The distribution of vaccines is being held up by regulation. But I suspect that even opponents of regulation underestimate its pervasive effects. Regulation goes far beyond things like price controls and mandates regarding distribution, it extends into all aspects of our society (including the “private” sector), in ways that many people don’t even think about. Let’s start with health care:
1. We have a tax system that pushes people into gold-plated health insurance plans, and then the government regulates the way that those plans can operate. That problem was made dramatically worse by the recent decision of Congress and the President to kill the so-called “Cadillac tax”, which would have gradually eliminate the tax subsidy for health insurance.
2. We have many controls on entry into the provision of health care, which drive up costs in numerous ways.
3. Ever get a severe toothache on a Friday night, and be unable to visit a dentist for relief until Monday? I have. In 1910, I could have walked to the local drug store and bought some serious pain relief. Not today.
4. Fear of lawsuits. Many of the practices that make life in America both frustrating and inefficient are driven by a fear of lawsuits. Yes, lawsuits play a valuable role in enforcing contracts, even implicit contracts. But firms should also be able to have consumers and workers sign agreements not to sue under certain conditions.
5. Price controls that create shortages.
I wonder if even sensible regulation skeptics like Tyler Cowen realize just how bad things are. In a recent post, he suggests we should praise the UK’s efforts in distribution the vaccine. But the UK has done a horrendous job of distributing the vaccine; indeed Israel is doing the job 5 times faster.
So why does Tyler praise the UK? Because almost every country in the world is screwing up even worse than the UK. Regulation has made things so bad that even “pretty inept” starts to look good on a comparative scale.
[And don’t say, “Israel is small”. Israel is roughly the size of many American states (such as New Jersey), each of which is doing a horrible job.]
Here’s another example:
A hospital Covid-19 vaccination team shows up at the emergency room to inoculate employees who haven’t received their shots.
Finding just a few, the team is about to leave when an ER doctor suggests they give the remaining doses to vulnerable patients or nonhospital employees. The team refuses, saying that would violate hospital policy and state guidelines.
Incensed, the doctor works his way up the hospital chain of command until he finds an administrator who gives the OK for the team to use up the rest of the doses.
But by the time the doctor tracks down the medical team, its shift is over and, following protocol, whatever doses remained are now in the garbage.
Isolated incident? Not a chance, Dr. Ashish Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, told NBC News.
“This kind of thing is pretty rampant,” Jha said. “I have personally heard stories like this from dozens of physician friends in a variety of different states. Hundreds, if not thousands, of doses are getting tossed across the country every day. It’s unbelievable.”
People consistently underestimate the responsiveness of industries to market signals. I’d be happy to pay $2000 to get a vaccine today, rather than have to wait a few months. Yes, health care workers are overworked. But if I offered a nurse $2000 to give me a jab on the way home from a grueling 12-hour shift, would he refuse?
People gave Charles Barkley a hard time for suggesting that NBA players should get priority. But why not? They are highly productive. I don’t recall many people criticizing President Trump for getting special treatment when he contracted Covid, and I’d say the average NBA player is more productive than Donald Trump. So why the double standard? BTW, if the NBA shuts down then lots of average workers also lose their jobs.
I could understand the “social solidarity” argument against a free market if this were a zero sum game. But as Israel has demonstrated, the inefficient distribution of vaccines is a negative 80% game, that is, we are vaccinating 80% smaller share of our population than Israel. Yes, eventually we’ll catch-up. But time is of the essence.
Under a free market, most people would receive vaccines sooner than under our current system. Thousands of lives would be saved. Perhaps it might seem a bit less “fair”, but what is fair about needlessly killing thousands of people just to be politically correct? The price would likely fall sharply once the first few tens of millions were vaccinated. And if there are some people too poor to pay for vaccines, then we have public charities like Medicaid and private charities like the Bill Gates Foundation. As the Maoist experiment in China demonstrated, egalitarian intentions are not enough—you need incentives to produce goods and services.
People seem almost hardwired to resist the idea of deregulating health care. Whenever there is a problem, they instinctively reach for even more regulation. The FT has a long article discussing all the ways that bureaucrats have screwed up the distribution of vaccines, which ends as follows:
But some worry it is too late for money to have much of an impact and argue that the federal government should take control of the process rather than leaving it to states.
“The federal government could send a few thousand vaccinators,” Ashish Jha, dean of the Brown University school of public health. “They have a public health workforce. They’re just not for reasons that neither I nor the states can figure out.”
So the federal government has completely screwed up “for reasons that neither I nor the states can figure out” and thus we can conclude that “the federal government should take control of the process”? Hmmm.
Here’s another thought. Doesn’t this quote suggest that capacity limits are not the core problem? We have “thousands” of vaccinators who are available but for some strange reason are not being used.
This is the whole point of markets. To connect up desperate consumers with unmotivated providers. The price system will provide the motivation that providers need to speed up the process. You may find free markets in health care to be distasteful, but you should find thousands of needless deaths to be even more distasteful.
READER COMMENTS
Russ Abbott
Jan 17 2021 at 1:45pm
Are you proposing no regulations? No laws? It’s not clear to me what you have in mind. Would you mind painting a picture of your ideal system. Thanks.
Garrett
Jan 17 2021 at 3:08pm
I’ll give it a shot (no pun intended): CVS and Walgreens should take over all logistics of vaccine administration. Let them figure it out; they’re able to vaccinate half the population for the flu every year so they’d know what to do. The Federal Government can then send a refund of whatever it costs to anybody who sends a receipt to the IRS.
Is this crude? Of course. But it’s 10x better than the current situation.
Scott Sumner
Jan 17 2021 at 3:18pm
I favor laws against violence, stealing, breaking contracts, etc. As far as “regulation” as the term is usually interpreted, there may be a few cases involving externalities where it makes sense, but in general I oppose almost all government regulations.
tpeach
Jan 17 2021 at 11:27pm
What do you think of mandatory seatbelt laws?
Variant
Jan 18 2021 at 10:36am
I’d imagine they’re fairly ineffective. People wear seat belts due to societal and personal life-valuation choices rather than because they fear a penalty. And the ones who don’t wear one aren’t dissuaded by a penalty anyway.
A more interesting discussion would be laws around speeding.
john hare
Jan 17 2021 at 8:22pm
How about a system where the negative effects of regulations have negative effects on their proponents. Starting with open reporting on the downsides instead of the blind “it’s the law” and therefor good, no questioning.
Or, it’s not a question of most recreational (read illegal) drugs being bad for you. It’s a question of whether the laws against create more problems than they solve.
Or kidney markets having a bad outcome, but is it as bad as the tens of thousands of annual deaths? Or the hundreds of thousands living with chronic heath issues?
And so on with thousands of restrictions you don’t even notice until you get smacked, and sometimes not even then.
Speed
Jan 17 2021 at 4:52pm
Re: Israel.
Interestingly, Our World in Data reports that based on “daily new confirmed covid-19 cases per day per million people” (rolling seven day average), Israel is doing worse than the US 958 to 675.
https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2020-03-01..latest&country=USA~ISR®ion=World&casesMetric=true&interval=smoothed&perCapita=true&smoothing=7&pickerMetric=new_cases_per_million&pickerSort=desc (Our World in Data)
It’s a mystery.
Anonymous
Jan 18 2021 at 2:19pm
There is no mystery. The vaccinations haven’t had enough time to kick in yet. Cases/deaths are now dropping in Israel.
milljas
Jan 18 2021 at 9:25am
You are ahead of us in Canada, you should celebrate!
(Smart) people here are taking to signing up for all sorts of “voluntary” efforts to indirectly pay for getting a vaccine. Signing up for “FIT” tests so you can test your staff for masks. Some are doing this just to get the shot for themselves, it’s a few 1000 dollars to take the test. A neighbor signed up as a voluntary health worker and got the shot as her mother is in a long-term care home (see what’s happening in Barrie, ON – entire home infected < 1 week due to a UK traveller) so this is also smart. There are links floating around where you can go sign up. Hospital IT staff, admin and executives, some of who work from home, are getting it but the actual docs in the field that are interacting with live patients are not and in many cases have no idea how to get it.
Why is Israel "actually" doing well?
I'm glad I like bananas.
Michael Sandifer
Jan 18 2021 at 11:47am
On a related point, this sickens me:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/health/amp/California-calls-for-pause-in-use-of-huge-batch-15878735.php
Assuming the article has the details right and that I’m not misinterpreting them, there’s a call to halt vaccinations from a batch from which 330,000 people have been vaccinated and 10 might have experienced non-fatal allergic reactions.
I’m not a doctor, so I may be missing something, but such a small set of allergic reactions seems more likey to be noise to mez rather than signal. I think it should be investigated, but to halt the vaccine distribution from that batch during a crisis at this point… I don’t get it.
Michael Sandifer
Jan 18 2021 at 12:11pm
That said, while I think the US, and particularly states like New York and California are way overregulated, libertarians need to let some of this go, because some of these regulations won’t change and will become less relevant over time anyway.
Let’s take the 40 hour work week, for example. Maybe, through a combination of UBI and wage subsidies you could convince hourly workers to give up required overtime pay, but I doubt it. It ain’t happening anyway.
I think it’s useful when proposing regulations to abolish to put yourself in the shoes of an elected politician, and imagine running on and campaigning for such changes in office. Anyone want to run on abolishing overtime pay? Anyone think their nuanced arguments about benefits of labor market efficiency will get through? I bet even many employers would publicly oppose such a change for PR reasons.
The demand for labor will begin to fall within the next several decades anyway, in favor of automation, so this problem will slowly solve itself, and actually speed the adoption of automation.
You want to deregulate healthcare? You better make sure you address people’s concerns over healthcare security. A 100% free market would surely be much more efficient, but would you bother to run-on total deregulation? The idea of abolishing Medicare alone would kill your campaign. Your opponents would openly laugh at you. Then, you want to reduce the hidden subsidies to employers, so people are on their own with healthcare? I’d like that, but without an expensive, inefficient public option like Medicare for All, most will desperately oppose such uncertainty. People don’t know how to choose healthcare plans, as I’ve found out first hand when I’ve helped people choose them as an advisor. Most are extraordinarily uncomfortable with the high deductible plans that are very nearly the best choice 100% of the time. Rational discussion can only go so far.
These are just two fields in which deregulation are needed, but will be very difficult to achieve, even before considering the influence of special interests. Many providers of healthcare related services will also heavily resist efforts at making the system more efficient, for example.
There’s a reason libertarian ideas are rarely popular. They are rarely formulated by people in the real world, who would actually have to try to act upon them. They too often discount the path-dependent nature of policy development.
The US would likely be far better off with a Singapore type system, but how do we get there from here?
Coming up with efficient options is easy, because, usually, just deregulating and leaving things up for the free market will optimize efficiency. But, what about political economy?
Comments are closed.