution creates the same worry. After two centuries, some chinks have appeared.

Founding Fathers

Political parties existed in 18th Century England and Europe, but the American founding fathers seem not to have worried about them much. Within ten years of Constitutional ratification, however, Thomas Jefferson had created a really partisan party which naturally provoked the creation of its partisan opposite. James Madison was slowly won over to the idea this was inevitable, but George Washington never budged. Although they were once firm friends, when Madison's partisan position became clear to him, Washington essentially never spoke to him again. Andrew Jackson, with the guidance of Martin van Buren, carried the partisan idea much further toward its modern characteristics, but it was the two Roosevelts who most fully tested the U.S. Supreme Court's tolerance for concentrating new powers in the Presidency, and Obama who recognized that the quickest way to strengthen the Presidency was to weaken the Legislative branch.

Dramatic episodes of this history are not central to present concerns, which focuses more on the largely unnoticed accumulations of small changes which bring us to our present position. Wars and economic crises induced several presidents, nearly as many Republicans as Democrats, to encourage migrations of power advantage which never quite returned to baseline after each crisis. Primary among these migrations was the erosion of the original assumption of perfect equality among individual members of Congress. A new member of Congress today may tell his constituents he will represent them ably, but when he arrives for work he is figuratively given an office in the basement and allowed to sit on empty packing cases. This is not accidental; the slights are intentional warnings from the true masters of power to bumptious new egotists, they will get nothing in their new environment unless they earn it. Not a bad idea? This schoolyard bullying is a very bad idea. If your elected representative is less powerful, you are less powerful.

Houses of Congress

Partisan politics begins with vote-swapping, evolves into a system of concentrating the votes of the members into the hands of party leaders, and ultimately creates the potential for declaring betrayal if the member votes his own mind in defiance of the leader. The rules of the "body" are adopted within moments of the first opening gavel, but they took centuries to evolve and will only significantly change direction on those few occasions when newcomers overpower the old-timers, and only then if some rebel among the old timers takes the considerable trouble to help organize them. In the vast majority of cases, after adoption, the opportunity to change the rules is then effectively lost for two years. Even the Senate, with six-year staggered terms, has argued that it is a "continuing body" and need not reconsider its rules except in the face of a serious uprising on some particular point. Both houses of Congress place great weight on seniority, for the very good purpose of training unfamiliar newcomers in obscure topics, and for the very bad purpose of concentrating power in "safe" districts where party leaders are able to exercise iron control of the nominating process. Those invisible bosses back home in the district, able to control nominations in safe districts, are the real powers in Congress. They indirectly control the offices and chairmanships which accumulate seniority in Congress; anyone who desires to control Congress must control the local political bosses, few of whom ever stand for election to any office if they can avoid it. In most states, the number of safe districts is a function of controlling the gerrymandering process, which takes place every ten years after a census. Therefore, in most states, it is possible to predict the politics of the whole state for a decade, by merely knowing the outcome of the redistricting. The rules for selecting members of the redistricting committee in the state legislatures are quite arcane and almost unbelievably subtle. An inquiring newsman who tries to compile a fifty-state table of the redistricting rules would spend several months doing it, and miss the essential points in a significant number of cases. The newspapers who attempt to pry out the facts of gerrymandering are easily gulled into the misleading belief that a good district is one which is round and compact, leading to a front-page picture showing all districts to be the same physical size. In fact, a good district is one where both parties have a reasonable chance to win, depending for a change, on the quality of their nominee.

So that's how the "Will of Congress" is supposed to work, but the process recently has been far less commendable, and in fact, calls into dispute the whole idea of a balance of power between the three branches of government. We here concentrate on the Health Reform Bill ("Obamacare") and the Financial Reform Bill ("Dodd-Frank"), which send the same procedural message even though they differ widely in their central topic. At the moment, neither of these important pieces of legislation has been fully subject to judicial review, so the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet encumbered itself with stare decisis of its own creation.

Three branches of government

In both cases, bills of several thousand pages each were first written by persons who if not unknown, are largely unidentified. It is thus not yet possible to determine whether the authors were affiliated with the Executive Branch or the Legislative one; it is not even possible to be sure they were either elected or appointed to their positions. From all appearances, however, they met and organized their work fairly exclusively within the oversight of the Executive Branch. Some weighty members of the majority party in Congress must have had some involvement, but it seems a near certainty that no members of the minority party were included, and even comparatively few members of highly contested districts, the so-called "Blue Dogs" of the majority party. It seems safe to conjecture that a substantial number either represent special interest affiliates or else party faithful from safe districts with seniority. The construction of the massive legislation was conducted in such secrecy that even the sympathetic members of the press were excluded, and it would not be surprising to learn that no person alive had read the whole bill carefully before it was "sent" to Congress. It's fair to surmise that no member of Congress except a few limited members of the power elite of the majority party were allowed to read more than scattered fragments of the pending legislation in time to make meaningful changes.

The next step was probably more carefully managed. No matter who wrote it or what it said, a majority of the relevant committees of both houses of Congress had to sign their names as responsible for approving it. Because of the relatively new phenomenon of live national televising of committee procedure, the nation was treated to the sight of congressmen of both parties howling that they were only given a single day to read several thousand pages of previously secret material -- before being forced to sign approval of it by application of unmentioned pressures enabled by the rules of "the body". When party members in contested districts protested that they would be dis-elected for doing so, it does not take much imagination to surmise that they were offered various appointive offices within the bureaucracy as a consolation. As it turned out, the legislation was only passed narrowly on a straight-party vote, so there can be a considerable possibility of its likely failure if the corruptions of politics had been set aside, with members voting on the merits. Nevertheless, since this degree of political hammering did result in a straight-party vote, it leaves the minority party free to overturn the legislation when it can. The prospect of preventing an overturn in succeeding congresses seems to be premised on "fixing" flaws in the legislation through the issuance of regulations before elections can open the way to overturn of the underlying authorization. Legislative overturn, however, is very likely to encounter filibuster in the Senate, which presently requires 40 votes. Even that conventional pathway is booby-trapped in the case of the Dodd-Frank Law. The Economist magazine of London assigned a reporter to read the entire act, and relates that almost every page of it mandates that the Executive Branch ("The Secretary shall") must take rather vague instructions to write regulations five or ten times as long as the Congressional authorization, giving the specifics of the law. The prospect looms of vast numbers of regulations with the force of law but written by the executive branch, emerging long after the Supreme Court considers the central points, years after the authorizing congressmen have had a chance to read it, and well after the public has rendered final judgment with a presidential election. The underlying principle of this legislation is the hope that it will later seem too disruptive to change a law, even though most of it was never considered by the public or its representatives.

Bill become a Law

The "regulatory process" takes place entirely within the Executive branch. Congress passes what it terms "enabling" legislation, containing language to the effect that the Cabinet Secretary shall investigate as needed, decide as needed, and implement as needed, such regulations as shall be needed to carry out the "Will" of Congress. Since the regulations for two-thousand-page bills will almost certainly run to twenty thousand pages of regulations with the force of law, the enabling committee of Congress will be confronted with an impossible task of oversight, and thus will offer few objections. The Appropriations Committees of Congress, on the other hand, are charged with reviewing every government program every year and have the power to throttle what they disapprove of, by the simple mechanism of cutting off the program's funds. Members of the coveted Appropriations Committees are appointed by seniority, come from safe districts, and are attracted to the work by the associated ability to bestow plums on their home districts. By the nature of their appointment process, unworried by the folks back home but entirely beholden to the party bosses, they have the latitude to throttle anything the leadership of their party wants to throttle badly enough. The outcome of such take-no-prisoners warfare is not likely to improve the welfare of the nation, and therefore it is rare that partisan politics are allowed to go so far.

The three branches of government have become unbalanced. These bills were almost entirely written outside of the Legislative branch, and the ensuing regulations will be written in the Executive branch. The founding fathers certainly never envisioned that sweeping modification will be made in the medical industry and the financial industry, against the wishes of these industries, and in any event without convincing proof that the public is in favor. This is what is fundamentally wrong about taking such important decisions out of the hands of Congress; it threatens to put the public at odds with its government.

Justice George Sutherland

There is no need to go further than this, harsher words will only inflame the reaction further than necessary to justify a pull-back. And yet, the Supreme Court would do us mercy if it doused these flames; the Supreme Court needs a legal pretext. May we suggest that Justice George Sutherland, who sat on the court seventy years ago, may have sensed the direction of things, short of using a particular word. Justice Sutherland recognized that although it is impractical to waver from the principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse, it is entirely possible for a person of ordinary understanding to read law in its entirety and still be confused as to its intent. He thus created a legal principle that a law may be void if it is too vague to be understood. In particular, a common criminal may be even less able to make a serious analysis. Therefore, at least in criminal cases, a lawyer may well be void for vagueness. In this case, we are not speaking of criminals as defendants or civil cases of alleged damage of one party by a defendant. Here, it is the law itself which gives offense by its vagueness, and Congress which created the vagueness is the defendant. Since we have just gone to considerable length to describe the manner in which Congress is possibly the main victim, this situation may be one of the few remaining ones where a Court of Equity is needed. That is, an obvious wrong needs to be corrected, but no statute seems to cover the matter. The Supreme Court might give some thought to convening itself as a special Court of Equity, on the special point of whether this legislation is void for vagueness.

We indicated earlier that one word was missing in this bill of particulars. That would be needed, to expand the charge to void for intentional vagueness, an assessment which is unflinchingly direct. It suggests that somewhere in at least this year's contentious processes, either the Executive Branch or the officers of the congressional majority party, or both, intended to achieve the latitude of imprecision, that is, to do as it pleased. Anyone who supposes the general run of congressmen voluntarily surrendered such latitude in the Health and Finance legislation, has not been watching much television. Given the present vast quantity of annually proposed legislation, roughly 25,000 bills each session, the passage of a small amount of vague legislation might only justify voiding individual laws, whereas an undue amount of it might additionally justify a reprimand. However, engineering laws which are deliberately vague might rise to the level of impeachment.

Correcting the Co-insurance Blunder

In this chapter we are discussing health insurance problems which the Affordable Care Act did not create, and for which its only blame is that it neglected to address them. The implication must be that a better health care reform bill would indeed address them, or at least give the public the impression that it considered the problems and for sufficient reason had to pass them by. It highlights one more important reason why this book hopes to generate the creation of a Grand Strategy rather than specific legislation.

The Blunder of Co-payment. Let's state that co-insurance sounds like a deductible but isn't, has shown very little deterrence value at its customary 20% level, creates the market for an extra insurance policy, and would never be missed if eliminated in its traditional form. A deductible, by contrast, is a single lump sum imposed at the beginning of an expense period, a so-called "Front-end deductible", whereas co-insurance imposes a sort of tax on every service, ie. a "20% co-pay". Examples: a deductible would be the first five thousand on a twenty-thousand dollar cost, per episode, or per year, and it does not change with the size of the bill. A 20% co-pay, or co-insurance, takes 20% of every charge. As the Affordable Care Act begins implementation, it is reported that the ACA plans to introduce 30%, 40%, and 60% co-payments through its insurance exchanges, in addition to a $5000 deductible, and in addition to tripling the premium. The matter merits considerable discussion, and it will probably receive it but details are presently very scanty. For example, there is already a flourishing market for 20% copay insurance which pays for nothing else, so the insurance companies will enjoy this feature of Obamacare which stimulates twice as many insurances. Congress would find a large co-payment enjoyable, since a 30% copay means the patient somehow pays at least 30% of its cost, out of his own pocket. These are also the numbers which get the businessman's attention in employer-based insurance. They appeared in a two-line notice in the New York Times, just before the Fourth of July holiday, and only chief financial officers have a lot of information about it. That sounds like a trial balloon which could soon be revised, but possibly not. If this is the final word, it will certainly imply the Administration is desperate to find reductions in the cost of the program. Put it in context: premium prices are doubled, a $5000 front-end deductible is imposed, a minimum of 30% of the program eventually lodges in copayment insurance which the patient must himself pay. On top of that, the only reliable evidence for what is going on comes from Chief Financial Officers, who as a group are the most hostile to the program because it involves them in myriads of complexities having nothing to do with their corporation's core business.

The position of this paper is that copayments should be scheduled to be eliminated entirely, but deductibles raised as high as possible, at least to $5000. This is not a small technical issue. Deductibles have proven effectiveness, while co-pay shows no effect on consumer behavior at the traditional 20% level. It is impractical to extend either approach to patients sick enough to deserve hospitalization as an inpatient because a growing proportion of "patient responsibility" charges reappear as bad debts. Alternatively, to raise office and outpatient price levels much above the minimum cost of hospitalization is not only unrelated but futile. It creates a substantial incentive to admit patients to the hospital in borderline cases, especially from emergency rooms and captive satellite clinics, recently enlarged to take advantage of artificially low-interest rates. Hospital administrators already complain that unpaid co-insurance is their biggest financial drain. The fact is, co-payments have already approached a practical upper limit, without any sign of affecting patient attitudes. Unpaid patient coinsurance is a sensitive indicator of dissatisfaction; there should be more feedback about it between the hospital and accrediting agencies. Since most insurance has a deductible less than $5000, there is probably some room left to increase deductibles, but public outcry can be expected unless something like a Health Savings Account is provided to ease the pain. Insurance companies will rush to be first with a new and improved "supplemental policy", another expensive blot on the landscape, designed to eliminate cost consciousness on the part of those who can afford it. The contradictory message sent by supplemental insurance is that reducing patient cost consciousness is a good thing.

A much better inpatient solution is available in the DRG system, even though it could use some improvement. And there is the potential of using credit cards attached to Health Savings Accounts as a source of data for improving DRG (Diagnosis-Related Groups) by capturing outpatient market costs and using them for market-based hospital cost accounting rather than hospital cost reports, which contain massive distortions from several levels of cost-shifting. Patient cost sharing, in general, is already approaching its limits and cannot be relied upon to produce the order of savings suggested by 50% co-pay. Other, more sophisticated, approaches are needed. To become convinced of this, it helps to understand its history and politics.

The way to cut hospital costs is to cut the indirect overhead costs. {bottom quote}

How did we come to this? Because so many industrial workers were quite healthy, young workers have always subsidized older, sicker ones, on the untrustworthy premise that when young ones became old ones, their turn will come (if they still work for the same company.). Trying to maintain "community rates", it was hard to find ways to pacify the young ones, unless you left the old ones stranded. This created pressure to keep deductibles low, even trivial because they would apply to almost everyone no matter how small his annual medical expenses and the young ones were already complaining about how little they were getting. Just how much effect deductibles exerted on premiums was difficult to calculate quickly. By contrast, a co-payment rate of 5% would reduce employer (or government) cost by 5%, while 20% would reduce cost by 20%, etc. To make the immediate point, a 50% co-pay would cut the cost of Medicare to the government by 50%, whereas even an actuary would have trouble producing quickly how much the government would save by raising the deductible by 150%, or to $12,000 annually. Once the negotiators walk away from the table, important consequences for the patients and hospitals will persist and grow, and the long-term trend of costs will be up. One-time convenience for the negotiators should be the least consideration of all, but human nature is human nature. Legislators are implored to hire an actuary to tell them the answers to these numbers (in the form of a table of numbers), so they do not exchange momentary convenience for riots in the streets. And the President must be persuaded not to claim that the "service" benefits are unaffected, or his campaign promises of retaining benefits seemingly satisfied. If you double the premium and double the copayment, you are only providing 25% of the historical benefit, even if an appendectomy is an appendectomy and it's a "covered service". Because of bad debts, raising the copayment from 20% to 50% is only likely to increase revenue by 40% at most. The way to cut costs is to cut the indirect overhead costs, and this insurance talk seldom touches that subject. The place to get more revenue is from people who are healthy or to borrow it. At the moment, 50% of Medicare costs are borrowed, in the sense that they come from tax revenue, which increases the national deficit, which ultimately leads to borrowing.

Doesn't all that make it sound more attractive to look for new sources of revenue? The traditional sources are pretty well exhausted.

Good Ol' Health Savings Accounts

In 1981 at what was then called the Executive Office Building of the Reagan White House, John McClaughry and I conceived the Medical Savings Account, later known as the Health Savings Account. John was at that time Senior Policy Advisor for Food and Agriculture, but he had read my book The Hospital That Ate Chicago, and it inspired him to think about a better way of financing health care. He asked me to come down to Washington to discuss the issue. We met and fleshed out the idea. Little did we then suspect how many delightful features would pour out of the simple little invention with only two moving parts.

It was patterned after the tax-deductible IRA (Individual Retirement Account) which Senator Bill Roth of Delaware was bringing out the following year. But with two major variations: our account contained the unique feature of a second tax exemption, given on condition the withdrawal was spent on health care. Otherwise, a regular IRA subscriber pays the usual income tax on withdrawals and gets only one tax deduction, the one he gets when he deposits money into the account. Bill Roth later produced his second kind, the Roth IRA, which allowed a tax-exempt withdrawal but took away the tax-exempt deposit. Only the Health Savings Account gives you both. In Canada, by the way, they do allow both deductions in their IRA, but in America only the HSA offers it.

Garlands of Unexpected Good Features. So the first part of a Health Savings Account is just that, a tax-exempt savings account, obtainable in the same way you get an IRA or a Roth IRA, although a few eligible outlets were slow to take ours up. And the second combined feature was to require a high-deductible, "catastrophic", stop-loss health insurance policy -- the higher the deductible, the cheaper the premium gets.

Further, the more you deposit in the account, the higher is the deductible you can afford, so you save money going either way and get extra benefit in your account for having a tailor-made insurance program. The industry term for this kind of insurance is "excess major medical", which the two of us wanted to avoid because of its implication it was somehow frivolous or unnecessary, when in fact it is central to the whole idea. Linked together, the two parts enhanced each other and produced results beyond the power of either, alone. The savings account was first envisioned to cover the deductible, but nowadays it also commonly attaches a special debit card to purchase relatively inexpensive outpatient and prescription costs. That led to further administrative savings to the subscriber if he shopped frugally for optimum proportions of deductible insurance. Right now, it's a little uncertain what the current Administration will permit in the way of catastrophic health insurance, so, unfortunately, it is just about impossible to give concrete examples of what the ultimate cost will prove to be. But we do know that in the old days, a $25,000 deductible was available for $100 a year. Nowadays, a $1000 premium is more likely. When we get to explaining first year and last year of life insurance, it will become clear that this premium can be appreciably reduced.

But while the savings account allowed someone to keep personal savings for himself, the insurance spreads the risk of an occasional heavy medical expense at what ought to be a bargain price for bare-bones insurance. You needn't spread any risk for small expenses because you control them yourself, but no one can afford some of those occasional whopper expenses. There's no reason why you couldn't set the deductible level yourself, weighing your own ability to withstand bigger risks. In practice, the actual savings were reported to approach 30% (compared with "First-dollar" health insurance), quite a pleasant surprise. But because of the younger age group of the early adopters, much of this saving was achieved in the out-patient area.

(Let's start using the present tense to talk about it, although right now it's hard to know what politics will permit.) So, hidden in this bland dual package are lower premiums, less administrative red tape, less moral hazard, but complete coverage. Right now, that's somewhat subject to change. It provides complete coverage in the sense that the insurance deductible can be covered by the savings account, but contains the option to be saved, invested or used for small outpatient expenses. Furthermore, the account carries over from year to year and employer to employer. So it eliminates job-lock, use-it-or-lose annoyances, and allows a healthy young person to save for his sickly old age. Curiously, many of the subscribers have elected to pay small expenses out of pocket, in order to make the tax deduction stretch farther.

In one deceptively simple feature, many of the drawbacks of conventional health insurance have been removed. The bank statement from the debit card can even do the bookkeeping. The first part of the two-part package, the savings account, creates portability between employers, opens up the possibility of compound interest on unused premiums, eliminates pre-existing conditions even as a concept, and creates a vehicle for transferring the value of being a "young invincible" forward into age ranges when the money really is likely to be needed for healthcare. Maybe some other features can be added later, but introducing an unfamiliar product is always greatly assisted by having it all appear so simple. The HSA only has two features, but they solve a dozen pre-existing problems.

To return to its history, nearly 15 million accounts have been opened, containing $24 billion. John McClaughry and I (neither of us received a penny for any part of this) were seeking a way to provide a tax exemption to match the one which employees of big business get when the employer buys insurance for them. That is, Henry Kaiser inspired us to do it. Although we got the general tax-free savings idea from Bill Roth, we did him one better by giving a deduction at both ends, provided only -- you must spend the money on healthcare to get the second tax relief. An additional novelty at that time was a high deductible, which permits a "share the risk" feature unique to all insurance, but invisibly limits it too expensive items. It wasn't the original idea, but it turns out you get spread-the-risk and limits to out-of-pocket patient costs in the same package. Who could have guessed?

Volume control versus Price Control in Helpless Patients.We did know a third automatic advantage, not fully exploited so far: it seems possible the hateful DRG system (with its codes restructured) could become a useful tool for dealing with a major flaw in the Medicare system. Professional peer review has become pretty good at controlling the volume of services, but prices still escape effective control. No amount of volume control can, alone, address the price issue. Controlling vital services for helpless people is a delicate matter.
Quite a few of those services match (or contain) identical items in the outpatient area. The outpatient area faces outside competition from other hospitals, drugstores or vendors. Instead of letting helpless inpatients generate unlimited prices for the outpatients, why not let competition in the outpatient area define standards of prices for inpatient captives? Outpatients and inpatients overlap in the ingredient components, considerably more than most people suppose. Inpatients may have higher overhead because of the need to supply their needs at all hours, but a standard extra markup around 10% ought to take care of that. No doubt some services are unique to the inpatient area, but a relative value scale is then easily constructed, thereby linking unique costs to other services which are exposed to competition. Ultimately, provable relationships to market prices might even discipline big payers demanding unwarranted discounts. This last is a deal breaker, provoking suspicions of abused power by a fiduciary. The government in the form of Medicaid is often the worst offender, so we need not imagine laws will prevent discounts so long as law enforcement remains crippled. Every business school teaches that discounts below cost are a path to bankruptcy, but business schools have apparently not had enough experience with governments to suggest an effective remedy.

Other than two variations (double tax deductions, and incentives if used for health care), a Roth IRA would be nearly the same as an HSA, with independently purchased Catastrophic backup. But the assured presence of low-cost, high-deductible insurance provides security for another needed feature: Using individual accounts with year-to-year rollover , we could introduce the notion of frugal young people pre-paying the healthcare costs of their own old age. For all we knew, there weren't any frugal young people, but we were certainly pleasantly surprised. And catastrophic insurance added the ability to share the opportunity of that feature -- subsidizing the poor at bearable prices. As we will shortly see, it also offers an incentive to save for retirement. Think of it: almost nobody can afford a million-dollar medical bill, but almost everybody welcomes low premiums. Catastrophic coverage offers the only chance I know, of approaching both goals at once. And it offers the fall-back, that if you are lucky and don't get sick, you can use it for your retirement.

As the only physician in the room, I also pointed out another pretty gruesome fact: either people end their lives have a lot of sicknesses, or they end up paying for a protracted old age. Only infrequently, do real people encounter both problems. It can happen of course; breaking a hip after long confinement in bed would be an example.

People end their lives with sickness, or else they must pay for protracted old age. {bottom quote}

Still More Good Features. Including these self-canceling needs in a single package allowed some flexibility between them -- something badly needed for a century. We cannot go on passing a new regulation for every quirk of fate; a good program must allow some latitude. Extended longevity tends to be hereditary, and so separate policies (sickness care and long-term care) are more expensive individually than the two combined because the patient can out-guess an insurance company. Health Savings Accounts balance an incentive to save for one's own future health costs "at the front end" with reasonable cost limitations "at the time of later service", even though two time periods are decades apart. That's obviously superior to increasing the sickness subsidy at the back end, because, among other things, the patient will later have even more clues about his impending future. If cost reduction goes too far at either end, it amounts to an incentive to spend carelessly. Saving becomes fruitless.

A tax deduction is a tax deduction, but this one has two: An incentive to save, and a later option to spend the savings on either healthcare or retirement. That's nearly specific enough. Furthermore, it offers a choice between saving preferences -- you can have interest-bearing savings accounts, or you can invest in the stock market, or a mixture of both. The HSA automatically converts to a regular IRA (for retirement) at age 66 when Medicare appears; that should be optional for all health insurance, but isn't. The IRA up in Canada includes both front and back features, but in the United States the HSA is the only savings vehicle to have dual deductions, so it's more flexible. As the finances of Medicare become shaky, it may be time to provide additional alternatives. At least, we ought to consider extending age 66 to a lifetime coverage option.

This harnessing of two familiar approaches makes a deceptively simple package which ought to be considered in other environments, unconnected with medical care. In most public policy proposals, the deeper you dig, the more problems you turn up. In this one, we found the proposal already had hidden answers to most concerns we could discover. It's possible to fall in love with an idea that does that for you. It lets you sleep at night, secure in the knowledge you aren't mucking things up for people.

Another surprise. Overall, the Affordable Care Act has probably helped sales of HSAs, since all four "metal" plans of the ACA contain high deductibles, serving in a (rather over-priced) Catastrophic role. This may be a way of covering the bets in a confusing situation. The ACA is a needlessly expensive way to get high-deductible coverage because it pays for so many subsidies. Frankly, it baffles me why subsidies swamp the costs of Obamacare but are made unworkable for HSAs. Many of the details of the subsidies are obscure, including their constitutionality, so we have to set this aside for the moment.

One good motto is don't knock the competition, but we must comment on a few things. The Bronze plan is the cheapest, therefore the best choice for those who choose to go this way. But uncomplicated, plain, indemnity high-deductible, would be even cheaper if its status got clarified. The good part is, the current rapid spread of high deductibles suggests mandatory-coverage laws may, in time, slowly go away. At first, the ACA looked like a bundle of mandatory coverages, all made mandatory at once. But they may be learning a few basic lessons as they go. Mandatory benefits are an example of mixing fixed indemnity with service benefits, with the usual dangerous outcome. Like many dual-option systems, they create loopholes. The HSA seems to avoid this issue by effectively being two semi-independent plans, for two separate constituencies -- who are the same people at different ages. Once more, we didn't think of it, the features just emerged from the plan.

That's about as concise a summary of Health Savings Accounts as can be made without getting short of breath. But of course, there is more to it, particularly as it affects the poor. For example, there is an annual limit to deposits in the Health Savings Account of $3350 per person, and further deposits may not be added after age 65. They can be "rolled over" into regular HSAs when the individual gets Medicare coverage, and supposedly has no further financial needs. So plenty of people have health care, but can barely support their retirement. These plans are absolutely not exclusively attractive to rich people, but it must be admitted, poor people start with such small accounts that companies can't operate profitably unless the client sticks with them for a long time. If people possibly can, they should scrape together one $3300 maximum payment to get a running start.

The problems of poor people can nevertheless be eased, within the limits of the plan's design. Since people will be of different ages when they start an HSA, it might be better to set lifetime limits, or possibly five-year limits, to deposits, rather than yearly ones. Some occupations have great volatility in earnings, and sometimes a health problem is the cause of it. To reduce gaming the system, perhaps the individual should be permitted to choose between yearly and multi-year limits, but not use both simultaneously. As long as the self-employed are discriminated against in tax exemptions, that point could certainly be modified. There remains only one major flaw, which we propose should be fixed:

Proposal 6: Congress should permit the individual's HSA-associated Catastrophic health insurance premiums to be paid, tax-exempt, by Health Savings Accounts, until such time as elimination of the present tax exemption for employer-based insurance is accomplished by other means.

Subsidies for the Poor? Here's my position. If poor people could get subsidies for HSA to the same degree the Affordable Care Act subsidizes them, Health Savings Accounts should prove at least as popular with poor people as the Administration plan. Mixing the private sector with the public one is always difficult. Why not make subsidies independent of the health programs? There is no point in having the poor suffer because someone prefers a different health system. Quite often, a subsidy program is mixed with a public program, in order to make its passage more attractive; that's not necessary.

Proposal 7:That health care subsidies be assigned to patients who need them, rather than attached specifically to one or another health system that happens to serve them.

Let's just skip away from all those digressions, and return to the poor in other sections. If the concern is, health care is too expensive, why in the world wouldn't everyone favor the cheapest plan around? Part of the answer, politics aside, is that young people have comparatively little illness cost, while old folks have a lot. Since Medicare, therefore, skims off the most expensive healthcare segment of the population, the fairness of any health subsidy program is difficult to assess. Evening out the tax deduction for the catastrophic portion equalizes the unfair tax deduction for self-employed and unemployed people. Perhaps the equality issue should be re-examined after each major revision since many moving parts get jostled, every time.

The government is going to have trouble affording the existing subsidy, so it may not endure, particularly at 400% of the current poverty level. But if we can subsidize one plan, we can subsidize the other, instead. The government would then be seen, and given credit for, saving a great deal -- by inducing destitute people to use HSA as an alternative option, equally subsidized by an independent subsidy agency. As for single-payer, the government for fifty years borrowed to continue Medicare deficit financing and got it to 50% universal subsidy without much notice. That's like boiling the frog too gradually to be noticed until it is too late. But suddenly expanding the 50% subsidy to the whole country at once, would definitely be noticed. Extending such levels to the whole country should anyway be buttressed with accurate cost data. Administrative cost savings are just a smoke screen. Total costs are the real cost. Other people also point out Medicare was financed after we had won some wars, but now we seem to be losing wars.

Finding the Sweet Spot

Every tennis racquet has a "sweet spot", a place within the stringed area that hits the ball just exactly right with minimum effort, and for that matter, does so with a minimum of noise. If your aim is good, the shot is much improved by whacking it with the sweet spot. In health savings accounts, the sweet spot is that combination of fixed choices over which you have no control, like your age, and independent choices over which you do have some control, like the amount you deposit into the account, or the shrewdness with which you choose your agent. There's a somewhat different sweet spot for males and females, and it will vary with the state of the stock market, or international warfare, during the era in which you had the highest earning potential. In other words, the cost of sickness is the only chance catastrophe we are aiming to protect against. For that narrow purpose, the uncontrollable factor which makes the most difference is

The age at which you started your spending account. Compound interest requires time to work; persons who start their accounts late in life no longer have to pay for their earlier expenses, but they must have some traditional insurance protection during the transition to full dependence on the account, or else some other form of savings. That's why you need catastrophic insurance coverage, but in the early stages of getting established, even that could be inadequate, and nothing can be offered unless the government offers to subsidize it. In order to find a way to capture twenty extra years of compound interest, it is tempting to begin depositing at birth, which is presently prevented by the HSA rule that you must be working to start an HSA. But children have health costs to be managed. In particular, 3% of all health costs are reported to occur in the first year of life. If Congress will allow it, we have a plan in later sections for doing it expeditiously.

Subsidies for the Unemployable, Such as Children. Please do not compare subsidy with lack of subsidy, because the subsidy is always cheaper in the short run. . Furthermore, subsidies are created by the government, and are therefore under pressure to demonstrate equity. Protection in extreme cases must rely on reasoning which placates the "Equal Protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. All forms of insurance contain some incentive not to invest but to squander, and channeling that choice is part of insurance design. Here it attempts to balance a singular opportunity to select the best possible investment opportunity, with the unique ability to spend the proceeds on anything you choose after your health cost has been met. Unfortunately, we have already gone so far with borrowing for health, that many people are of a mind to believe balance can't be achieved. We could go on with this, but a quick summary is there are thousands of possible sweet spots, most of which are partly beyond anyone's control or ability to predict. There are even some circumstances where an individual would be better off putting reliance on Obamacare, trusting the government to bail him out with subsidies; if the nation decided to give equal subsidies for every payment alternative, however, most of these short-term advantages would disappear. The best we can suggest for people who dislike both HSA and Obamacare is, go see your congressman. In this book, we merely suggest that most people would be better off with HSA.

Trying not to be repetitious, there's nothing you can do about your age and sex, or previous state of health. You should have stopped smoking twenty years ago, but you can't help it now if you didn't. Twelve million people already have HSAs; if you aren't one of them, the best you can do is start one now. It's very difficult to imagine a situation in which a late start would inflict harm which subsidy couldn't help. On the other hand, if you make a bad choice of agency, make sure you are allowed to switch to a better one if you can find it. Some brokers charge too much, some of them pick poor investments to get a kickback. Some demand too large a front-end investment, although that may do you a favor in the long run. Essentially, your own choices affect the result, and your main recourse is to invest more than you planned. For the most part, the more you invest the better. If you invest as much as you can and it still isn't enough, you made an investment mistake. It's only a real catastrophe if you then get sick, and Congress didn't provide for those few who inevitably make such a double blunder. In that case, it will have required three misjudgments for a serious mistake to emerge, because even this mishap will be adjusted by aggregate subsidies costing less than the program is able to diminish overall costs -- a very likely outcome.

Interest Rates. Unless you are within a few years of death, or within a few weeks of a stock market crash, in the long run, you are generally better off with stocks than with bonds or money market funds. According to Ibbotson who published the results of all asset classes for a century, the stock market has averaged 11-12% total return for the past century. However, if you maintain internal reserves against a depression, you will probably only receive about 8% as an investor, of which 3% is due to inflation, so figure on a steady 5% after-tax, after-inflation return over the long haul. Use 8% as your shopping guide, resign yourself to 3% inflation loss, and content yourself with complaining about the 4% attrition seemingly imposed by the financial industry. You will find our charts use 5% tax-free as a standard, but show a family of curves up to 12%, just in case someone figures out a better system for harvesting the return. For 3-5 year depressions ("black swans" occur about every thirty years), we show curves of lower returns. Notice endowments and professional investors also figure on 5% overall from a 60/40 mixture of stocks and bonds, because they have a payroll to meet, but you may not. A conservative investor can feel comfortable with a 5% "spending rule", but that assumes a long horizon and the need to make expenditures. Some people have a short horizon and may be able to gamble on a pure stock portfolio because they have some other way to meet medical expenses up to the deductible on their catastrophic high-deductible insurance. But they better know they are gambling, and may, therefore, encounter a black swan they can't cope with. Such people probably need financial advice, because it is also possible to be too conservative if your deductible is comfortably covered. Fear of underfunding may cause the account to become overfunded, but that is scarcely a tragedy because you can withdraw your money without penalty after age 66. In fact, a policy of deliberately overfunding the account at all times never has any great downside, and lets everyone sleep better.

Age at Beginning an Account. If you begin to use an HSA during late working years, you have the consolation that you no longer need to plan for paying for the first forty or fifty years of your own health. However, the years of heavier medical expenses begin around age 45, by which time you have already paid for most of your Medicare payroll deduction, which is about a quarter of Medicare costs. The older you get, the more you have paid with a payroll deduction, but fewer years are left for compound interest to accumulate within the account. Balanced against this is the likelihood you are entering your highest earning years, which carried too far, may tempt you into unwise early retirement. You may need some accounting advice about what is best and still feasible. And you may need legal advice if the laws change.

Younger working people have contributed less to payroll deductions but have longer to earn compound interest in their HSA. People seem to have figured this out, and the largest group of new subscribers are in their twenties and thirties. This is the group with most to gain by proposing a buy-out of Medicare. A quarter of Medicare is paid for with payroll deductions, another quarter by Medicare premiums after you reach 66. If Congress could be persuaded to drop these contributions, what would be left is the half the government pays by borrowing from foreign sources. If you, in turn, agreed to pay off this indebtedness, the government might be tempted to match it by foregoing part or all of your payroll deductions and premiums. Since one about balances the other, the compound interest you earn on your deposits is pure profit. From the government's viewpoint, it might seem a great relief to know the debt would stop growing. Older people are generally so deeply committed to Medicare they would resist, but younger people -- and the Treasury Department -- would find it quite a bargain. Once again, financial advice from somebody good at math is highly advised. When the politics of this matter settle down, it should become possible to state a particular age, below which a Medicare buy-out is safely advisable for anyone. It's almost always in the Government's favor, so independent advice is only prudent. In summary, starting an HSA at almost any age is safe and wise. A Medicare buy-out is wise below a certain age, yet to be determined. In other circumstances, a buy-out is wise if personal finances are comfortable, but right now it would take financial advice to do it. And, of course, a friendly politician to convince Congress to make it legal.

There are two more steps to this transition. But before getting to them, it seems best to run dual systems while you phase one out and phase the other in. It may even prove to be best to run two systems indefinitely. Three principles emerge:

I. It would be pretty hard to run dual systems without also running subsidies for both. This would be part of Equal Justice Under the Law. It's hard to run dual subsidies until you know what the final rules would be. Some subsidies may be difficult to match, and require equivalent subsidies, which are harder to devise.

II. Dual systems and patchwork fixes always provide loopholes for someone seeking to take advantage. Some agency must be designated to keep this in line, using the principle of each system being charged with watching the other one. When you deal with one-seventh of the GDP, tremendous scams are entirely possible. A system of balanced whistle-blowing could effect great savings without the same surveillance costs.

III It isn't necessary to pay for everything. The reader will, of course, have noticed that paying for all of the medical care would save perfectly stupendous amounts of money. But paying for half of it would also save stupendous amounts. And even paying for only a quarter or a third of everything medical would save the economy two or three percent of Gross Domestic Product. That wouldn't be a failure, it would be a tremendous success. In fact, it might be all the change the economy could withstand for a few years.

The Intergenerational Roll-Over.

The Coming Shift From InPatient to Outpatient Care.

Almost Good Enough

That's the good side of C-HSA. What continued to bother me was it was close to providing lifetime healthcare financing, but without much latitude. Perhaps it would be better to settle for half, or a quarter, which would certainly have plenty of latitude for revenue shortfalls. Better still, perhaps a way could be found to phase it in, but stop when it runs low on money. Because it contained so many little pleasant surprises, however, I decided to press onward to see if others could be found.

Whole-life insurance is more profitable than term insurance, but it requires more capital. {bottom quote}

What emerged were these new ideas:

1. Multi-year policies. To go from a term-insurance model to a whole-life model, using the life insurance approach. This would take advantage of the uptick of the yield curve in compound interest discovered by Aristotle long ago, inflecting at about the forty year mark. And advances in science would provide some extra years of longevity, to take advantage of it.
2. Escrowed Sub-Accounts. Instead of one big balance, it became apparent that some funds were intended for long-term use, and were therefore entitled to different interest rates ( checking account, savings account, investment account), which the account manager would wish to have locked for a given time or purpose (66th birthday, ten-year certain, $10,000 minimum, etc.).
3. No age limitations. Further longevity could be introduced by making HSA a lifetime compounding experience, cradle to grave, but how to fund it remains an issue concentrated on the life alternatives facing those, age 21-66.
4. Birth and death insurance, catastrophic, disability, etc. Exploring the idea of HSA from birth, I came to realize the extra cost of the first year of life was a serious impediment to all pre-funded health schemes, since one can scarcely expect a newborn child to finance a debt of 3% of lifetime costs, in advance. To make matters worse, the same is even true of the 8% of lifetime costs up to age 21. Thinking that one over, I came to see why nobody had ever devised a really adequate scheme for lifetime coverage. Seen in that light, it became clear the consequences justified solutions which might upset ancient viewpoints about a vital and sensitive subject. Whether recent turmoil (about same-sex marriage, unmarried mothers and the like,) would soften resistance or harden it, was just a guess. The result of this thinking was birth-and-death insurance, covering only the first and last years of life. Furthermore, it became easier to contemplate the issue of perpetuities, or inheritance from grandparent to grandchild. The laws already sanction inheritance to 21 years after the birth of the last living descendant, generally adequate for the purposes in mind here. All such special-needs insurance tends to reduce the remaining liability of general-purpose insurance, and typically is not workable unless the two insurers coordinate with each other and keep adequate records of their compacts.
5. Passive Investing and Dis-intermediation.The whole concept of "passive" index investing was borrowed from John Bogle of Vanguard and Burton Malkiel of Princeton. Recent difficulties in the fixed-income market make stocks seem just as safe as bonds to more people, and generally they provide more yield. The historical asset tables of Roger Ibottson of Yale inspired further confidence in the approach. Having absorbed this lesson, the concept of replacing an advisor with a safe deposit box emerged, although custodial accounts are not expensive. This maneuver could shift the "black swan" risk from the agent to the investor, assuming the agent has not shifted it, already. Ownership of common stock may not be entirely perpetual, but partial ownership of an index fund containing a trillion dollars worth of common stocks, certainly does seem perpetual enough for ordinary purposes.
6. Zero-balance protection devices. The potential that someone might figure out a way to game this system had to be considered, in view of the staggering magnitude of this proposed funding system if it caught on. The brake which suggested itself was to force the balances to return to zero at least once in a time period, and possibly many times oftener, if necessary. Offhand, I do not see how this system could be gamed, so the power to impose zero balances at a trigger level of balance, is a credible threat if it impends.
7. Total-market Index funds as a currency standard. One throw-away idea emerges from this analysis. The world economy went off the gold standard some years ago, and since then has adjusted its currency by inflation targeting. In the recent credit crash, however, the Federal Reserve has been unable to reach the 2% goal for some time, for unknown reasons. If the reason for this remains unclear, or if the reason is unsatisfactory, it seems to me the total market index of the nation's common stock would be a superior proxy for re-basing the currency on the national economy. If other nations copied this standard, their central banks could agree on a system of leveraging it between currencies, but the essential fact would remain that each nation's currency was a proxy related to its national economy, ultimately based on the marketplace. That might even restore matters to where they stood before 1913, when the Federal Reserve was created. This certainly would be superior to what some people accuse the Federal Reserve of plotting (expunging our considerable debt to the Chinese by inflating our currency.) As people say, this matter is above my pay grade, but it certainly would have the advantage of stabilizing the medical system, and ultimately the retirement system. The need for protection against bit-coins might be kept in mind. If it prevented entitlements from off-the-books accounting, I would consider index funds as a currency standard, a considerable advance.

The addition of some or all of the above seven or eight features would provide more than enough extra money to fund the entire medical system until such time as it was forced, by scientific advances, to become a retirement fund with a small medical component. We have the rough estimate of $350,000 average lifetime medical cost, but no way at all of judging the average retirement cost, so this concept will have to terminate in fifty years or so, or when the data catches up with the theory. After all, the limit of desirable retirement income is not infinite for everybody, but it is obvious it is infinite for some people.

This synopsis of the additional concepts for Health Savings Accounts concentrates on paying for healthcare with a cash cushion in reserve, so it does not dwell on technicalities, favorable or unfavorable. It does however skip over one theoretical issue of some importance: where does this money come from? Linked to that is the wry observation that it proposes to reduce medical costs by spending gambling money from the stock market. Since people who would say that, show no reluctance to hurt my feelings, let me make a forceful reply.

The designers of the Medicare program in 1965 faced a huge transition problem, too, and nevertheless, plunged ahead in spite of badly underestimated future costs. So, although revenue surfaced in the HSA proposal had been there all along, it was never gathered and put to use -- wasted, let us quietly say. I do not blame Wilbur Cohen or Bill Kissick for making concessions to get it started. There is little else they could do from 1965 to 1975 except adopt a "pay as you go" strategy. But sometime after 1975 that was no longer the case, and the new opportunity was neglected in a befuddled realization that costs were going to escalate rapidly, although hidden from sight. A great many free-loaders were added during the transition, and there was little to do except wait for them to die. So, yes, things were allowed to get worse than they needed to get, but as a nation we happened to be even luckier than we deserved to be, as scientists eliminated dozens of diseases we might have had to pay for. Until the end of that race between costs and revenues had come into sight, it was not possible to guess which one would win.

So now it is our turn to make proposals. We must face similar daunting problems of transition by a partially paid-up constituency, headed into a fully-expanded set of benefits for at least thirty years. Plus a huge and undeclared national debt from borrowing to pay for previous mistakes. I have tried to be generous in my assessment of the 1965 achievement, which was considerable. Let us see whether the opposition party can bring itself to respond generously and without intransigence, however vigorously they may subject the issue to adversary process. It doesn't mean to be a punishment, it means to be a rescue.

Philadelphia Reflections

The musings of a physician who served the community for over six decades

Obituary

George R. Fisher, III, M.D.

Political Parties, Absent and Unmentionable

Correcting the Co-insurance Blunder

Good Ol' Health Savings Accounts

Finding the Sweet Spot

Almost Good Enough