Medical ProtectionismOne of my co-workers broke his glasses yesterday. He couldn't get them replaced immediately because of a Washington state law (I don't know whether Oregon has a similar law) that you cannot buy eyeglasses without a recent prescription. He hadn't been to an optometrist in a long time, and didn't have one. Hearing of the law when he went to a glasses-in-an-hour place, he wanted to see an optometrist immediately, but it was late and none were still open. His situation affords me the opportunity to complain about two kinds of anti-consumer government interference in the health care market: Prescription and licensing requirements. No one should be legally required to have a prescription to purchase eyeglasses, period. As an advocate of freedom I'll go further and claim that no prescription should be legally required in any circumstance whatever; I fully support the right of individuals to self-medicate. Prescription requirements are a form of rent-seeking by the health care industry — you have to have an appointment to get one, so they make money. Prescription requirements will no doubt be defended on "safety" grounds, but the case of eyeglasses is transparent (heh) enough to expose the lie. It's easy to evaluate whether your corrective lenses are doing their job. If you can't see well, you'll know it, and a legal requirement adds nothing to your own motivation to have clear vision. My co-worker had to find an old pair of glasses to wear. Those old lenses are less effective and leave him with worse vision. The legal requirement to have a prescription has made him less safe by delaying his purchase of new glasses. What was the reason for that requirement, again? He has no medical need to see an optometrist. Only an artificial legal need to see one. He already knew his prescription; why should he have to pay someone to tell him something he already knows? And yet, despite his willingness to nonsensically see an optometrist immediately, he couldn't. Their office wasn't open. They don't have customer-friendly hours because they don't have enough competition … because of state licensing requirements, another form of rent-seeking. The "safety" argument is more convincing at first blush for licensing than for prescriptions, but it's still wrong. You're supposed to imagine irresponsible quacks peddling bogus medicines, but again especially in the case of vision correction the consumer is completely capable of evaluating the quality. A bad optometrist will lose customers to better ones. Even when the quality of care is difficult for customers to evaluate, private rating agencies could clearly substitute for state licensing, and then anyone who insisted on having an "approved" doctor could simply select one from their list. The only advantage of state licensing over private rating is that licenses are administered by the state, and the state makes it illegal for anyone who doesn't have a license to practice. State power is used to artificially reduce competition, thereby increasing the incomes of the smaller number of practitioners. They tell you it's for safety, but it's really protectionism. If optometrists had to compete more aggressively, some would succeed by offering customer-friendly hours, such as the late evening hours my co-worker needed. Licensing is anti-consumer — and anti-safety as well, because again this delays my co-worker's purchase of new glasses! Prescription and licensing laws should be abolished. They increase costs, inconvenience consumers, and are antithetical to the free market. Interestingly, Warren wrote a similar story a few days ago. From his comments I learned that, unsurprisingly, you can buy vision correction products in Taiwan without a prescription. P.S., since my co-worker asked, my last pair of glasses (bought at Binyon's) cost $234: frames $72 and each lens $81. My lenses are very strong and I also sprang for the premium coatings after being bothered by lots of scratches on my previous pair. My price was after a large discount that I have no reason to believe they don't automatically give to everyone.
© Kyle Markley
— Posted 2007-07-20 05:55:46 UTC —
permalink
| ||
Comments: 5
While I believe that the free market is great and all, don't you think that the adjustment period from switching between government-licensed physicians and private-sanctioned physicians would be a little troublesome for the health of America? A lot of pure-capitalists have a "the market will decide" approach to things, but it can take a really long time for the market to decide upon something. Where the health industry is concerned, that could me that a lot of people die before this self-regulation starts to happen.
I also feel like letting doctors have free reign is something that has been tried. The reason we have government regulations for doctors (and indeed prescriptions) is because the more "free" systems were systematically abused in the early part of this century (see: Snake Oil Salesmen, any medicine that contained Heroin, etc).
I've been thinking for a while about a post I want to make about people assuming that they can just create complex, working systems from scratch and have them operate in just the way that they want. This was mostly going to have to do with Iraq and democracy, but I think that it would also hold well as an argument for the health industry.
Don't get me wrong - what we have in this country is a terribly broken health care industry. The capitalist and idealist in me would love to see the free market applied to it and have it all work out, but the engineer and realist in me sees socialized medicine working quite well in other countries and wonders why we can't just give that a try here.
Cheers,
Montag
In the past, I've been burned by the "You must have a recent prescription" boondoggle too.
Not sure about health care in general, but for glasses, it's a no-brainer. Prescriptions are to protect people from dangerous drugs. Glasses can't really hurt you, and if they were hurting you, you'd know it and could go get your glasses fixed or your money back.
There would be a danger that people could fail to update their glasses and they could kill someone driving, but the current system doesn't do a great job at fixing that problem either. The lazy/dangerous driver's glasses would have to break before they'd be forced to update their lenses.
One could make a stronger case for contact lenses since they have a greater ability to cause harm. I've heard some people's corneas can be worn by the contact lenses so a yearly checkup might make sense to make sure no permanent damage is done.
Yeah... I head in my head the example of the older person that just let their prescription lapse and went along for years driving with the same pair of glasses. Wouldn't we want that person to have to get checked out before getting a new pair?
That is probably at least the intention of the law. The one-year policy seems a little low though. Maybe if it was three or four years.
-Montag
Montag,
"Where the health industry is concerned, that could me that a lot of people die before this self-regulation starts to happen."
Isn't it demonstrably true that a lot of people die because of the government interference in this sector?
Every year I get tonsilitis and every year I end up having to go to the doctor because I am unable to get rid of the puss and nastiness w/o a stupid prescription they give me at the doctor's office.
This last time I went I told the lady what it was and what I needed. She wanted to do a strep test, and I refused....for several reasons....boy was she angry! She reluctantly and angrily gave me the the prescription. The sad thing is that I spent 110 dollars just at the office since I didn't have insurance. On top of that I didn't even need the doctor (Minus the signature part.)cuz she didn't even diagnose me or figure out the medication needed...I DID! Very frustrating....
The comment period has expired.