Sunday, August 12, 2012

Fracturing

Eli,

This is a fascinating animated video of hydraulic fracturing. It also shows pretty clearly how ridiculous the vast majority of accusations are that fracking hurts the environment.


Thanks to Mark Perry at Carpe Diem for the link. Carpe Diem is one of my favorite blogs.

Bill


Romney-Ryan

Eli,

I've listened to most of what I want to listen to regarding Ryan. I keep coming back to this: When I heard Ryan was the choice for VP I donated money to the Romney campaign. And when Mrs. Knabe heard, she exclaimed, "YES."

Bill

Thursday, August 9, 2012

Of Course Marginal Tax Rates Impact Prosperity

Eli,

You asked if marginal tax rates impact prosperity. Of course they do.

I'm not sure what the point of your NY Times table is. All it shows is a comparison of tax rates. That doesn't even come close to answering the question of whether there is a connection to prosperity, and I assume you mean a country's prosperity. You imply there can't be much of an impact since Russia has a low 13% top tax rate and lower prosperity than all of the countries in the table. All of the other countries in the table, of course, have higher top tax rates. But clearly there are other factors that result in Russia's relative prosperity and lack of adherence to free markets in goods and labor is in my opinion at the top of the list. I would guess the marginal tax rate in Cuba and North Korea has almost nothing to do with those countries lack of wealth.

Are you asking if a country can be prosperous without rich people, or with fewer rich people or with rich people being less rich? I'm sure it can, but that's not the issue to me. From my perspective it matters what you want to spend the taxes on. If it's high-speed rail, subsidies for Solyndra, farm subsidies and the Ex-Im Bank, I say no.

The other issue to keep in mind is this. Taxes on the wealthy go down dramatically during recessions, mostly because capital gains become capital losses and that portion of their tax bill declines. When marginal rates change so too does the highly controllable amount of income a wealthy person will recognize in capital gains. Does that affect prosperity? I say yes. It reduces the incentive to invest in the latest and greatest. It's another reason growth slows. Growth equals prosperity.

Bill

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Do Marginal Tax Rates Have Anything To Do With Prosperity?

Bill,

I ran across this chart in today's NYT. There doesn't seem to be any relation between the relative health of an economy and its top marginal tax rates. I'm sure that most Americans would be surprised to learn that top earning Canadians are taxed at a lower rate than we are. Russians, whose economy barely reaches 1st world status, are taxed lowest of all. The German and British economies have identical rates but seem headed in opposite directions. The US economy prospered during the Clinton era after taxes were increased and faltered in the wake of the Bush era tax cuts. Is there any reason to believe that tax policy, especially at the margins, will have much of an effect either way?

Eli

26,000 Auxiliary Forest Rangers

Eli,

I enjoyed your paen to hard work and it got me thinking about taxes again. You point to a NY Times story on the fiscal woes of Sicily which contains the interesting factoid there are 26,000 auxiliary forest rangers on the island.

Federal government spending has increased under Obama, in dollars as well as a percent of GDP. This is just a continuation of the trend from George Bush. (Bushbama, let's call them).

Should we raise taxes? No. Not a dime on anyone. Not until we get rid of the equivalent of our auxiliary forest rangers.

Bill

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

What It Means To Work Hard

Bill

I got my first job at 15,  in my Dad's shop. After coming home from the war he went to work in the machine screw business and eventually, in a time honored American tradition, went into competition with his boss. The shop reeked of machine grease ( a smell I still dread), and I spent Tuesday afternoons sweeping floors, sorting bolts and cleaning toilets. In the spring, when I quit a a few weeks before tennis season he followed me out of the shop and told me I'd never amount to much.

Since then its been pretty much the same. Digging ditches at 16, building prefab houses at 18, hauling suitcases at 19, driving a cab to put help put myself through med school at 24. Now it's making sure that the young docs in my lab get their work done and helping then when they don't, or can't. I read 4 times as many tests as any of them, and they are all at least 10 years younger then me. My guess is that you have pretty much the same story to tell.

I don't go on like this to brag. In fact I don't think there's anything special about it. Lots of us work hard our whole lives. Its simply what we know to do. Most of us never get rewarded for it the way you and I have.

That is why the Germans think austerity works. They work hard, and their government promulgates a series of public private partnerships that promote a successful industrial and economic policy.  And they'll be damned if they're going to go on paying  the salaries of 26000 Sicilian forest rangers. 

Eli

Price controls and Obamacare

Eli,

In order to control health costs Obamacare will at some point resort to price controls. We're already seeing that in Massachusetts with Romneycare. The legislature has mandated a certain level of costs and if providers go over that level they'll have to explain themselves to a board of specialists. (Why are so many things in New England still reminiscent of the Puritans: Going in front of the board to explain your behavior?) The board may then roll back prices. 

Price controls will lead to exit by providers, like Medicaid (see below). How this is good for patients and doctors is my standing question to all supporters of the Affordable Care Act.

The article is rather rich. The author seems surprised that lower prices results in lower supply, "States have significant control over their Medicaid programs. They get to decide, for example, how much doctors get paid. That variation in payment rate turns out, in Decker's study, to be pretty important." And when patients see doctors less they see hospitals more, "Prior evidence suggests that physicians' acceptance of Medicaid patients will increase as Medicaid payment rates increase," Decker notes. "Evidence also suggests that this may increase the number of times that a Medicaid patient sees a physician and decrease reliance on hospitals for outpatient care."

Oh well. I guess we have to re-teach every generation the same lesson.

Bill


Study: One-third of doctors wouldn't take new Medicaid patients last year

Sandra Decker, an economist with the Center for Disease Controls, recently poured over the 2011 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, which asks doctors whether they would accept new Medicaid patients.

What she found could spell trouble for the health care law: More than three in ten doctors – 31 percent – said no, they would not.

Her research, published this afternoon in the journal Health Affairs, is the first that has ever given a state-by-state look at doctors' willingness to accept Medicaid. That makes it a helpful report to understand the factors that influence doctors' participation in Medicaid, alongside the public policy levers that could encourage them to join up.

First, let's look at the data: Decker used a survey of 4,326 office-based physicians from across the country to find that 69.4 percent said they were accepting new Medicaid patients. That number was significantly lower than those accepting privately-insured subscribers (81 percent) or Medicare patients (83 percent), indicating that this wasn't just about doctors being overbooked – it was specific to the Medicaid program. The lower acceptance of Medicaid programs also held when Decker broke down doctors by specialists and primary care providers.

The next obvious question was: Why? What was it about the Medicaid program that was turning doctors off? That's where the state-level data comes in handy. States have significant control over their Medicaid programs. They get to decide, for example, how much doctors get paid. That variation in payment rate turns out, in Decker's study, to be pretty important.

Here's the correlation she found between how much a state pays its Medicaid doctors (indexed as a percent of the Medicare reimbursement rate) and the percent of physicians accepting new Medicaid patients:

Decker finds a positive correlation between Medicaid reimbursement rates and how many providers accept Medicare. In Wyoming and Alaska – largely rural states that pay Medicaid providers about 50 percent more than Medicare reimburses – the vast majority of providers accept Medicaid. In New Jersey – where reimbursement is the lowest – only about 30 percent say they'll take new patients.

"Prior evidence suggests that physicians' acceptance of Medicaid patients will increase as Medicaid payment rates increase," Decker notes. "Evidence also suggests that this may increase the number of times that a Medicaid patient sees a physician and decrease reliance on hospitals for outpatient care."

There are a few interesting points to draw from this. The first has to do with what this will mean for the health law's insurance expansion. As Avik Roy pointed out a few weeks ago, states with Democratic governors actually tend to have lower reimbursement rates. Faced with crunched budgets, some have chosen to cut provider payment rather than reduce services.

That could mean that the states with the highest likelihood of expanding Medicaid might be those with the lower reimbursement rates – and fewer doctors willing to accept these patients by proxy. That could prove true in a state like California, where 1.8 million residents are expected to gain coverage – but fewer than 60 percent of providers accept new patients in the program.

It could also speak to the importance of some of the payment increases in the Affordable Care Act. The law increases Medicaid reimbursements for primary care doctors to match those of Medicare providers. That means that everyone on the right side of this chart will move over to the left. And that could entice more providers to participate. Decker estimates using this data set that it would raise the Medicaid participation rate to 78.6 percent, an 8.6 percent increase from where it stood in 2011.

How long it would stay that high, however, isn't clear. The payment bump only lasts for two years – 2013 and 2014, although some interest groups already have their eyes on an extension. It only goes to primary care doctors, meaning that specialty providers will not get any more financial incentives to open up their doors.