David Brooks Never Heard of Prescription Drugs

That is what readers of his column today on the Supreme Court's health care ruling would learn. Brooks sort of praised the restraint the court exercised in not overturning the ACA. He then went on to list the inefficiencies in the health care system that the ACA did not fix. Brooks mentions the malpractice system, fee for service care, and the government subsidy for employer provided care.

Brooks probably does not know anything about the ACA, since it is likely to substantially reduce employer provided care over time according to most analyses. More importantly, Brooks somehow overlooks the inefficiencies in the system that have the effect of giving more money to rich people and leading to poorer quality care.

At the top of the list is patent protection for prescription drugs. These government granted monopolies raise the price of drugs by around $270 billion a year above their free market price. This is roughly five times the size of the cost of the Bush tax cuts to the rich. Patent monopolies also encourage drug companies to mislead doctors and patients about the merits of their drugs, leading to poorer quality care.

A second item that Brooks somehow missed is the inefficiency of the insurance industry, which is left in tack by the ACA. We waste between 10-15 percent of our health care spending ($250-$375 billion a year) on unnecessary administrative costs as a result of our system of private insurers, as opposed to a public Medicare type program. Of course top executives at the insurers do very well with this system.

The third obvious source of waste that Brooks failed to catch was the excess pay for our doctors, especially highly paid specialists. If the pay for our doctors was comparable to the pay of doctors in Germany or Canada it would save us around $100 billion a year, or roughly two Bush tax cuts for the rich.

It is striking that Brooks has such difficulties noticing inefficiencies in the health care system that redistribute income to the rich.

...
written by Daniel, June 29, 2012 5:58

This is David Brooks. He hasn't said much that made any sense for a long time.

the second item
written by Mark, June 29, 2012 7:27

The ACA does include the Medical Loss Ratio provisions which are aimed at the inefficiencies of the insurance industry.

I am not sure that is the best way to deal with the issue, but at least it is a start. Regardless, there is not doubt that much much much more can be done to streamline admin costs.

Brooks has also no knowledge of other countries
written by Robert Salzberg, June 29, 2012 7:31

Brooks wrote in the same article regarding health care solutions:

"But the truth is neither I nor anybody else really knows what works"

This from the same guy who recently was pushing for more controlled experiments with social programs.

They Know the Price of Everything, They Know the Value of Nothing
written by Last Mover, June 29, 2012 7:39

The financial crisis and great recession has spawned a cottage industry of stunningly incompetent self designated economists among some high profile professionals and journalists like David Brooks and Tom Friedman who have demonstrated first rate reporting and books on other subjects in the past.

But on economics they keep digging the hole deeper to bury their credentials under a layer of quackery so obvious it would make a snake oil salesman blush.

It's like a person with a highly successful life who gets Alzheimers and starts attacking everyone in sight with embarrassing accusations and temper tantrums. They get the kid glove treatment because of who they are, not what they say anymore.

...
written by PeonInChief, June 29, 2012 10:12

It's not at all striking that Brooks has trouble seeing inefficiencies in the health care system (or any other system for that matter) that redistribute income to the rich. I thought that kind of mindless blather was what his career was about.

"excess pay for our doctors, especially highly paid specialists"
written by Max Pyziur, June 29, 2012 11:31

Greetings Dean,

Much thanks for this entry.

In conversation, I've often heard that one of the drawbacks of the US healthcare system is the "excess pay for our doctors, especially highly paid specialists."

Are there any sources of stats/data that offer a comparative view?

Much thanks.

Max Pyziur

China bypasses Big Pharma patents
written by teto, June 29, 2012 12:44

I would like to hear your opinion on the following news:

"China bypasses Big Pharma patents, authorizes low-cost generic drug manufacturing"
http://www.naturalnews.com/036306_China_Big_Pharma_patents.html

David Brooks ...
written by david, June 29, 2012 2:59

"I'm not an economist, but I play one on TV/NYT." This just goes to show that "to try is to fail." Or "there is not try, only do" (Yoda). Brooks should stop trying and go back to what he was good at. Apparently the sociologists love him, and they must think his type of economic 'analysis' is absolutely brilliant and morally correct, even if it destroys the world economy.

more on sociologists
written by david, June 29, 2012 3:06

Here is a link to an award given to Brooks just last year: http://www.asanet.org/about/aw...Brooks.cfm

As near as I can tell, they say that Brooks is deserving of this award for two reasons:
1. He cites sociologists (and they can put such citations in their CVs)
2. He thinks economists ignore the social nature of economics (again, anything that mentions sociology is good for the academic business of sociology).

So is Brooks a great writer and social thinker? Or is this particular society of sociologists ethically corrupt? Based on the evidence of Brooks' writings and sadly illogical and irrational thinking, it must be the latter.

David Brooks Never Heard of Prescription Drugs

About Beat the Press