Political Animal
Blog
As we’ve been talking about for weeks, McKinsey & Company published a controversial study recently, purporting to show that nearly a third of American businesses will stop offering health coverage to their employees as a result of the Affordable Care Act. Asked to disclose its methodology or subject its findings to scrutiny, McKinsey, a high-profile consulting firm, refused.
Facing increasingly intense pressure, and even grumbling from its own staff, McKinsey came clean today, making the study and its results available for the first time. It’s going to take some time to review the materials in detail, but Greg Sargent flags one of the key initial revelations from the overview McKinsey released today.
“We stand by the integrity and methodology of the survey.
“The survey was not intended as a predictive economic analysis of the impact of the Affordable Care Act. Rather, it captured the attitudes of employers and provided an understanding of the factors that could influence decision making related to employee health benefits. […]
“Comparing the McKinsey survey to economic estimates, such as the CBO’s, is comparing apples to oranges. While the McKinsey Quarterly article about the survey cited CBO estimates, any comparison is not apt. We understand how the language in the article could lead the reader to think the research was a prediction, but it is not.”
At first blush, this might seem like a compelling spin. McKinsey isn’t saying employers “will” drop coverage as a result of the ACA; McKinsey is only saying that its survey shows employers “could” drop coverage.
Of course, the problem with this is what McKinley said when it published its initial report: “How US health care reform will affect employee benefits.”
Note the new statement again: “We understand how the language in the article could lead the reader to think the research was a prediction, but it is not.” Apparently, McKinley intends to parse the meaning of the word “will”?
Indeed, Republicans who’ve begun using the findings as a political weapon have no use for these nuances. House Speaker John Boehner’s office argued last week, “A survey by McKinsey & Company says businesses planning for the onslaught of ObamaCare taxes, mandates, regulations, and penalties have two choices: stop offering health care for their employees, or eliminate full-time jobs and keep wages low.”
“Not intended as a predictive” analysis? I guess Boehner missed the fine print, too.
Except, the print isn’t especially fine at all. Today’s clarification refers back to the original report, and in the description used today, McKinsey tells the reader, “The shift away from employer-provided health insurance will be vastly greater than expected and will make sense for many companies and lower-income workers alike.”
There’s that “will” word again.
Facebook
Twitter
jdb on June 20, 2011 3:58 PM:
I think the big unanswered question is why did they do this study? I've heard that there wasn't a client, but, assuming its true that they manipulated the study and the marketing of the study, what are their reasons for having done so? Do they have an agenda?
exlibra on June 20, 2011 4:10 PM:
Obviously, their report wasn't intended to be treated as a factual statement. They should have stuck to conducting reports on sexual mores of Americans. Or was that a Kinsey report, without the Mac (or a wiener)?
methods inkiner. Agreed. Everthing regarding this poll -- including the methodology -- has been made murkier (more inky) rather than clearer or cleaner. Therefore, the subject line of Steve's article is not accurate at all.
Ron Byers on June 20, 2011 4:11 PM:
Is there any truth to the rumor that Jon Kyl and Bill Clinton are on their advisory board. it seems the study was not intended as a factual statement and depends on what the meaning of "is" is.
DAY on June 20, 2011 4:19 PM:
Youse guys don't unnerstand "nuance".
Like I said in da report, "If I get my hands on a gun I WILL* shoot youse."
* Insert "have the ability to" here. . .
Mudge on June 20, 2011 4:20 PM:
It would seem this statement, "it captured the attitudes of employers and provided an understanding of the factors that could influence decision making related to employee health benefits, " depends entirely on employer perception, which could have been formed by their aggressive news appetite, reading the law or by what McKinsey asked them. I guarntee you that a factor business consider is cost and if the cost information is presented in an adversarial way, employers will posit dropping health care.
Mr Serf Man on June 20, 2011 4:25 PM:
“The survey was not intended as a predictive economic analysis of the impact of the Affordable Care Act. Rather, it captured the attitudes of employers and provided an understanding of the factors that could influence decision making related to employee health benefits. […]
Shorter Version ; Not intended to be a factual statement.
What is with these people?
Here we have a survey that is based on attitudes...
They must have used the Faux Nooze Rasmussen Model
zeitgeist on June 20, 2011 4:29 PM:
there is no way this doesn't hurt their once sterling credibility.
9% said they "certainly" would drop insurance. 21% said they might. Even setting aside all of the other problems with the study, that does not mean 30% "will."
As fair a headline would have been "Less than 10% of employers presently think they will drop health care after ACA kicks in."
hell's littlest angel on June 20, 2011 4:42 PM:
Agree with jdb. This release simply raises a more important question: Why? Why did they do this "study"? Why did they deliberately hide the methodology, the exposure of which undermines the use of the word "will"? Who paid for it? What is the bloody point?
Jon on June 20, 2011 4:58 PM:
It's a real pleasure to see someone actually paying attention to the methodology behind a study, and actually scanning the data, rather than just reprinting the press release. I hope the trend catches on.
rikyrah on June 20, 2011 5:04 PM:
this was not intended to be used for factual use, of course.
Danp on June 20, 2011 5:05 PM:
So what did they tell respondants to "educate" them?
square1 on June 20, 2011 5:10 PM:
McKinsey has certainly has egg on its face for its efforts to pass off propaganda as an objective analysis.
That being said, I am a little perplexed why the possibility of employers dropping coverage is presented as some sort of catastrophe.
50 years ago, when health care was relatively cheap, there was nothing wrong with employers providing health insurance as an employment perk...like a free parking space.
But health insurance is no longer some little extra that employers can toss in with a job. Health insurance is massively expensive and requires significant administrative resources. American companies and workers are at a competitive disadvantage to foreign companies and workers because other countries absorb employee health care costs. Any sane business leader should be looking for any way to drop health insurance coverage and avoid the administrative hassle of providing benefits to employees. And all employees should be rooting to destroy this insanely inefficient system that ties employees to their employers for no reason.
The whole purpose of the public option was to wean employees OFF of the employer-provided insurance model. And the best part was that it was a market-based solution. Since the public option would compete against private insurance plans without being subsidized by the government, if people switched to the public option, it would only be because the public option was more efficient.
Either people would switch to the public option because it was cheaper or people would stay with private plans because they were cheaper.
But you wouldn't have what McKinsey is fear-mongering about: Employers figuring out how to game the system, dumping their employees onto the exchanges, and costing taxpayers a ton of money.
So, even if McKinsey is completely full of it, I find the apoplectic response of ACA's defenders to the possibility that employers might drop insurance plans to be a partial indictment of ACA.
Michael on June 20, 2011 6:06 PM:
Why play coy, you can tell from the first blush that this was simply a political football republicans demanded so that they would have a study done by a previously credible company to pretend to be the real thing.Anything they now say will be true, damn reality, like always.
And square, what is the reason we could only pass the aca and not the public option?You reform what you have , not start anew. That is why it is critical democrats , and not repugs take office.
Michael on June 20, 2011 6:08 PM:
Why play coy, you can tell from the first blush that this was simply a political football republicans demanded so that they would have a study done by a previously credible company to pretend to be the real thing.Anything they now say will be true, damn reality, like always.
And square, what is the reason we could only pass the aca and not the public option?You reform what you have , not start anew. That is why it is critical democrats , and not repugs take office.
Irv on June 20, 2011 6:26 PM:
not intended to be a factual statement.
schwag of tulsa on June 20, 2011 7:12 PM:
I call Bullwinkle on their methodology.
As in 'Hey, Rocky! Watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7mmrF-4rUE
or maybe they used a Retro Encabulator
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXJKdh1KZ0w
howard on June 20, 2011 8:48 PM:
square1 is onto the important point, even though we see aspects of it differently.
the employer-based health-insurance system is a not good, very bad, awful way to structure health insurance. we should be happy if employers drop coverage; indeed, more employers dropping coverage is almost certainly a necessary way station en route to single payer some generation.
Doug on June 20, 2011 9:08 PM:
If the "study" wasn't meant to be "predictive", then why do it? What is the use of knowing that 9% of businesses would definitely drop employee healthcare and 21% "probably" would, whatever THAT means? How about this: this "opinion survey" was commissioned simply to counter all the fact-based surveys that predict minimal or no economic impact when major provisions of the ACA take effect in 2014.
Had McKinsey really been concerned about anyone misinterpreting the "study", the people at McKinsey who issued the "study" would have been much more exact with the wording used in original publication announcement. As noted by Mr. Benen, the announcement today AGAIN made a prediction, albeit one that Republican/Teabaggers may not like; ie, "The shift away from employer-provided health insurance will be vastly greater than expected AND WILL MAKE SENSE FOR MANY COMPANIES AND LOWER-INCOME WORKERS ALIKE"(my emphasis).
I could be mistaken, but the only way I can see for it to "make sense" for companies AND employees NOT to have employee-provided healthcare insurance is that the alternative; state, regional, or Federal exchanges, would be cheaper.
There goes another Republican/Teabagger claim...
jdb on June 20, 2011 9:41 PM:
Here is a possible explanation for their motives, from Forbes Magazine - basically, they looking to drum up business. It makes sense; however, this doesn't account for the rhetoric behind the way in which they marketed their report.
http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/06/18/mckinseys-anti-obamacare-study-msits-just-business/