Suchergebnisse

Cost shifting, in which governments transfer the cost of certain health care services to patients or private insurance companies, is increasing rapidly, and Dr. Christopher Carruthers thinks it will spell an end to Canada's single-payer system. The signs are already there: the private sector is offering more services and employers are keeping a closer eye on the health care system as they begin to pay a bigger share of the costs. The result, says Carruthers, is that government influence is bound to diminish as the private sector tries to fill voids created by governments that are trying to live within their fiscal means.

Health care quality measures are impacted by resources invested into outcomes. COVID-19 has had a direct impact upon quality outcomes, the same illuminating just some of the problems with the concept of a single-payer health care system. The US government's inefficiencies in attempting to run the single-payer system known as IHS in context with its repeated failures in managing the COVID-19 crises along with the economic impact of the same, is but one call for strong leadership to dispel the myth that a single-payer system is a panacea for America.

Leaders in both government and the health-care industry have strong and varied opinions regarding the present US health-care system, but concur that health-care financing and organization need restructuring. The single-payer system offers the best framework for improving health-care universality, delivery, quality, access, choice, and cost effectiveness. However, the single-payer alternative often is dismissed early in debates on health-care reform. Popular aversion to collective governmental funding of health-care costs and the economic interests of the management, insurance, information, and profit sectors of the health-care industry are the critical impediments to adoption of single-payer insurance systems. This article examines the psychosocial and economic obstacles that prevent development of an efficient and effective health-care system and preclude recognition of the single-payer system as the best answer to health-care reform.

A universal, single payer model for the American health system aligns with and should emanate from commonly held values contained within the country's foundational religious teachings, morals, ethics and democratic heritage. The Affordable Care Act in its attempt to create expanded health access has met with significant challenges. The conservative Supreme Court decreases the likelihood of a federal mandated single payer model. As uncertainty of the structure of the healthcare system increases, this paper supports its transformation to a single payer model. Healthcare should be considered a duty within the framework of a Kantian approach to ethics and a social good. Evidently ignoring this duty, the American health system perpetuates a healthcare underclass, with underserved portions of the population, with unequal access to quality care and persistent health status and outcome disparities. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the effect of social determinants on optimal health outcome. A health insurance system based on the nation's commonly held values has the potential to eliminate these disparities.

AbstractIn 1965 and 1966, the United States and Canada adopted single-payer models of government insurance for physician and hospital services – universal in Canada, but restricted to certain population groups in the US. At the time, the American and Canadian political economies of health care and landscapes of public opinion were remarkably similar, and the different policy designs must be understood as products of the distinctive macro-level politics of the day. Subsequently, however, the different scopes of single-payer coverage would drive the two systems in different directions. In Canada, the single-payer system became entrenched in popular support and in the nexus of interest it created between the medical profession and the state. In the US, Medicare became similarly entrenched in popular support, but did so as part of the larger multi-payer private insurance system. In the process universal single-payer coverage became politically iconic in Canada and taboo in the US.

BACKGROUND:The United States is the only high-income nation without universal, government-funded or -mandated health insurance employing a unified payment system. The US multi-payer system leaves residents uninsured or underinsured, despite overall healthcare costs far above other nations. Single-payer (often referred to as Medicare for All), a proposed policy solution since 1990, is receiving renewed press attention and popular support. Our review seeks to assess the projected cost impact of a single-payer approach. METHODS AND FINDINGS:We conducted our literature search between June 1 and December 31, 2018, without start date restriction for included studies. We surveyed an expert panel and searched PubMed, Google, Google Scholar, and preexisting lists for formal economic studies of the projected costs of single-payer plans for the US or for individual states. Reviewer pairs extracted data on methods and findings using a template. We quantified changes in total costs standardized to percentage of contemporaneous healthcare spending. Additionally, we quantified cost changes by subtype, such as costs due to increased healthcare utilization and savings due to simplified payment administration, lower drug costs, and other factors. We further examined how modeling assumptions affected results. Our search yielded economic analyses of the cost of 22 single-payer plans over the past 30 years. Exclusions were due to inadequate technical data or assuming a substantial ongoing role for private insurers. We found that 19 (86%) of the analyses predicted net savings (median net result was a savings of 3.46% of total costs) in the first year of program operation and 20 (91%) predicted savings over several years; anticipated growth rates would result in long-term net savings for all plans. The largest source of savings was simplified payment administration (median 8.8%), and the best predictors of net savings were the magnitude of utilization increase, and savings on administration and drug costs (R2 of 0.035, 0.43, and 0.62, respectively). Only drug cost savings remained significant in multivariate analysis. Included studies were heterogeneous in methods, which precluded us from conducting a formal meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS:In this systematic review, we found a high degree of analytic consensus for the fiscal feasibility of a single-payer approach in the US. Actual costs will depend on plan features and implementation. Future research should refine estimates of the effects of coverage expansion on utilization, evaluate provider administrative costs in varied existing single-payer systems, analyze implementation options, and evaluate US-based single-payer programs, as available.

BACKGROUND:The United States is the only high-income nation without universal, government-funded or -mandated health insurance employing a unified payment system. The US multi-payer system leaves residents uninsured or underinsured, despite overall healthcare costs far above other nations. Single-payer (often referred to as Medicare for All), a proposed policy solution since 1990, is receiving renewed press attention and popular support. Our review seeks to assess the projected cost impact of a single-payer approach. METHODS AND FINDINGS:We conducted our literature search between June 1 and December 31, 2018, without start date restriction for included studies. We surveyed an expert panel and searched PubMed, Google, Google Scholar, and preexisting lists for formal economic studies of the projected costs of single-payer plans for the US or for individual states. Reviewer pairs extracted data on methods and findings using a template. We quantified changes in total costs standardized to percentage of contemporaneous healthcare spending. Additionally, we quantified cost changes by subtype, such as costs due to increased healthcare utilization and savings due to simplified payment administration, lower drug costs, and other factors. We further examined how modeling assumptions affected results. Our search yielded economic analyses of the cost of 22 single-payer plans over the past 30 years. Exclusions were due to inadequate technical data or assuming a substantial ongoing role for private insurers. We found that 19 (86%) of the analyses predicted net savings (median net result was a savings of 3.46% of total costs) in the first year of program operation and 20 (91%) predicted savings over several years; anticipated growth rates would result in long-term net savings for all plans. The largest source of savings was simplified payment administration (median 8.8%), and the best predictors of net savings were the magnitude of utilization increase, and savings on administration and drug costs (R2 of 0.035, 0.43, and 0.62, ...

Single-payer nightmares in Canada and the United Kingdom -- Single-payer healthcare in the United States -- Single-payer plans under consideration