Tag Archives: Congressional Budget Office

Musings II: Avik Roy on Health Insurance Reform

12 Friday May 2017

Posted by in Health Care, Obamacare

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

IMG_4209

Vox carried an excellent Dylan Scott interview with Avik Roy this week. Roy is a health care policy expert for whom I have great respect. Among other health care issues, I have quoted him in the recent past on the faulty Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections for Obamacare enrollment, which have consistently overshot actual enrollment. In this interview, Roy explains his current views on the health care insurance reform process and, in particular, the American Health Care Act (AHCA), the bill passed by the House of Representatives last month. The interview provides a good follow-up to my “musings” post on Sacred Cow Chips earlier this week.

Roy provides good explanations of some of the AHCA’s regulatory changes that have merit. These include:

  1. relaxation of Obamacare’s community rating standards, meaning that insurers have more flexibility to charge premia based on age and other risk factors, thus mitigating the pricing distortions caused by cross-subsidies on the individual market;
  2. a rollback in the required minimum actuarial value (AV) of an insurance plan (the ratio of plan-paid medical expenses to total medical expenses);
  3. elimination of federal essential benefits requirements.

Roy provides context for these proposed changes relative to Obamacare. For example, regarding AV, he says:

“[In] the old individual market, prior to Obamacare, the typical actuarial value of a plan was about 40 percent. Obamacare drives that up effectively to 70 percent. That has a corresponding effect on premiums; it makes premiums a lot more expensive. In the AHCA, those actuarial value mandates are repealed. Which should provide a lot more opportunity for plans to design more affordable insurance policies for individuals.“

Even with Obamacare’s high AV requirements, an insurer could make money by virtue of the law’s “risk corridors”, which were intended to cover losses for insurers as they adjusted to the new regulations and as the exchange market matured, but those bailouts were temporary, and development of the exchanges did not go exactly as hoped. Insurers have been ending their participation in the exchange market, leaving even less than the limited choices available under Obamacare and little competition to restrain pricing.

On essential benefits, Roy reminds us that every state has essential benefit regulations of its own. These mandates create an unfortunate obstacle to interstate competition, as I discussed in March in “Benefit Mandates Bar Interstate Competition“. Nevertheless, the federal mandates have created additional complexities and added costs to cover risks that a) are not common to the risk pool, or b) cover benefits that are not risk-related and therefore inappropriate as insurance.

Roy also defends the AHCA’s protection of individuals with pre-existing conditions. One fact often overlooked is that burdening the individual market with coverage of pre-existing conditions made Obamacare less workable from the start, simultaneously driving up premiums and sending insurers for the hills. These risks can and should be handled separately, and the AHCA offers subsidies that should be up to the task:

“… if you look at Obamacare, the mechanisms in Obamacare’s exchanges that served as a way to fund coverage for sick people, they were spending $8 billion a year on that program. If you look at it that way, if $8 billion was enough under Obamacare, then maybe $15 billion a year is enough. I really don’t think that’s the problem with this bill.“

Roy contends that the big weakness in the AHCA is inadequate assistance to the poor in arranging affordable coverage. While highly critical of the CBO’s wild estimate of lost coverage (24 million), he does believe that the AHCA, as it stands, would involve a loss. He favors means-tested subsidies as a way of closing the gap, but acknowledges the incentive problems inherent in means testing. With time and a growing economy, and if the final legislation (and the purported stages 2 and 3 of reform) is successful in reducing the growth of health care costs relative to income, the subsidies would constitute a smaller drain on taxpayers.

As for Medicaid reform, Roy defends the AHCA’s approach:

“You start with the fact that access to care under Medicaid and health outcomes under Medicaid are very poor, far underperforming other health insurance programs and certainly way underperforming private insurance. Why does that problem exist? It exists because states have very little flexibility in how they managed their Medicaid costs. They’re basically not able to do anything to keep Medicaid costs under control, except pay doctors and hospitals less money for the same amount of care. As a result of that, people have poor access. By moving to a system in which you put Medicaid on a clear budget and you give states more flexibility in how they manage their Medicaid costs, you actually can end up with much better access to care and much better coverage.“

One point that deserves reemphasis is that a final plan, should one actually pass in both houses of Congress, will be different from the AHCA. From my perspective, the changes could be more aggressive in terms of deregulation on both the insurance side and in health care delivery. The health care sector has been overwhelmed by compliance costs and incentives for consolidation under Obamacar. Nobody bends cost curves downward by creating monopolies.

I’ve hardly done justice to the points made by Roy in this interview, but do read the whole thing!

Musings On Health Insurance Reform

10 Wednesday May 2017

Posted by in Health Care, Obamacare

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

An acquaintance of mine is a cancer patient who just made the following claim on Facebook: the only people complaining about Obamacare are hypocrites because they don’t have to purchase their health insurance on the exchanges. That might be her experience. It certainly isn’t mine. I know several individuals who purchase their coverage on the exchanges and complain bitterly about Obamacare. But her assertion reveals its own bit of hypocrisy: it’s apparently okay to defend Obamacare if you are a net beneficiary, but you may not complain if you are a net payer. Of course, I would never begrudge this woman the care she needs, but it is possible to arrange for that care without destroying the health care industry and insurance markets in the process. Forgive me for thinking that Obamacare was designed with the cynical intent to do exactly that! Well, at least insurance markets. The damage to the health care industry was brought on by simple buffoonery and rent seeking.

Depending on developments in Congress over the next few months (3? 6? 9?), Obamacare could be a thing of the past. We’ve all probably heard hyperbolic claims that the new health care bill “will kill people”, which is another absurdity given the law’s dislocations. That was the subject of “Death By Obamacare“, posted in January on Sacred Cow Chips. AHCA detractors base their accusations of murderous intent on a fictitious notion of reduced access to care under the plan, as well as a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report that viewed the future of Obamacare through rose-colored glasses. I discussed the CBO report at greater length in “The CBO’s Obamacare Fantasy Forecast“.

Before anyone gets too excited about what they like or dislike about the health care bill passed by the House of Representatives last week, remember that a final health care bill, should one actually get through Congress, is unlikely to bear a close resemblance to the House bill. The next step will be the drafting of a Senate bill, which might be assembled from parts of the House’s American Health Care Act (AHCA) and other ideas, or it might take a different form. It could take a while. Then, the House and Senate will attempt to shape a compromise in conference committee and bring it to a vote in both houses. President Trump, looking for a “win”, is likely to sign whatever gets through, even if he has to bargain with democrats to win votes.

So relax! If your legislators are democrats, tell them to participate in the shaping of new policies, rather than throwing petulant barbs from the sidelines. First, of course,  you’ll have to face up to the fact that Obamacare is a failed policy.

Another recent post on Sacred Cow Chips, “Cleaving the Health Care Knot… Or Not“, covered some of the most important provisions of the AHCA. By the time of the vote, a few new provisions had been added to the House bill. The McArthur Amendment allows states to waive the Obamacare essential benefits requirements. Fewer mandated benefits would allow insurance companies to offer simpler policies covering truly insurable health care events, as opposed to predictable health maintenance costs. Let’s face it: if you must have insurance coverage for your annual checkup, then it is not really insurance against risk; either the premium or the deductible must rise to cover the expenses, ceteris paribus.

The other change in the AHCA is an additional $8 billion dollars allocated to state high-risk pools for pre-existing conditions, for a total of $138 billion. These risks are too high to blend with standard risks in a well-functioning insurance market. (In a perfect insurance market, there would be no cross-subsidies between groups on an ex ante basis.) As a separate risk pool, these high-risk individuals would face very high premia, so the idea is to allow states the latitude to subsidize their health care costs in ways they see fit. This is a federalist approach to the problem of subsidizing coverage for pre-existing conditions, and it has the advantage of restoring the ability of insurers to underwrite standard risks at reasonable rates, correcting one of Obamacare’s downfalls. However, some GOP senators are advocating a combination of standard risks and those with pre-existing conditions, which obviously distorts the efficient pricing of risk and exaggerates the need for broader subsidies.

And what about the uninsured poor? A major focus of health care insurance reform, now and in the past, has been to find a way for the poor to afford coverage. Obamacare fell far short of its goals in this respect, as any enthusiasm for subsidized (though high) premia was dampened by shockingly high deductibles. This week, Tyler Cowan reported on some research suggesting that low-income individuals place a low value on insurance. Their responsiveness to subsidies is so low that few are persuaded to pay anything close to the premium required. Cowan quotes the authors as saying that even 90% subsidies for these individuals would leave about 25% of this population unwilling to pay for the balance. Cowen quotes the study’s authors:

“‘We conclude that the size of uncompensated care for low-income populations provides a plausible explanation for their low [willingness-to-pay].’ In other words, many of the poor do not value health insurance nearly as much as many planners feel they ought to, in large part because they are already getting some health care.“

This has several implications. First, these individuals are not without health care, regardless of their coverage status. One of the great misapprehensions among Obamacare supporters is that the poor had no access to care before the law’s passage. Never mind that emergency room utilization is still quite high. Uninsured individuals can go to a public hospital and get treatment in the emergency room and get admitted if that is deemed medically necessary. If the illness causes a loss of income, the individual might qualify for Medicaid if they hadn’t before, and Medicaid has no exclusion for pre-existing conditions. In fact, I’m told the hospital staff might even help you apply right there at the hospital! So who needs insurance before a health crisis?

Many of the poor have continued to do what they did before: go without coverage. Obamacare’s complex system of subsidies is almost beside the point, as is almost any other effort to sign up everyone prior to the onset of major health care needs. Eventual enrollment in Medicaid will pay some of the hospital bills, though it’s true that not all can qualify for the program. Either way, the hospital will swallow a share of the cost — that is, the taxpayer will. Providers would rather not rely on low Medicaid reimbursement rates or perform charity work. This coalition will grapple with the failure of many low-income individuals to arrive at their emergency room doors with coverage as long as we rely on direct subsidies as an inducement to purchase insurance. Unfortunately, a policy offering a separate guarantee of financial health for providers would create another set of awful incentives.

The unfortunate truth is that Medicaid is unsustainable at current funding levels. The AHCA would convert the federal share of the program to one of block grants to states, wnich have always managed the program under federal mandates. The AHCA would free the states to manage the program more flexibly, but caps on the grants would create pressure to manage costs. It is not yet clear whether the Senate will offer a different approach to Medicaid reform, but it was the primary driver of increased health care coverage under Obamacare.

Finally, there are certain individuals with higher incomes who can afford to pay for coverage but prefer to freeload. Those who experience catastrophic health problems will be a burden to others, not necessarily through distortions in insurance pricing, but via taxes and deficits. To an extent, the situation is a classic problem of the commons. In this case, the “commons” is an invention of government and the presumed “right to health care”: there is no solution to the freeloader problem faced by taxpayers short of denying the existence of that right to those who can afford catastrophic coverage but would refuse to pay. Only then would the burdens be internalized to the cost-causes. Charity can and should go partway to relieving individuals of the consequences of their bad decisions, but EMS will still arrive if called, providers will render care, and a chunk of the costs will be on the public dime.

 

The CBO’s Obamacare Fantasy Forecast

28 Tuesday Mar 2017

Posted by in Health Care, Obamacare

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is still predicting strong future growth in the number of insured individuals under Obamacare, despite their past, drastic over-predictions for the exchange market and slim chances that the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid will be adopted by additional states. Now that Republican leaders have backed away from an unpopular health care plan they’d hoped would pass the House and meet the Senate’s budget reconciliation rules, it will be interesting to see how the CBO’s predictions pan out. The “decremental” forecasts it made for the erstwhile American Health Care Act (AHCA) were based on its current Obamacare “baseline”. A figure cited often by critics of the GOP plan was that 24 million fewer individuals would be insured by 2026 than under the baseline.

It was fascinating to see many supporters of the AHCA accept this “forecast” uncritically. With the AHCA’s failure, however, we’ve been given an opportunity to witness the distortion in what would have been a CBO counterfactual. What a wonderful life! We’re stuck with Obamacare for the time being, but this glimpse into the CBO’s delusions will be one of several silver linings for me.

Again, the projected 24 million loss in the number of insured under the AHCA was based on an actual predicted loss of about 5 – 6 million and the absence of an Obamacare gain of 18 – 19 million. Those figures are from an excellent piece by Avik Roy in Forbes. I drew on that article extensively in my post on the AHCA prior to its demise. Here are some key points I raised then, which I’ve reworded slightly to put more emphasis on the Obamacare forecasts:

  1. The CBO has repeatedly erred by a large margin in its forecasts of Obamacare exchange enrollment, overestimating 2016 enrollment by over 100% as recently as 2014.
  2. The AHCA changes relative to Obamacare were taken from CBO’s 2016 forecast, which is likely to over-predict Obamacare enrollment on the exchanges by at least 7 million, according to Roy.
  3. The CBO also assumes that all states will opt to participate in expanded Medicaid under Obamacare going forward. That is highly unlikely, and Roy estimates its impact on the CBO’s forecast at about 3 million individuals.
  4. The CBO believes that the Obamacare individual mandate has encouraged millions to opt for insurance. Roy says that assumption accounts for as much as 9 million of total enrollment across the individual and employer markets, as well as Medicaid.

Thus, Roy believes the CBO’s estimate of the coverage loss of 24 million individuals under the AHCA was too high by about 19 million!

In truth, Obamacare will be watered down by regulatory and other changes instituted by the Trump Administration, which has said it will not enforce Obamacare’s individual mandate. Coverage under the “new” Obamacare will devolve quickly if the CBO is correct about the impact of the individual mandate.

The CBO’s job is to “score” proposed legislation relative to current law; traditionally, it made no attempt to account for dynamic effects that might arise from the changed incentives under a law. The results show it, and the Obamacare projections are no exception. In the case of Obamacare, however,  the CBO seems to have applied certain incentive effects selectively. The supporters of the AHCA might have helped their case by focusing on the flaws in the CBO’s baseline assumptions. We should keep that in mind in the future with respect to any future health care legislation, not to mention tax reform!

 

 

 

 

 

Cleaving the Health Care Knot… Or Not

18 Saturday Mar 2017

Posted by in Health Care, Obamacare

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

IMG_3957

Republican leadership has succeeded in making their health care reform plans in 2017 even more confusing than the ill-fated reforms enacted by Congress and signed by President Obama in 2010. A three-phase process has been outlined by Republican leaders in both houses after the initial rollout of the American Health Care Act (AHCA), now billed as “Phase 1”. The AHCA was greeted with little enthusiasm by the GOP faithful, however.

As a strictly political matter, there is a certain logic to the intent of “three-phase plan”: limiting the provisions of the AHCA to issues having an impact on the federal budget. That would allow the bill to be addressed under “budget reconciliation” rules requiring only 51 votes for passage in the Senate. Phase 2 would involve regulatory rule-making, or rule-rescinding, as the case may be. The putative Phase 3 would require additional legislation to address such unfinished business as allowing health insurance competition across state lines, eliminating anti-trust protection for insurers, and medical tort reform. How the sponsors will get 60 Senate votes for Phase 3 reforms is an unanswered question.

Legislative Priorities

Yuval Levin wrote a great analysis of the AHCA last week In which he described the structure of the House bill as a paranoid reaction to the demands of an “imaginary parliamentarian”. By that he means that the reforms in the bill conform to a rigid and potentially flawed interpretation of Senate budget reconciliation rules. Levin’s view is that the House should not twist itself up over what might be negotiated prior to a Senate vote. In other words, the House should concern itself at this stage with passing a bill that at least makes sense as reform, without bowing to any of the awful legacy provisions in Obamacare.

Medicaid reform is one piece of the proposed legislation and is reasonably straightforward. It imposes caps on federal funding to states after 2020, but it grants more flexibility to the states in managing the program. It also involves a tradeoff by allowing Medicaid funding to increase over the first few years, in line with the expansion under Obamacare, in exchange for capped growth later. The expectation is that long-term costs of the program will be reduced through a combination of the caps and better management at the state level.

The more complex aspects of the AHCA attempt to effect changes in the individual market. Levin offers a good perspective on these measures. First, he describes the general character of earlier Republican reform proposals from which the AHCA descends:

“Those various proposals all involved bringing premium costs down by enabling insurers to sell catastrophic coverage plans (along with more comprehensive plans) and enabling everyone in the individual market to afford at least those catastrophic coverage plans. This would enable far greater competition and let anyone not otherwise covered by insurance enter the individual market as a consumer.  …

The House proposal bears a clear resemblance to this approach. It involves some deregulation from Obamacare, it includes a refundable tax credit for coverage, it gestures toward incentives for continuous coverage. But it is also fundamentally different from this approach, because it functions within the core insurance rules established by Obamacare, which means it can’t really achieve most of the key aims of the conservative reforms it is modeled on.”

The rules established by Obamacare to which Levin refers include the form of community rating, which is merely loosened somewhat by the AHCA. However, the AHCA would impose a 30% penalty for those who fail to enroll while still healthy. This is a poorly designed incentive meant to substitute for Obamacare’s individual mandate, and it is likely to backfire. Levin is clear that this feature could have been avoided by scrapping the old rules and introducing a new form of community rating available only to the continuously insured.

The AHCA also fails to cap the tax benefits of employer-provided coverage, which retains a potential imbalance between the incentives for employer versus individual coverage. Levin believes, however, that some of these shortcomings can be fixed through a negotiation process in either the House or the Senate, if and when the bill goes there.

The CBO’s Report

As it is, the bill was “scored” by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) with results that are widely viewed as unsatisfactory. The CBO’s report states that the AHCA would reduce the federal budget deficit, but the ugly headline is that relative to Obamacare, it woud cause 24 million people to lose their coverage by 2024. That number is drastically inflated, as Avik Roy demonstrated in his Forbes column this week. Here are the issues laid out by Roy:

  1. The CBO has repeatedly erred by a large margin in its forecasts of Obamacare exchange enrollment, overestimating 2016 enrollment by over 100% as recently as 2014.
  2. The AHCA changes relative to Obamacare are taken from CBO’s 2016 forecast, which still appears to over-predict Obamacare enrollment substantially. Roy estimates that this difference alone would shave at least 7 million off the 24 million loss of coverage quoted by the CBO.
  3. The CBO also assumes that all states will opt to participate in expanded Medicaid going forward. That is highly unlikely, and it inflates CBO’s estimate of the AHCA’s negative impact on coverage by another 3 million individuals, according to Roy.
  4. Going forward, the CBO expects the Obamacare individual mandate to encourage millions more to opt for insurance than would under the AHCA. Roy estimates that this assumptions adds as much as 9 million to the CBO’s estimate of lost coverage across the individual and employer markets, as well as Medicaid.

Thus, Roy believes the CBO’s estimate of lost coverage for 24 million individuals is too high by about 19 million! And remember, these hypothetical losses are voluntary to the extent that individuals refuse to avail themselves of AHCA tax credits to purchase catastrophic coverage, or to enroll in Medicaid. The latter will be no less generous under the AHCA than it is today. The tax credits are refundable, which means that you qualify regardless of your pre-credit tax liability.

Fixes

Despite Roy’s initial skepticism about the AHCA, he thinks it can be fixed, in part by means-testing the tax credits, rather than the flat credit in the bill. He also believes the transition away from the individual mandate should be more gradual, allowing more time for markets to being premiums down, but I find this position rather puzzling given Roy’s skepticism that the mandate has a strong impact on enrollment. Perhaps gradualism would convince the CBO to score the bill more favorably, but that’s a bad reason to make such a change.

It’s impossible to say how the bill will evolve, but certainly improvements can be made. It is also impossible to know whether Phases 2 and 3 will ultimately bring a more complete set of cost-reducing regulatory and competitive reforms. Phase 3, of course, is a political wild card.

Michael Tanner notes a few other advantages to the AHCA. Even the CBO says the cost of health insurance would fall, and the AHCA will bring greater choice to the individual market. It also promises over $1 trillion in tax cuts and lower federal deficits.

Alternatives

The GOP faced alternatives that should have received more consideration, but those alternatives might not be politically viable at this point. Some of them contain features that might be negotiated into the final legislation. Rand Paul’s plan has not attracted many advocates. Paul took the courageous position that there should be no entitlements in a reform plan (i.e., subsidies); instead, he insisted, with liberalized market forces, premium costs would decline sufficiently to allow affordable coverage to be purchased by a broad cross-section of Americans. Paul is obviously unhappy about the widespread support in the GOP for refundable tax credits as a replacement for existing Obamacare subsidies.

John C. Goodman has advocated a much simpler solution: take every federal penny now dedicated to health care and insurance subsidies, including every penny of taxes now avoided via tax deductions on employer-provided coverage, and pay it out to households as a tax credit contingent on the purchase of health insurance or health care expenses. This is essentially the plan put forward by Rep. Pete Sessions and Sen. Bill Cassidy in the Patient Freedom Act, described here. While I admire the simplicity of one program to replace the existing complexities in the federal funding of health care coverage, my objection is that a health care “dividend” of this nature resembles the flat tax credit in the AHCA. Neither is means-tested, amounting to a “Universal Basic Health Insurance Benefit”. Regular readers will recall my recent criticism of the Universal Basic Income, which is the sort of program that smacks of “universal state dependency”. But let’s face it: we’re already in a state of federal health care dependency. In this case, there is no incremental cost to taxpayers because the credit would replace existing outlays and tax expenditures. In that sense, it would eliminate many of the distortions currently embedded in federal health care policy.

A more drastic approach, at this point, is to simply repeal Obamacare, perhaps with a lengthy phase-out, and attempt to replace it later in the hope that support will coalesce around a reasonable set of measures leveraging market forces, and with accommodations for high-risk individuals and the economically disadvantaged. Michael Cannon writes that CBO estimated a simple repeal would increase the number of uninsured by 23 million over ten years, slightly less than the 24 million estimate for the AHCA! Of course, neither of these estimates is likely to be remotely accurate, as both are distorted by the CBO’s rosy assumptions about the future of Obamacare.

Where To Go?

Tanner reminds us that the real alternative to Republican legislation, whatever form it might take, is not a health care utopia. It is Obamacare, and it is collapsing. That plan cannot be effectively reformed with additional subsidies for insurers and consumers, or we’d find ourselves in a continuing premium spiral. The needed reforms to Obamacare would resemble changes contemplated in some of the GOP proposals. While I cannot endorse that AHCA legislation in its current form, or as a standalone reform, I believe it can be improved, and the later phases of reform we are told to anticipate might ultimately vindicate the approach taken by GOP leadership. I am most skeptical about the promise of subsequent legislation in Phase 3. I’ll have to keep my fingers crossed that by then, the path to additional reforms will be more attractive to democrats.

Dynamism and Punishment

20 Wednesday Apr 2016

Posted by in Income Distribution, Taxes

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

 

econ

The “squeeze” on the U.S. middle class is a fiction. If you don’t believe it, take a look at the “gif” above. It first appeared in The Financial Times (FT) with a misleading description about how “…technological change and globalization drive a wedge between the winners and losers in a splintering US society.” It’s obvious that the middle class, as statically defined by the FT, is shrinking only because it is moving up to higher real income levels (i.e., adjusted for inflation). Mark Perry uses this and other supporting charts in noting that “…so many middle-income households have become better off“. Some of these gains are related to an aging population, but the gains are not remotely consistent with FT’s dramatization. One point of emphasis that the chart should make obvious, but doesn’t quite, is that groups appearing to remain within a particular income range over time are never comprised of the same individuals. There is always movement up and down across all of these groups from year-to-year.

There is a stagnation story here, but it’s more limited than suggested by FT’s narrative. It is twofold: first, the financial crisis in 2007-2009 put a temporary stop to the upward income migration, and its resumption during the Obama presidency has been less robust; second, the very lowest-income segment, $0 – $10,000 of annual income, has expanded in each time interval shown since 1991, from just above 1% of adults to roughly 2.5%. A primary reason for the tepid growth of the U.S. economy since the recession’s trough in 2009, and the weaker migration, has been weak physical investment in the productive economy from its recession lows. That form of spending usually takes a lead role in economic recoveries. A number of observers have attributed the poor performance this time around to “regime uncertainty“, or the risk that regulatory and tax regimes could take an even more destructive toll in the future, essentially devouring returns to capital. As for the increases in the lowest-income sliver of the chart, Scott Sumner says:

“It could be due to expansion of the welfare state, the break-up of the traditional family, or perhaps growth in the underground economy. Nonetheless, it is cause for concern. But it has nothing to do with the mythical decline in the ‘middle class.’“

A related fiction is that the U.S. tax system is unfair to the middle class, and that higher income groups do not pay their “fair share”. This is put to rest in an “Issue Brief” from the Peter G. Peterson Foundation (PPF), using data from the Tax Policy Center and the Congressional Budget Office. The analysis shows that while high-income taxpayers benefit from tax breaks, those breaks offset high marginal tax rates and do not diminish the fact that the tax system is highly progressive:

“The Tax Policy Center estimates that 69 percent of taxes collected in 2015 will come from those in the top quintile, or those earning an income above $138,265 annually. Within this group, the top one percent of income earners — those earning more than $709,166 in income per year — will contribute over a quarter of all federal revenues collected.“

Apparently, the PPF analysis does not account for the impact of transfer payments on progressivity, which make average effective tax rates negative at low income levels. However, PPF does acknowledge that the tax system is unnecessarily complex and creates a web of distortions and poor incentives that limit economic growth. It’s a wonder that the dynamic of upward migration in real income was possible at all.

 

The Inhumane Minimum Wage Fantasy

22 Monday Feb 2016

Posted by in Minimum Wage, Poverty

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

min-wage ball n chain

An analysis by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) is the basis for breathless claims by the Left that a substantial increase in the minimum wage would have “sweeping benefits for low-income families.” The EPI study purports to show that spending on public assistance will decline significantly with the increase in the minimum wage. Author David Cooper’s analysis is purely static, dressed up with a few linear regression equations relating participation in federal welfare programs to the wage distribution. However, his conclusion is preordained by the very design of the analysis, which relies on pooled data from public assistance programs across 2012 – 2014. This was a period over which wages were generally rising, but the federal minimum wage was constant (and only a few state minimum wages were increased).

It’s no surprise that higher wages are associated with a reduced likelihood of receiving needs-based public assistance in a cross section. That’s not quite the same as measuring the dynamic impact of an increase in the minimum wage. The adjustment to a higher wage floor involves more complex shifts in the structure of the economy, including higher prices, a higher incidence of small business failure and the substitution of automated systems for labor. And celebration would not be in order if the policy change prompted a deterioration in the employment prospects of the least-skilled workers, and it would.

There are a few gaping holes in the EPI analysis. One involves a data limitation whereby the distribution of public assistance by wage decile is related to individual workers or their families. It is one thing to say that most recipients of public assistance work for a living. It is quite another to say “Most recipients of public assistance work or have a family member who works.” Obviously, the latter does not imply the former, yet the analysis asks you to accept that the wage rates of family members who perform work during a year are the determining factor in welfare program participation, rather than the employment status and hours of all members of the household.

The analysis includes cross-sectional regressions relating the receipt of public assistance (yes or no) to wages imputed at the individual level, controlling for a complex function of age (polynomial terms), other demographic factors and part-time work status during the previous year. As stated above, the data are plagued by measurement issues. Furthermore (and this is a technical critique), linear regression is not an appropriate statistical methodology with a binary dependent variable. The author should have known better, but we’ll leave that aside.

Controlling for part-time status is intended to create a more reliable estimate of the effect of wages on program participation, as part-timers are more likely to earn low wage rates. But if hours matter in that way, then the regression is all the more suspect because hours of work are otherwise ignored (except in the imputation of wage rates).

The truth is that poverty is not a wage problem as much as a jobs and hours problem. A recent post by Angela Rachidi  of the American Enterprise Institute notes that “Only 11.7% of poor working-age adults worked full-time for the entire year in 2014.” Impoverished individuals who work full or part-time are concentrated in low-skilled occupations. Those are likely to be the same kinds of jobs for which impoverished non-workers might otherwise compete. Many of those jobs are at or near the minimum wage, but increasing the wage floor will only exacerbate the problem of unemployment or underemployment.

An increase in the minimum wage might help those workers who are able to keep their jobs. Unfortunately, if they remain employed, they are likely to suffer non-wage repercussions at their jobs. Therefore, the size of the net economic gain for those lucky enough to keep their jobs is open to question, though their measured income will rise. Still, keeping your job may be a big challenge.

The EPI analysis pays no heed to the negative employment effects of changes in the minimum wage. These stem from  employers’ efforts to control costs, hiring only when the skills and expected productivity of a worker exceed the cost. Growth and job opportunities are thus quashed by the intervention, including the gain in skills that comes with experience. If a business hikes price to defray higher labor costs, the negative impact on customers will induce them to buy less, reducing the need for labor. Another possible impact may be caused by the so-called “welfare cliff“, or the tendency of many program benefits to decline as income rises, which imposes a marginal tax rate on beneficiaries’ labor income. A higher wage floor might induce a worker to reduce hours to avoid the cliff, if their employer allows it, or it might induce another employed member of the same household to reduce hours.

Here is the extent of EPI’s treatment of the negative employment effects of a higher minimum wage, quoting the Congressional Budget Office (CBO):

“CBO predicts that federal expenses would initially go down, but could later increase if the higher minimum wage has a significant negative effect on employment. On net, they conclude that ‘it is unclear whether the effect for the coming decade as a whole would be a small increase or a small decrease in budget deficits.’ It is important to note that the CBO’s ambiguity on this point is driven by their atypically high estimates of the probability of significant employment loss stemming from such an increase. If employment loss is insignificant (as most research on a minimum-wage increase of this magnitude indicates), the budget savings would surely dominate.” [Emphasis added]

The parenthetical, bolded statement is offered by Cooper without any support whatsoever, and it is incorrect. First, the evidence that the wage floor has negative employment effects “has been piling up” of late. “Living wage” advocates should not be encouraged by the recent experience of six large cities that have increased their minimum wages. Here is further information on the District of Columbia and WalMart’s reaction to a recent wage hike. The long-run effects of minimum wages are the most destructive, according to a recent paper authored by David Neumark and Olena Nizalova:

“The evidence indicates that even as individuals reach their late 20’s, they earn less and perhaps work less the longer they were exposed to a higher minimum wage at younger ages. The adverse longer-run effects of facing high minimum wages at young ages are stronger for blacks. From a policy perspective, these longer-run effects of minimum wages are likely more significant than the contemporaneous effects of minimum wages on youths that are the focus of most research and policy debate.“

Other recent work shows that minimum wage increases during the Great Recession increased unemployment among workers age 16 – 30 with less than a high-school education. Another paper finds that minimum wage hikes are bad anti-poverty measures, poorly targeted and regressive in their effects on the poor due to higher prices. A couple of previous posts on Sacred Cow Chips include many links to other work on minimum wages: “Major Mistake: The Minimum Opportunity Wage“, and “Unintended Consequences: Living (Without a) Wage“. Today, many jobs are at risk of automation, so the responsiveness of employers might be greater than ever.

In a strong sense, EPI’s findings and conclusion are beside the point for the many low-skilled workers whose jobs would be at risk, as well as those who might never be given legitimate employment opportunities under a higher wage floor. Those erstwhile workers and job seekers are generally the least skilled and most in need of experience. But EPI, and unthinking living wage advocates, are all too eager to signal the humanity and virtue of their favored policies, foolishly ignoring the negative and inhumane employment consequences.

Reform Not? Play Social Security Slots

25 Sunday Oct 2015

Posted by in Social Security

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

social-security slot

Social Security does not provide future retirees with a safe “return” on taxes paid into the system on their behalf, given the program’s funding problems. It’s not even clear that it provides a decent return to many current retirees, and it will get worse as younger age cohorts become eligible. Demographic changes worked in the system’s favor in its early years, but no more: the number of eligible retirees is growing faster than the working-age population. This has led to cash flow deficits since 2010 that will widen in the years ahead. The unfunded liabilities of the system are currently estimated to be $26 trillion. The so-called “Trust Fund” for retirement holds about about $2.8 trillion of government securities, but those can’t be “cashed out” without a raid on general tax revenue or new borrowing by the Treasury.

Michael Tanner reveals the absurdity of some of the myths surrounding SS, such as claims that there is “no crisis” (and even more absurdly, that benefits should be expanded), that the Trust Fund will “save” the system, and that SS payroll taxes are “saved” for retirees. They are not saved; it is a “pay-as-you-go” system with current payroll tax collections paid out to today’s retirees. Here is Tanner on the woeful state of the system’s finances:

“According to projections by the Congressional Budget Office, for workers born in the 1980s, there are only enough funds to pay 76 percent of their schedule benefits; for today’s children born in the 2000s, this falls to 69 percent. And, taxes are already so high relative to benefits that young people will receive far less than they could receive if they invested their taxes privately.“

Measuring the return on Social Security (SS) payroll taxes (otherwise known as FICA) is not without controversy. The Social Security Administration (SSA) performs its own analyses of the returns on payroll taxes periodically. They analyze individuals at different income levels for each of four circumstances: single men, single women, one-earner couples and two-earner couples. They do so under different scenarios about future payroll taxes and benefits. The benefits include cost-of-living adjustments. These calculations show that today’s younger workers, singles and high-income workers can expect to receive the lowest returns. According to the most recent report, from December 2014, annual rates of return for those not yet drawing benefits under present law varies from less than 1% to 6.5%. Of course, the promised benefits are not sustainable under present law.

Reforms are not optional, as the program cannot run a deficit under its current authority once the Trust Fund is exhausted. SSA attempts to analyze steps that might close the gap and the impact of those changes on returns to retirees. One scenario involves higher payroll taxes and another lower benefits. These changes reduce the calculated returns in all cases, though even the lowest returns remain positive, if barely. These alternative scenarios involve no changes until 2033, however.

At the time of the SSA report, the most recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicted that the SS Trust Fund would be exhausted in 2033. More recently, the CBO predicted that the fund will run dry in 2029. (The Disability Trust Fund is projected to run dry in 2017.) Therefore, the returns calculated by SSA under the alternative scenarios are over-estimates, since more drastic and earlier measures are required to restore balance. It’s likely that some of those returns would turn negative using SSA’s methodology. And it’s not unreasonable to suggest that reforms, whatever shape they might take, should be implemented sooner than 2029. After all, the need for reforms is well known, and we’re talking about it now! As for the SSA’s alternative scenarios, changes much sooner than 2033 would cause even lower returns.

While the SSA’s effort to provide the estimates is laudable, there are several aspects of the methodology that are questionable. SSA claims that the returns are real (inflation-adjusted) internal rates of return (IRRs), but they do not offer a detailed explanation of the inflation adjustment that must take place after calculating the nominal IRR. Using projected cost-of-living increases to inflate future benefits does not make the calculated IRRs “real”, if that’s what they have in mind. Second, the cost-of-living adjuster is the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners, which underestimates inflation experienced by the elderly. Third, they do not attempt to account for the probability of death before retirement, which would obviously reduce the return on contributions for single earners.

The “present-law” returns are essentially irrelevant, given the unfunded projected benefits. But the calculations under the alternative scenarios fail on other grounds: they are not “dynamic” in terms of adjusting for the economic impacts of the policy changes. In particular, higher payroll taxes are likely to reduce employment and slow the economy. A slowdown might even lead to additional claims on the system from earlier-than expected retirements. Thus, the higher payroll tax rates used by SSA will not be sufficient to close the gap. Likewise, reduced benefits would have a negative impact on the economy, reducing payroll tax collections. In both cases, dynamic economic effects would cause a wider funding gap; closing it will reduce returns more than suggested by SSA’s calculations.

An analysis by the Urban Institute in 2012 made somewhat arbitrary assumptions about rates of return. They used a 2% real rate of return to compound past contributions and discount future benefits (presumably with no cost-of-living adjustment). Under their assumptions, the value of payroll tax contributions at retirement often exceeds the discounted value of SS benefits for age cohorts turning 65 in 2010 and 2030. That implies that the real IRR must be lower than 2%.

As a hypothetical exercise, if individuals could invest their own payroll contributions over their working lives, significantly better returns could be earned than the IRRs discussed above, even if workers were forced into low-risk investments as they approach retirement. Therefore, the implied value of payroll contributions at retirement inherent in the IRR calculations is far too low. And while the discounting of retirement benefits at a relatively low rate reflects an appropriate conservatism, the level of SS benefits would not be competitive with the dollar returns on safe investments funded by a larger pot at retirement. The IRR calculations show only that the SS program is about as good as stuffing money into a mattress.

Unfortunately, the mattress might burn. The risks inherent in future SS benefits are substantial, and none of the reform alternatives are very popular. Some of the opposition is rooted in unreasonable criticism: No one has suggested programatic changes that would affect the benefits of anyone over the age of 55. Still, cuts in benefits for future retirees, delayed eligibility and higher payroll taxes are not easy sells. Another solution is to phase out the pay-as-you-go system, allowing younger workers the option of a a self-directed account (subject to certain restrictions), including a discounted “cash value” credit as a buyout for previous contributions. This was discussed in a recent post on Sacred Cow Chips.

Social Security is unsustainable and is an inter-generational rip-off in its current, pay-as-you-go form, as younger, less affluent workers subsidize current retirees, who are relatively wealthy as a class. Rather than shutting-down debate over reforms with exaggerated political claims, those interested in assuring a viable public retirement program should consider proposals that would give workers more choice and control, taking advantage of the higher returns available on private investments. Only this type of program can take advantage of the economy’s ability to convert savings into productive investment and real growth. Simple transfers from young to old do not leverage this process, and can never hope to compete with it.