- The Washington Times - Monday, February 20, 2006

Sometimes a little-known law can reshape our economy and our personal lives. One such law was Section 401(k) of the 1978 tax law. The headlines that year went to the law’s sharp reduction in capital-gains taxation, which indeed had important effects — including sparking the venture capital sector that financed the high-tech revolution. But 401(k) had a similarly important effect.

Employees were allowed to contribute tax-free income to individual retirement accounts, and employers could match their contributions. Most private pensions then were defined-benefit plans: The employer promised to pay certain amounts on retirement. Section 401(k), when put into effect by regulations in the early 1980s, led to proliferation of defined-contribution pensions.

Defined-benefit plans tied employees to their employers for long periods and left the value of their pensions subject to risk if the employer defaulted. Just ask retired steel company and airline workers. Defined-contribution plans allow employees to take their pension money with them when they change jobs and to manage their funds themselves.

The result: a more flexible, agile labor force and citizens more able to fend for themselves and less dependent on large institutions over which they had little control.

Bush administration officials and some conservative thinkers hope health savings accounts can change health-care finance in a way similar to the way Section 401(k) changed pensions. Health-savings accounts allow holders of health insurance policies to retain monies they do not spend. Typically, such policies have high deductibles. Policyholders pay for routine and predictable medical expenses out of their own pockets, but are insured against catastrophic expenses.

The Medicare/prescription drug law of 2003 allowed health savings accounts — one reason the Bush administration and most congressional Republicans supported it. Now the administration wants to strengthen HSAs by making premiums on these policies tax-deductible.

This is an attempt to reverse the effect of the World War II decision to make health insurance policies deductible to employers and tax-free to employees. This tended to tie health insurance to employment and has made individuals dependent on large organizations. Since third parties pick up the tab for most health-care spending, consumers tend not to be cost-conscious. The result has been above-inflation cost increases for health care.

The Bush administration, like all before it, shies away from urging taxation of health insurance premiums — voters would hate that — and instead is trying to level the field by making all premiums deductible. Some argue this is regressive, because the tax deduction is worth more to high-income taxpayers. But that’s true of all tax deductions, and can be compensated for by providing low-income deductible tax credits.

Will health savings accounts be an entering wedge to produce a more market-oriented health-care sector? Democrats fear that, and Republicans hope so. I confess I am not sure.

Health savings account-type policies clearly have rapidly grown since passage of the 2003 act. There now are 3 million people with health savings accounts, and big employers increasingly offer high-deductible policies. The employee chooses to pay more for more coverage or less and keep what isn’t spend.

Of course, the health-care sector will never be entirely market-oriented. Emergency patients on gurneys can’t make cost-conscious decisions, and the poor will receive care that will somehow be subsidized by others.

But health-savings accounts have been spreading more rapidly since the 2003 Medicare act than defined-contribution pensions did after the 1978 tax act.

The New Deal and the World War II years produced policies that left people dependent on large organizations. We now learn from the problems of steel pensioners or Social Security recipients, those organizations don’t always deliver. Policies like Section 401(k) and, perhaps, health-savings accounts give individuals more control and society greater flexibility.

The Clinton health-care plan failed in part because we do not have a single health-care finance system but many — and it is impossible for even very smart people to design a politically acceptable one-size-fits-all model. The Bush administration’s push for health-savings accounts is an attempt to change things not by government mandate but by opening the way for private actors — employers, employees, insurers, individuals — to make decisions that will increase the power of market forces. Not a headline issue, but an important one.

Michael Barone is a nationally syndicated columnist.


Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide