Time for some sharper interviewing on the News Hour

I never thought I’d say this but I think someone needs to take over from Judy Woodruff on the News Hour. Tonight she interviewed James Lankford, R-Okla. In discussing the “skinny” repeal of the ACA, he suggested that CBO scoring of those who would lose insurance assumed that all who were added to the rolls under the ACA mandate would leave once the mandate was removed adding nine million to the number of uninsured. He implied that some proportion of the 9m would not leave the market and thus the CBO estimate should not be taken as gospel. At which point Woodruff moved on.

This was an opportunity missed. She should not have taken the statement at face value; the follow up question she ought to have asked was: “So if some but not all people leave, and premiums rise, which they must do since an increasing proportion of the insured will be those with high medical bills for whom it’s cheaper to pay even the higher premiums than their medical bills, why any would those who are only buying because of the mandate continue to buy after the premiums rise”? This seemed to be a logical flaw in Langford’s argument. But it was allowed to stand, unchallenged. (Economists term this adverse selection – simply put, only those who expect to get more in payouts than they pay premiums will buy insurance, which means insurers are left with a pool who cost more than they take in – and the market fails). This is a case where the interview should perhaps have been conducted by someone who better understands the insurance marketplace.

As the show’s executive producer the decision not to bring in someone who could conduct a sharper line of questioning ( for example Stephen Saker on the BBC’s Hard Talk, a great example of someone who really gets to grips with the material and can ask the penetrating follow-up questions), is hers. Not doing so is a disservice to her audience and the profession.