Candidate Watch
Hillary Bakes Some Stats
Johnston, IA, Dec. 17.
"During the Nineties, health care inflation was kept low. In the last seven years, health care costs have doubled."
--Hillary Clinton, Town Hall meeting, Johnston, IA, December 17, 2007
This is one of those cases where a politician mixes and matches data to best support his or her argument. Take a number from one data set, combine it with a figure from a different data set, add a tablespoon of political rhetoric, stir well, cook at 450 degrees (25 degrees in Iowa), and voila, we have a tasty dish for the credulous voter. Prior to serving, make sure you remove any warning labels.
Hillary's goal, needless to say, was to show that life for the average American was much better under Clinton I than under Bush II. But there are other ways of cooking the stats to produce a very different taste. Pay attention while I demonstrate how it's done.
The Facts
First, some background. Health care costs have been rising for decades, well above the rate of inflation. The argument is about differences in the rate of growth. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, annual growth rates in per capita health expenditures dipped during the mid-90s to a low of 5.2 percent in 1996, but then began to rise every year until peaking in 2002 at 9.1 percent. Since 2002, the rate of growth declined to 6.9 percent in 2005, and will probably decline further in 2006.
The following graph shows how the growth in per capita health care expenditures began to accelerate after 1996-1997, during Clinton's second term.
Another way of measuring the growth in health care costs is to look at health insurance premiums, which are generally more volatile than overall health expenditures. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the annual growth rate in premium costs dipped to 0.8 percent in 1996, but then started rising. The growth rate had reached 8.2 percent in 2000 and climbed to a peak of 13.9 percent in 2003. See this table. After 2003, the growth rate began declining to an estimated level this year of 6.1 percent.
In order to come up with her sound bite on health care costs, Hillary Clinton used two different statistical measures, one for the Nineties, another for the last seven years. To make the point that the Clinton administration held down health care "inflation", Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer cited U.S. government data showing that overall health spending increased from 13.7 percent of Gross Domestic Product in 1993 to 13.8 percent in 2000. To support the statement about the doubling of health care "costs" over the last seven years, he cited the Kaiser Family Foundation study on health care premiums.
Note also the comparison of a carefully chosen inflation rate (the increase in health spending over the increase in GDP), for Clinton I, and the costs of health care premiums, for Bush II. By this definition, a zero or negative "health care inflation" rate could still result in a considerable rise in "health care costs."
Techniques that are perfectly acceptable for chefs are not so kosher for statisticians. To compare health care costs under Clinton and health care costs under Bush, you should work from the same ingredients. Otherwise, you are comparing apples with oranges.
There are many reasons why premiums began to rise after 1996, according to Gary Claxton, vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, who has followed the issue closely. The collapse of the Clinton health care plan played a role, as did the consolidation of various HMOs and hospitals. Another factor was the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which cut back on Medicare payments to hospitals.
The Pinocchio Test
It is true that the rates of growth in both health care costs and premiums have peaked under Bush. But it is also true that the rise in annual growth rates began under Clinton and is now declining under Bush. It is also a fact that the annual increase in health care costs and premiums is lower today than it was in 2000, when Clinton left office, as this chart illustrates.
In other words, the same statistics can be twisted to support many different arguments.
By mixing and matching data, Hillary Clinton paints a rosier-than-justified picture of the halycon days of Clinton I. This is standard operating procedure for presidential candidates, but it is still misleading.
Posted on December 21, 2007 at 6:00 AM ET
| Category:
2 Pinocchios, Candidate Record, Candidate Watch, Hillary Rodham Clinton, History, Social Issues
Share This:
Technorati |
Tag in Del.icio.us |
Digg This |
What Are These Links?
Previous: Romney's 'Flip, Flop, Flip' |
Next: Marching with King
Posted by: The Angry One | December 21, 2007 09:11 AM
In the 90's she was just First Lady who was never elected to or voted on anything.
Posted by: TennesseeGurl | December 21, 2007 10:00 AM
It is worrisome to see the trend continue this cycle of candidates using broad sweeping strokes to cover intricate issues. And the amazing part of this artistic comment is how it takes two separate statistical trends and mashes them together to make a very misleading statement. Heath care trends have so many trends that need to be analyzed and computed over a long period of time to get anything that is worth commenting on. Getting real tired of the "well I am not Bush; Bush did this or that" platform. We know, old news. Just give us some real solutions and stop saying that you are better because you are not him.
Posted by: Doug B | December 21, 2007 10:43 AM
in other words she's a liar.
Posted by: gary | December 21, 2007 11:20 AM
Hmm...the wrong type of experience does not prepare you to perform well at a new job...fresh ideas and visions do...and of course no baggage allowed.
Merry Christmas to all of you
Posted by: PCM 01 | December 21, 2007 11:27 AM
The Pinocchio Prize will need to be PERMANENTLY transferred to the Hillary Campaign.
Hillary deserves 5 Pinocchios.
Posted by: JaxMax | December 21, 2007 12:48 PM
I agree with JaxMax.
Posted by: TMo | December 21, 2007 03:25 PM
imagine if the headline of this article was
"obama shoeshines some stats"
we know obama plays with stats, but would the "columnist" use a racist term as fast as he uses a sexist one?
Posted by: imagine | December 21, 2007 06:45 PM
So both of Hillary's comments are true. But she chooses different measures to make the case.
What would you suggest as a VALID comparison. It is clear that FactChecker is not capable when it comes to evaluating accuracy or appropriateness of statistics (see Factchecker checks the POST). What number is a good number for comparison:
The Kaiser foundation gives a sparse time series for premium increases so comparing the 1993,1996 and 1999 Clinton numbers vs. the yearly Bush numbers is difficult. Kaiser provides regular consumer inflation rate and workers wage increase rates though to allow us to evaluate the data in context of 'how much did Health Insurance costs' change in relation to 1) other costs and 2) wage earners ability to pay.
During the Clinton years the wage earner's ability to pay for health care (via insurance) improved as wages increased faster than inflation (96 onwards) and the premia increases were relatively smaller (from earlier and later periods).
What statement could HRC make about anything that FC wouldn't give at least two Pinnochios to?
The 'inaccuracies' in Clinton's statement are so much smaller than those that appear in the pages of the Post everyday without any embarrassment or clarification.
From the washingtonmonthly dot com blog
Kevin Drum asks:
I'm asking this completely without snark: Is there any reason at all for a reporter to write a paragraph like this?
"Incomes also rose in November, by 0.4 percent, double the rate of increase in October, although that was more than offset by increased prices, the department reported. Discounting for inflation, disposable personal income -- the money left to spend after taxes -- fell 0.3 percent."
What possible excuse can there be for leaving the initial impression that incomes rose in November? Real income is the only income that matters, and real income was down. That's the number that should get the attention.
And while we're at it, that 1.1% increase in consumer spending that's in the first paragraph of the story? Also not adjusted for inflation. The real number is 0.5%.
And the primary driver of that 0.5% increase in consumer spending? Since incomes were down I suppose you can guess the answer, but you have to plow through to the tenth paragraph before the Post actually tells you: "The increase in spending came because consumers either borrowed or dipped into savings. The department reported that personal savings declined by more than $48 billion in November."
Posted by: ffc | December 22, 2007 11:36 AM
She learned form the best.
Posted by: Ron | December 22, 2007 11:43 AM
Hilliary has taken the term "cooking the books" to new heights? The papers in the Clinton Library should be opened now to allow transpanrency in her remarks. Otherwise, it's the usual election year rhetoric and BS.
Posted by: willig | December 22, 2007 12:41 PM
The worst thing about this kind of distortion is that most people won't have the attention span to wade through the correction. So the tactic works. Classic Clintonian.
Posted by: Ernest Dickinson | December 22, 2007 01:14 PM
Hillary reminds me so much of Bush! Let the people hear, what we want them to hear........may not be right but it is true. Old time politics at it again. Time for a change. Obama 08
Posted by: arplap | December 22, 2007 01:18 PM
Do you suppose that if Hillary/Bill had learned how to bake cookies she would have a basic understanding of how ingredients are supposed to be combined in order to get a cookie that looks like a cookie, and tastes like a cookie, rather than a cookie that looks like a cookie but tastes like a ham sandwich?
Posted by: GW | December 23, 2007 08:32 AM
Pace yourselves, y'all.
The election is about 10.5 months away...
Happy New Year - Zeus willing.
Posted by: chauncykat | December 26, 2007 08:28 PM
One thing I've never fully understood is why Bill and Hillary never tried again to get a health care program for us after Hillary failed with her first attempt.
BTW, if she again practices a politics of angry divisiveness rather than a politics of problem solving, what gives us confidence that she wouldn't fail again...if she were elected President?
Posted by: FirstMouse | December 27, 2007 09:14 AM
What happened to right wing conspiracy when Bill and his sweetheart were mating and Hillary was in Nepal with her daughter. She was always blaming republicans for Bills indiscretions and indendent voters.Why She did not try to speak the truth,Why.
Posted by: P.C.Barman | December 31, 2007 01:21 PM
Post a Comment
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.
Nice column. I would have liked to see a little more detail into what caused some of the increases in costs.
Tracking the rate of change of *premiums* versus overall costs seems to be avoiding the big picture. Premiums are paid only by people with health insurance, i.e. generally fairly well-off people. It'd be good to know what costs apply to everyone else.
Some increases in overall costs are due to the aging population. I'd like to know how much.
Some of the increases in costs are due to the increase in the illegal immigrant population; I'd love to know how much.
I would also love to know what trends in health care costs would have followed if HillaryCare had been passed in 1993.
BTW I wonder if Bill would get a similar assignment in President HRC's White House.