Cato Event Podcast

The social‐​distancing measures required to address the COVID-19 pandemic led to a newfound appreciation for the use of telehealth, a technological advance that has been available for several decades. State licensing laws for health care practitioners have impeded widespread use of telemedicine. Most states only permit health care practitioners to provide telehealth services to patients in the state in which the practitioners are licensed, a barrier to the free flow of health care services across state lines. Patients can travel to another state to receive medical treatment and even surgery from a doctor licensed in that state, but those doctors cannot provide telehealth services to the same patients unless they are licensed in the states in which the patients reside.While the pandemic led many states to suspend the barriers to movement of health care practitioners and to the delivery of telemedicine across state lines, these were only temporary emergency measures. Fortunately, some states are taking steps to avoid a return to the status quo ante. In May 2021, Arizona’s governor signed into law House Bill (HB) 2454, which allows the state’s residents to receive telehealth services from providers who hold licenses outside the state but within any of the other states or the District of Columbia. In 2019, Florida’s governor signed HB 23 into law, similarly liberalizing telehealth regulations. On the federal level, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services expanded permanent coverage for telehealth services. Experts on telehealth regulations will compare recent state‐​level reforms and discuss the prospects for further reform on both the state and federal levels. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ever since Congress created the income tax in 1913, workers have been able to avoid paying tax on income they receive in the form of fringe benefits, such as health insurance. The flip side of this feature is that Congress effectively threatens workers with higher taxes unless they allow their employer to control a large portion of their income and their health insurance. As marginal income‐​tax rates grew, so did that implicit penalty. As health insurance premiums grew, the amount of workers’ money this feature allows employers to control directly has grown to roughly $900 billion per year.Eighty‐​three years later, on August 22, 1996, President Bill Clinton signed a law creating tax‐​free Archer Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs). Archer MSAs freed workers to receive a small portion of their health benefits as cash—without a tax penalty. Later, President George W. Bush signed a law creating tax‐​free health savings accounts (HSAs), which allow workers to take more of their health benefits as cash without negative tax consequences. Even so, HSAs have reclaimed for workers less than 5 percent of that $900 billion.At this virtual forum, leading health policy scholars will commemorate the 25th anniversary of this milestone event and discuss how to return to workers every penny of that $900 billion. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

For an entire generation, at home and abroad, the United States has waged a war on terror. Fighting it has produced neither peace nor victory, but it has transformed America. A politically divided country turned the war on terror into a cultural and then tribal struggle, first on the ideological fringes and ultimately expanding to open a door for today’s nationalist, exclusionary resurgence.In Reign of Terror, journalist Spencer Ackerman argues that war on terror policies laid a foundation for American authoritarianism. In Ackerman’s account, Barack Obama’s failure to end the war on terror after the killing of Osama Bin Laden allowed cultural polarization to progress and set the groundwork for Donald Trump’s rise to power. As we approach the 20th anniversary of 9/11, please join us for a discussion of how the war on terror transformed the United States and the prospects for moving away from its divisive excesses. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In June, the Food and Drug Administration gave marketing approval to the Alzheimer’s drug Aduhelm, against the unanimous advice of its advisory panel. Three of the panel’s five members resigned in protest. The panel’s members and many other medical experts claim there is no convincing evidence that the drug provides clinical benefit. Other critics complain that what they see as a useless drug will now cost Medicare (and taxpayers) $56,000 per patient per year.The Aduhelm controversy brings into focus long‐​standing arguments against efficacy requirements for FDA drug approval, especially when the FDA also permits practitioners to prescribe any approved drugs “off label,” deferring to their expertise and clinical judgment. The controversy also directs attention to federal laws that require Medicare to cover most FDA‐​approved drugs and prohibit Medicare from negotiating drug prices.Experts on health care, health and regulatory law, and health economics will explore these and related issues in what promises to be a lively discussion. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In his new book, New Way to Care: Social Protections That Put Families First, author John Goodman argues that our most important social insurance institutions are in desperate need of reform. Goodman proposes a simple idea. People of any age should have the choice to opt out of social insurance in favor of alternatives that better meet their individual and family needs. In particular, people should be able to substitute the assets and arrangements they own for the insurance systems that the government currently forces people to participate in.Join us to hear Goodman discuss ways to reform health insurance with commentary from Cato Director of Health Policy Studies Michael F. Cannon. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

For years there has been an ongoing debate about the causes of medical malpractice liability insurance premium spikes and their impact on access to care and defensive medicine. State legislatures responded to premium spikes by enacting damages caps on noneconomic, punitive, or total damages, and Congress has periodically debated the merits of a federal cap on damages in medical malpractice cases.Yet, there has been a shortage of evidence in support of the narrative that excessive damage awards are responsible for such premium spikes. What did cause those premium spikes? What effect did state‐​level medical malpractice reform have? Did it reduce frivolous litigation? Did it improve access to health care and/​or reduce defensive medicine? Both sides in the debate have strong opinions, but their positions are mostly based on anecdotes.In a new book, Medical Malpractice Litigation: How It Works, Why Tort Reform Hasn’t Helped, a politically diverse team of researchers provide an accessible, fact‐​based response to the questions that ordinary Americans and policymakers have about the performance of the medical malpractice litigation system.Join us to hear coauthor Dr. David A. Hyman, adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute; Dr. Richard Anderson, chairman and CEO of The Doctors Company; and Dr. Bill Frist, a former U.S. senator, hold a lively discussion on the medical malpractice litigation system and the effects of limiting the right of malpractice victims to recover. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.