On the Moral Superiority of a Single-Payer System

David DeGrazia has sketched out a health reform proposal that combines the monopsony purchasing power of a single public payer with managed competition among health plans and implicitly among providers, alone or in groups. The proposal differs from the archetypal "Medicare fee-for-service for all" model in creative ways, and indeed it is developed to address some of the standard fears about whether a single-payer system squelches choice and incentives for innovation. But DeGrazia's truly novel claim is that this version of single payer is the "most morally defensible reform model." That is a strong statement, and difficult to prove or disprove, not least because the paper does not argue that the features and predicted outcomes of the model are consistent with any particular theory of distributive justice or any other moral yardstick, scriptural or secular. Rather, the paper essentially argues that a single-payer system with managed competition would do a better job, on balance, of achieving the widely accepted goals of universal coverage, containing costs, protecting patient freedom, and delivering high quality care. I consider each in turn. The author agrees that most of the plans discussed by Democratic presidential candidates represent mixed models of individual plus shared responsibility among employers and government. He also agrees that with purchase mandates, adequate subsidies, and market reforms, universal coverage could be attained through some of the mixed models. Thus, universal coverage is not the reason reform plans differ in moral impact. Ability to control cost is the main reason for asserting that a single-payer system with managed competition is morally superior. Cost control is morally important because savings permit us to cover more people with less personal and collective sacrifice. In other words, cost control (while holding quality constant or even improving it) is equivalent to exercising appropriate stewardship over our collective health system's resources. No one disputes that the current U.S. health care system has not controlled costs. And little doubt exists that archetypal single-payer systems would lower administrative costs--of insurers, by ending underwriting, marketing activities, and the need for profit, and of patients and providers, by dispensing with co-payments and multiple billing and coding forms, respectively. A single-payer system with managed care, however, could end up very near where we are today, especially if health plans are allowed to impose cost-sharing to reduce moral hazard, as the model as outlined seems to permit. seems to permit. Thus, the power of the argument hangs on whether a single payer with managed competition would control delivery system cost growth over time better than any other reform model. Since virtually all the Democratic plans would utilize some more or less aggressive form of managed competition among health plans and implicitly among providers, the claim about superior cost control must have to do with the single-payer aspect of the proposal--with the monopsony power of the government in specifying the conditions and price of health plan participation. Indeed, DeGrazia rules out charging premiums to people (they would get a voucher good for basic coverage from any insurer), so health plans are forced to compete based on their demonstrable quality and service to enrollees. Since the government buyer can dictate what services will be covered, superior cost performance would be guaranteed if unproductive variation in medical practice could be eliminated and if technical advances offering little clinical value added were not approved for future use. But this is exactly what the "regular" mixed, managed-competition plans of the candidates propose. Those proposals would create comparative effectiveness or "best practice" institutes, payment reforms, and quality transparency throughout our health delivery system. …