When Wisconsin lawmakers and citizens discuss solving the health care crisis, should they be talking about access or costs?
The answer appears to be both, but the emphasis must be on bringing down costs.
The nonprofit, nonpartisan and well-respected Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance last week released a very interesting study of "The Complexities of Wisconsin Health Care." In it are revealing numbers that should serve as a baseline for statewide debate and legislative action.
WISTAX found that spending on health care in Wisconsin has risen at a faster rate than it has nationally - a disturbing trend. Interestingly, while the percentage of Americans who are uninsured has risen in recent years, the percentage has declined in Wisconsin.
These paradoxical movements are explained by numbers which highlight specific areas that must be addressed.
First, the uninsured.
While the national rate of people uninsured has risen from 14 percent in 1999 to 15.8 percent in 2006, Wisconsin has seen a drop during that period from 9.5 percent to 8.8 percent. That percentage still is too high, but is encouraging that Wisconsin has fared better than other states.
On first glance, the state's success defies explanation, since cost is cited as the No. 1 reason people are uninsured and costs have risen at a quicker pace in Wisconsin than nationally. But WISTAX says two factors have helped reduce the percentage of uninsured in Wisconsin - the state's high rate of employer-sponsored insurance and the many government health insurance programs.
In Wisconsin, 59.3 percent of private employers offered health insurance, 3 percent more than the national average. And state-run programs such as BadgerCare and SeniorCare have caused participation in various Medicaid programs to more than double since 1999.
Though Wisconsin has been a relative success story in terms of access, rising costs continues to threaten those gains.
According to WISTAX, per capita spending on health care in Wisconsin was 6.0 percent below the U.S. average in 1985 but climbed to 6.2 percent above average in 2004. Wisconsin spent $5,610 per person in 2004, the 16th highest rate in the nation. That climb, WISTAX says, has been caused by three factors - primarily faster rising costs for hospital care and for physician and clinical services.
In 2004, per capital hospital spending in Wisconsin ($2,090) was 8.3 percent higher than the U.S. average ($1,931). In 1985, it was 16.2 percent below average. Also in 2004, Wisconsin spending ($1,507 per person) on physician and clinical services was 12.4 percent above the national average ($1,341), compared to 2.8 percent below in 1985. Both large increases are fairly recent occurrences, suggesting the need to address the rising costs is rapidly becoming more urgent.
The third reason for higher costs is that Wisconsin has a higher percentage of people over the age of 65. Nationally, seniors accounted for 43 percent of health care spending in 2002, yet they were only 12 percent of the total population. The number of elderly in Wisconsin and nationally will rise rapidly in the coming years, making the need to control costs even more urgent.
Clearly, the need to slow the momentum of cost increases should be the No. 1 priority of state leaders. Republicans and Democrats have very different philosophies about solutions, a divide that must be bridged. Republicans believe consumerism will lower health-care costs, by providing health care users with more tools to make better decisions and placing financial incentives on wellness. Democrats propose greater government involvement in providing health care to everyone. They believe free-market plans are ineffective in holding down costs.
There is evidence that both approaches are partially correct. As WISTAX points out, substantial health care access gains have been made through a combination of market and government advances. Perhaps rising health care costs can be tamed by the same kind of combination.
In our opinion, the WISTAX study is further evidence that the best solutions for Wisconsin residents on health care are somewhere in the middle between the stubborn positions Republicans and Democrats have carved out.
The answer appears to be both, but the emphasis must be on bringing down costs.
The nonprofit, nonpartisan and well-respected Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance last week released a very interesting study of "The Complexities of Wisconsin Health Care." In it are revealing numbers that should serve as a baseline for statewide debate and legislative action.
WISTAX found that spending on health care in Wisconsin has risen at a faster rate than it has nationally - a disturbing trend. Interestingly, while the percentage of Americans who are uninsured has risen in recent years, the percentage has declined in Wisconsin.
These paradoxical movements are explained by numbers which highlight specific areas that must be addressed.
First, the uninsured.
While the national rate of people uninsured has risen from 14 percent in 1999 to 15.8 percent in 2006, Wisconsin has seen a drop during that period from 9.5 percent to 8.8 percent. That percentage still is too high, but is encouraging that Wisconsin has fared better than other states.
On first glance, the state's success defies explanation, since cost is cited as the No. 1 reason people are uninsured and costs have risen at a quicker pace in Wisconsin than nationally. But WISTAX says two factors have helped reduce the percentage of uninsured in Wisconsin - the state's high rate of employer-sponsored insurance and the many government health insurance programs.
In Wisconsin, 59.3 percent of private employers offered health insurance, 3 percent more than the national average. And state-run programs such as BadgerCare and SeniorCare have caused participation in various Medicaid programs to more than double since 1999.
Though Wisconsin has been a relative success story in terms of access, rising costs continues to threaten those gains.
According to WISTAX, per capita spending on health care in Wisconsin was 6.0 percent below the U.S. average in 1985 but climbed to 6.2 percent above average in 2004. Wisconsin spent $5,610 per person in 2004, the 16th highest rate in the nation. That climb, WISTAX says, has been caused by three factors - primarily faster rising costs for hospital care and for physician and clinical services.
In 2004, per capital hospital spending in Wisconsin ($2,090) was 8.3 percent higher than the U.S. average ($1,931). In 1985, it was 16.2 percent below average. Also in 2004, Wisconsin spending ($1,507 per person) on physician and clinical services was 12.4 percent above the national average ($1,341), compared to 2.8 percent below in 1985. Both large increases are fairly recent occurrences, suggesting the need to address the rising costs is rapidly becoming more urgent.
The third reason for higher costs is that Wisconsin has a higher percentage of people over the age of 65. Nationally, seniors accounted for 43 percent of health care spending in 2002, yet they were only 12 percent of the total population. The number of elderly in Wisconsin and nationally will rise rapidly in the coming years, making the need to control costs even more urgent.
Clearly, the need to slow the momentum of cost increases should be the No. 1 priority of state leaders. Republicans and Democrats have very different philosophies about solutions, a divide that must be bridged. Republicans believe consumerism will lower health-care costs, by providing health care users with more tools to make better decisions and placing financial incentives on wellness. Democrats propose greater government involvement in providing health care to everyone. They believe free-market plans are ineffective in holding down costs.
There is evidence that both approaches are partially correct. As WISTAX points out, substantial health care access gains have been made through a combination of market and government advances. Perhaps rising health care costs can be tamed by the same kind of combination.
In our opinion, the WISTAX study is further evidence that the best solutions for Wisconsin residents on health care are somewhere in the middle between the stubborn positions Republicans and Democrats have carved out.
