Apparently not. In today's Washington Post, which has an excellent article outlining objections to the misnamed Cadillac tax on high-cost health care plans, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber says "there's literally no evidence out there that people are going to suffer" by raising co-pays and deductibles, the inevitable result of taxing high-cost plans. 

Does he not know that (references can be found here):

• At least six studies have shown that even modest increases in cost sharing reduce use of important medications for managing chronic disease;
• One study showed a doubling of copayments reduced use of antidiabetes medications by 23 percent and blood control medications by 10 percent;
• When employers double cost-sharing on cholesterol-lowering drugs from $10 to $20, 21 percent of patients stopped taking their medications compared to 11 percent in a control group;
• Higher cost sharing for prescription drugs caused higher blood pressure, more emergency room visits and higher mortality, according to another study;
• Higher cost sharing in another study led patients to reduce their use of crucial support services, which led to more hospital admissions; and
• Use of mammography declined after increases in co-payment rates.

Yes, many of these studies involve drugs and were funded by the drug industry. I have long said that much drug usage is wasted. But many high-cost plans already have tiered drug co-payment plans to encourage their beneficiaries to switch to generics. Increasing co-pays across-the-board -- the inevitable result of the tax -- will lead to indiscriminate cutbacks in the use of necessary drugs.

I've also publicly defended the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation that mammography screening be reduced to biannual exams. I agree that women under 50 need not get them if they are not otherwise at risk.

But the USPSTF method is the appropriate way to hold down health care costs. They surveyed the science and set a standard of care. The issue now is how to get physicians to follow the recommendations. It's interesting to note that the perception that the USPSTF recommendation would lead to indiscriminate cutbacks in mammography screening led the Senate to insert a requirement in its bill that ALL screening be paid for without any co-pays.

The misnamed Cadillac tax could generate a similar backlash, which would jeopardize all efforts at cost control in the bill.

Prices for drugs and services, whether necessary or not, are too high -- that's the core problem with our health care system. Forcing patients to choose among services based on their immediate price ignores the underlying medical science, does nothing to eliminate unnecessary medical services, and will lead to worse health outcomes for millions of people.

If that happens, Dr. Gruber, people will indeed suffer.