The Temptation of McKinsey
by digby
Greg Sargent has been closely following this emerging scandal over the McKinsey study I wrote about here. I was as credulous as anyone, and not just because McKinsey studies are often cited and I had no reason to doubt it. But it was also because it tracked with my gut feeling about what will happen when the system changes so that employers can opt out of offering health coverage. Obviously it’s always tempting to jump on something that validates your gut feelings, but in this case it is becoming clear that there’s something drastically wrong with the study and any credence I put into it must be withdrawn.
Having said that, I still think this is a weakness in the plan, regardless of what employers say now about what they plan to do in the future. It’s only logical that if they feel there is an alternative to paying for or even administering this benefit many of them will take it. (I’ve dealt with human resources departments over the years and one thing that’s patently obvious is that they fall on the “expense” side of the ledger.) Therefore, if the job market and rules of the road allow, I doubt very much that those who can opt out won’t see it as a viable alternative. This won’t be a problem if workers are compensated for the price of a comparable policy in the exchanges. But if they aren’t this would end up being a net loss for working people.
I’m hopeful that won’t happen. (It’s possible that I misunderstand the various mechanisms that make it even feasible.) But it’s always been something that seemed a little bit “off” about the ACA’s promise that “nothing would change” if you already have insurance. However, what seems to be even more “off” is McKinsey’s study, so that certainly doesn’t offer any validation of those concerns and anyone citing it at this point is basically citing bullshit.
.