Medical Savings Accounts Study Are These Studies Authoritative, Valid, Or Relevant?
Understanding neither the design elements nor actuarial fundamentals that underlie MSA programs, the CBO report erroneously concludes: MSAs would not achieve nor contribute positively to health reforms desired by legislators. At a recent private review undertaken by CBO analysts and consulting actuaries, this analysis was found inadequate, and the conclusions invalid and insupportable. A forthcoming revision is expected.
The Minnesota study is the longest, interview intensive, and clearly the most biased if not also the most paternalistic. Citing numerous literature sources and rich in opinion and interpretation, the authors offer nothing based upon empirical evidence, working MSA models, or even data drawn from hypothetical models. This paper is a collection of ideological claims and counterclaims. The study puts forth the tedious belief that only highly organized, government managed care entities—certainly not individuals—can appropriately decide people's best interests.
The monograph published by Blue Cross of Ohio is simply transparent. By omitting insurer added costs, developing an implausible MSA design, and ignoring likely changes in patient behaviors that result in lower utilization, the author unsuccessfully tries to discredit MSA programs. Duplicating the same errors and using similar irrelevancies, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities also falls short.
Profuse, strident, and overly defensive stances opposing MSA programs lead to criticisms and questions so obvious they could—but will not—go unstated. Do MSAs really pose that much of a threat to the established and earmarked revenues that now flow almost unimpeded to much of the health care industry and other special interests? Do MSA opponents truly fear individuals reclaiming their rightful power and authority to make their own health and economic decisions about medical transactions?Is the opposition so fearful of the power of MSA programs they dare not even allow a scientific demonstration, such as a comparison of MSAs with prepaid programs? Does the ever increasing flow of dollars into the health care industry confirm industry greed, i.e., whoever is subsidized wants more?36
"Do MSA opponents truly fear individuals reclaiming their rightful power and authority to make their own health and economic decisions about medical transactions?"
At a March 23, 2005, House Appropriations hearing on a bill to gut the voter-approved I-601 spending limit, Rep. Jim McIntire (D) asked a supporter of I-601’s two-third supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise taxes the following question:
"Can you name a time when we [legislators] have actually not just set it [supermajority requirement] aside by majority vote? I mean, this is in many respects a procedural motion that has no bearing. It’s a statutory constraint that cannot constrain any legislature that chooses as a majority to set it aside . . . have we ever used a supermajority [to raise taxes]?"