DOCSLIB.ORG

ANALYSIS of the COSTS and BENEFITS of MEDICARE CATASTROPHIC COVERAGE ACT of 1988 and the FINANCIAL IMPACT on the ELDERLY by Jane

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ANALYSIS of the COSTS and BENEFITS of MEDICARE CATASTROPHIC COVERAGE ACT of 1988 and the FINANCIAL IMPACT on the ELDERLY by Jane ANALYSIS OF THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF MEDICARE CATASTROPHIC COVERAGE ACT OF 1988 and THE FINANCIAL IMPACT ON THE ELDERLY by Janet M. Wood Presented to the Public Administration Faculty at The University of M1ch1gan-Fl1nt 1n partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Public Administration Degree April 1991 First Reader Second Reader DEDICATION I wish to dedicate this to my husband Don, whose help and support gave me the courage to finish. TABLE OF CONTENTS page I. INTRODUCTION...................................... 1 II. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ................................ 7 A. Legislative History B. Comparison of Proposed Bills C. Provisions of MECCA D. Protest and Repeal III. METHODOLOGY ............................................ 48 IV. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM ....................... ..... 52 V. DISCUSSION.............................................. 54 A. Simulated Cases VI. CONCLUSION.............................................. 80 VII. REFERENCES.............................................. 88 INTRODUCTION The United States spends more on medical care— both in absolute terms and as a percentage of its gross national product— than any other industrialized nation. American medical care is unsurpassed in technological and sophistication, but its costs are very high and rising rapidly. The variety of cost containment programs developed over the past decade has had little effect on overall expenditures. The rapid and continuing increases in our nation’s resources devoted to personal medical services, and the increasing role of our government in financing those services, has raised the issue of health care funding to the forefront of public policy and opinion. Health care will consume increasing portions of the gross national product (GNP) in the first half of the 1990’s, hitting 13.5 percent in 1995. The future level of health care as a percent of the GNP has serious policy implications, say executives at Health One Corporation, Minneapolis. "If by 1995 we end up at 14 percent of the GNP, or higher, I think there will be such an outcry that we’ll end up with some form of socialized medicine," says Dick Blair, Health One’s executive vice president and chief financial officer (Solovy, July 20, 1989). The increasing numbers in the aging population has an important implication on the future of health care financing. It will increase 1 the prevalence of chronic health conditions, disability and fraility will increase the demand for health and long-term care services. In 1980, 26 million people, or 11% of the population, were 65 and over. As the post World War II baby boom cohort reaches retirement, the aged population is expected to grow to 59 million, or 19% of the population in 2030. Given current estimates of mortality trends, major increases are expected in the numbers of older women. The female population age 85 and over will triple between 1980 and 2030, with more than 75% of these women single or widowed. People living alone or without a spouse are at greater risk of needing long-term care assistance (Davis, Karen, Winter 1987, Symposium Report). The future growth of the population of those aged 85 years and over, a group frequently referred to as the “oldest old," will have a substantial impact on future health care costs. This age group is projected to grow from 2.5 million persons in 1980 to as high as 24 million persons in 2040 (Schneider, Edward, JAMA 1989). The dramatic growth of the elderly population seems to be the result of an increased awareness of necessary life-style changes to promote wellness, and various technological advances in the medical field, all contributing to longevity. In 1960 a woman reaching age 65 could expect to live until age 81, in 1980 she could expect to live until age 83, and by 2000 she can expect to live until age 86. Life expectancy for men at age 65 has increased from 78 years in 1960 to 79 years in 1980 and is expected to increase to 81 years in 2000 (Davis, Karen, Winter 1987). 2 Although there have been significant reductions in mortality from heart disease and stroke in recent years, death rates from cancer are increasing among the elderly population. There seems to be some controversy whether the average age-adjusted health status of the elderly will improve or decline. What is evident is that as the number of old people increases so will the number of people with chronic conditions or limited functional ability. Growth in the size of the elderly population will bring with 1t the greatest demands on the health care system, as well as increasing concerns over means of financing that care. The number of physician visits by the elderly is expected to double between 1980 and 2000 (according to Karen Davis, Symposium Report), even if there is no increase in the rate at which groups of elderly use physician services. Davis projects that, Total hospital days for persons 65 and over should increase from 105 million in 1980 to 273 million in 2000, almost tripling hospital use by the aged in a 20 year period. Their share of hospital days will increase from 38% in 1980 to an estimated 58% in 2000. The number of aged in nursing homes will rise from 1.2 million in 1980 to an estimated 1.8 million in 2000 if current age specific rates of institutionalization continue. It is not surprising, therefore, that there exists an increasing concern over the funding of health care needs of these aging Americans. On July 1, 1966 the federal government initiated health service benefits under Medicare Title XVIII and Medicaid Title XIX, of the Social Security Act. The introduction of Medicare and Medicaid was 3 probably one of the most significant social welfare programs undertaken by the federal government since the introduction of Social Security (Mehl, Bernard, 1988). After two years of White House and Congressional legislative debate, President Reagan signed into law on July 1, 1988 Medicare’s largest expansion since its inception in 1966. The Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 (MECCA) was designed to somewhat shield the 32 million elderly and disabled beneficiaries from the rising costs of hospital care, physician care, prescription drug costs, while mandating extended coverage to the poor through the state Medicaid programs. This new expansion of covered benefits was expected to assist an estimated 8 million of the elderly and disabled who incur catastrophic expenses for their health needs. The total cost of the program was estimated to be nearly $33 billion over the next five years (Wilson, Nick, November 1988). In 1966 Medicare costs were $1.1 billion. By 1986 these costs had risen to $76 billion. Medicare has become the nation’s largest single purchaser of physician and hospital services (Wilson, Nick, 1988). The Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 was designed to be budget neutral: the cost of the expanded coverage was to be paid for by the Medicare beneficiaries themselves. In the main the Act’s provisions became effective in January 1989 or January 1990. Although certain provisions, such as the drug plan, are phased in over a period of several years. 4 Somehow the taxpayers didn’t get the rise of what was being done in Congress to finance the cost. Congressmen and administration spokesmen were issuing statements telling the voters what wonderful things were being done without explaining what it was going to cost. It was into this void that James Roosevelt, son of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, believed to have looked favorably at national health insurance, saw an opportunity for his then somewhat obscure National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. He needed an issue, and there it was. Mr. Roosevelt mailed huge amounts of frantic warnings to those taxpayers, telling them they were about to be exorbitantly taxed. The upper- and particularly the middle- income groups reacted with angry letters to Capitol Hill (CQ, October 14, 1989, p. 2714). The reaction tended to come from those groups more than from the poor, who are less likely to write to their congressman. Movements to change, if not repeal the legislation began to develop. This paper examines the benefits and the costs of the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988, as it relates to those 65 years and older, focusing on methods of funding and impact of those methods on various economic groups of elderly. Through literature search and examination of documents and various surveys I will examine the proposed methods of funding. Researching hearings from the House of Representatives, as well as several Senate committees, an analysis will be made of costs of medical services as well as the length of time it would take to plunge the 5 elderly into poverty should they experience a chronic illness or require long term care. Public Law 100-360 will be evaluated for costs and benefits to the enrol lees with emphasis on equity in financing. Equity will be measured by looking at income and portions of income spent out-of-pocket on health care. A determination will then be made whether the benefits outweighed the costs for elderly participants of differing income levels. 6 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The debate over paying for the nation’s health care has spanned several decades and continues to be a volatile issue in 1989. Teddy Roosevelt first made national health insurance an issue in the Bull Moose campaign of 1912. Since then and with varying degrees of intensity, the issue has held a place on the national political agenda. The emergence of voluntary private health insurance programs in the 1930’s momentarily dampened but did not eliminate the demand for government intervention. The issue re-surfaced under the Truman administration, but no legislation was generated. During the prosperous days of the political movement of the 1960’s much was said about the need for a broad-based program of publicly financed health care for all Americans.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Debunking the Government Takeover Myth
    Debunking the Government Takeover Myth By Stan Dorn and Stephen Zuckerman Of the many unfounded claims now coloring the health care debate, at least one can be taken off the table. As President Obama told the nation September 9, it’s time to stop making “wild claims about a government takeover of health care.” He’s right and here’s why. For starters, pending legislation would leave our largely private medical care system intact. Right now, more than 90 percent of doctors are in private practice and 84 percent of all hospital admissions are to private facilities. That wouldn’t change as a result of any reform proposals. If it’s Big Brother in the examination room that seems chilling, that’s not at issue either. Nothing in the thousand pages of reform proposals would give the federal government any new authority to intervene in private health care decisions. “Death panels” are as imaginary as Lord Voldemort, and government’s role would be largely what it is now: helping low-income Americans pay for health coverage and regulating insurance companies so they better serve consumers. Under the new proposals millions of Americans would see their health care options increase. Workers covered through small firms, for instance, could choose from a range of health plans available in a new health insurance “exchange,” a convenient new marketplace that could make both private and public options available. Today, three fourths of these workers are offered only one health plan by their employer. And when people work for themselves or a company that doesn't provide any insurance at all, they are on their own today.
    [Show full text]
  • Republican Leader Michael C. Burgess, MD
    Republican Leader Michael C. Burgess, M.D. Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee “Proposals to Achieve Universal Health Care Coverage” December 10, 2019 As Prepared for Delivery Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for holding this hearing on various universal heath care coverage proposals, including Medicare for All. Ranking Member Walden and I requested a hearing on Medicare for all numerous times this year, and I appreciate that you took our request seriously enough to hold today’s hearing. I would like to ask unanimous consent that our two letters be included in the record. Coverage does not equal care. Chairman Pallone and Chairwoman Eshoo stated in noticing this hearing that “universal health care coverage has long been the North Star of the Democratic Party.” Every bill before us today is paving that road to the North Star – to accomplishing one-size-fits-all health care coverage. Page 1 of 6 I’m not sure the three wise men would appreciate your comparison, as this North Star journey would lead our health care system as we currently know it to disintegrate into ashes. If we’re listening to Joni Mitchell, then the northern star is not very reliable as it is constantly in the dark. Medicare for All would eliminate private insurance, employer- sponsored health insurance, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Plan, upon which many Americans depend. I am concerned about the consequences for existing Medicare beneficiaries, as this policy would raid the Medicare Trust Fund, which is already slated to go bankrupt in 2026. Our nation’s seniors have been depending on the existence of Medicare for their health care needs in retirement for their entire lives.
    [Show full text]
  • Single-Payer FAQ's Americans Spend Over Twice As Much Per Capita On
    (https://fixithealthcare.com/) –FAQs FAQs Home (https://fixithealthcare.com) / By The Numbers (https://fixithealthcare.com/by-the-numbers/) / FAQs Single-Payer FAQ’s (http://fixithealthcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Single-Payer.jpg) Simply put, single-payer is health insurance. A public agency organizes all healthcare financing. Delivery of care remains private. The confusion of thousands of insurance policies, (https (http://fixithea manuals, and uncertainties about coverage will be ended. A single-payer system could eliminate deductibles, co-pays, and out- of-pocket expenses (at the point of care), while providing healthcare for all Americans. Savings anticipated in the US: $504 billion a year. (https://w All Americans would be covered for all medically necessary services. Patients would regain choice of doctor and hospital, and doctors would regain autonomy over patient care. Americans spend over twice as much per capita on health care as the average developed country. Q? How will it be funded? A. First, recognize that approximately 50% of US healthcare is currently funded through taxes – and 50% through business and household pockets. A single-payer system would be financed through a transfer of money that Americans and the country’s employers currently pay insurance companies. The premiums we and employers now pay insurers would be transferred to a federal program, which would be the single-payer for health care services. The cost to all of us – either through taxes or out-of-pocket expenses goes way down, with savings of over $700 billion per year, including negotiation for prescription drugs, a unified fee schedule, and greatly reduced administrative expense.
    [Show full text]
  • Getting Ready for Health Reform 2020: What Past Presidential Campaigns Can Teach Us
    REPORT JUNE 2018 Getting Ready for Health Reform 2020: What Past Presidential Campaigns Can Teach Us Jeanne M. Lambrew Senior Fellow The Century Foundation ABSTRACT KEY TAKEAWAYS ISSUE: The candidates for the 2020 presidential election are likely to Campaign plans are used by emerge within a year, along with their campaign plans. Such plans will supporters and the press to hold presidents accountable. Though include, if not feature, health policy proposals, given this issue’s general voters are unlikely to believe that significance as well as the ongoing debate over the Affordable Care Act. politicians keep their promises, GOAL: To explain why campaign plans matter, review the health policy roughly two-thirds of campaign components of past presidential campaign platforms, and discuss the promises were kept by presidents likely 2020 campaign health reform plans. from 1968 through the Obama years. METHODS: Review of relevant reports, data, party platforms, and policy documents. Health policy will likely play FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Proposals related to health care have a significant role in the 2020 grown in scope in both parties’ presidential platforms over the past election, with Republicans focused on deregulation and century and affect both agendas and assessments of a president’s capped federal financing success. Continued controversy over the Affordable Care Act, potential and Democrats backing the reversals in gains in coverage and affordability, and voters’ concern Affordable Care Act and a suggest a central role for health policy in the 2020 election. Republicans Medicare-based public plan will most likely continue to advance devolution, deregulation, and option. capped federal financing, while Democrats will likely overlay their support of the Affordable Care Act with some type of Medicare-based public plan option.
    [Show full text]
  • Provide a Better Prescription Than Medicare-For-All
    PROVIDE A BETTER PRESCRIPTION THAN MEDICARE-FOR-ALL The current U.S. health care system is plagued by high costs, Quick Take industry consolidation, and a poorly functioning marketplace. Democrats believe the prescription for these challenges is a form Medicare-for-All amounts to a federal takeover of of single-payer system. Socialized medicine won’t solve the American health care. challenges our health care system faces – it would nationalize the entire health care sector and wreck the economy. Democrats cannot answer how to fund their socialized medicine plans without wrecking the BACKGROUND American economy. Congress should consider U.S. health care spending accounts for approximately 18 percent reforms that address the burdens plaguing our of America’s gross domestic product (GDP).1 Government current system. spending on health care makes up a substantial portion of that amount. In 2018, Medicare accounted for 21 percent of health care spending at $750 billion, and Medicaid carried a 16 percent share at $597 billion.2 Nationwide, “personal healthcare spending is currently projected to be $3.859 trillion in 2022,”3 while national health expenditures are estimated to reach $4.562 trillion in 2022.4 According to one estimate, average households spend more of their income on hospital visits (18.6 percent) than they do on federal taxes (13.9 percent).5 Source: Avik Roy, Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity6 REPUBLICANPOLICY.HOUSE.GOV @GOPPOLICY [email protected] Democrats have introduced two major so-called “Medicare-for-All” proposals which have received national attention. The first is Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-VT) plan, S.
    [Show full text]
  • Moore's Sicko Offers No Cure for U.S. Health Care
    Moore’s Sicko Offers No Cure for U.S. Health Care 2007-20 by Paul Guppy, Vice President for Research There he goes again. Michael Moore health care results in rationing, price controls, earlier this year released Sicko, a new waiting lists and low-quality care. “documentary” movie about American health care. I put the word in quotation marks For example, the Canadian courts because documentary films usually present recently ruled in favor of patient George facts. Zeliotis, who lived in pain for a year while waiting for a hip operation under Canada’s But for Moore, a film is called a socialized “health care for all” system. The documentary not because it is based on fact – justices found that Canadians had suffered and his films actually contain serious errors – but even died while waiting for care. because he does not use professional actors, meaning he does not have to pay the people In Britain, waiting lists for routine care who appear on camera. Apparently, the only are so long that one of the most popular person who gets paid for appearing in a products sold in drug stores are do-it-yourself Michael Moore film is...Michael Moore. In dental kits. Sicko, Moore attacks for-profit health care and calls for adoption of a socialized, state- Socialized health systems are managed health care system. chronically plagued by rationing, shortages, labor strikes and disputes over doctors’ pay. Yet Moore is not adverse to securing The poor quality of socialized medicine helps handsome profits in his own field. Disney explain why so many foreigners travel to the Corporation paid Moore a dazzling $21 United State to receive medical care.
    [Show full text]
  • “Socialized” Medicine: Oppositional Rhetoric and Obama’S Health Care Reform
    Bryant University Bryant Digital Repository History and Social Sciences Faculty Journal History and Social Sciences Faculty Articles Publications and Research 3-2013 The Enduring Narrative of “Socialized” Medicine: Oppositional Rhetoric and Obama’s Health Care Reform Richard Holtzman Bryant University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.bryant.edu/histss_jou Part of the Oral History Commons, and the Other Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Holtzman, Richard, "The Enduring Narrative of “Socialized” Medicine: Oppositional Rhetoric and Obama’s Health Care Reform" (2013). History and Social Sciences Faculty Journal Articles. Paper 71. https://digitalcommons.bryant.edu/histss_jou/71 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the History and Social Sciences Faculty Publications and Research at Bryant Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in History and Social Sciences Faculty Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Bryant Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Enduring Narrative of “Socialized” Medicine: Oppositional Rhetoric and Obama’s Health Care Reform Richard Holtzman Associate Professor, Bryant University To Cite this Article: Richard Holtzman (2013): “The Enduring Narrative of ‘Socialized’ Medicine: Oppositional Rhetoric and Obama’s Health Care Reform.” Itineration: Cross-Disciplinary Studies in Rhetoric, Media, and Culture March 2013. Itineration: Cross-Disciplinary Studies in Rhetoric, Media and Culture March 2013 itineration.org ISSN: 2169-561X © Abstract President Barack Obama and his promises of health care reform were met with strong public support when he took office in January 2009. By the time Congress ultimately passed legislation in March 2010, not only had a majority of citizens turned against health care reform, but many had come to interpret it as inimical to American values.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring Single-Payer Alternatives for Health Care Reform
    Dissertation Exploring Single-Payer Alternatives for Health Care Reform Jodi L. Liu This document was submitted as a dissertation in May 2016 in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the doctoral degree in public policy analysis at the Pardee RAND Graduate School. The faculty committee that supervised and approved the dissertation consisted of Robert H. Brook (Chair), Christine Eibner, and Jeffrey Wasserman. PARDEE RAND GRADUATE SCHOOL For more information on this publication, visit http://www.rand.org/pubs/rgs_dissertations/RGSD375.html Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2016 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.html. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Abstract The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has reduced the number of uninsured and established new cost containment initiatives.
    [Show full text]
  • The Value of Socialized Medicine: the Impact of Universal Primary Healthcare Provision on Mortality Rates in Turkey
    NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES THE VALUE OF SOCIALIZED MEDICINE: THE IMPACT OF UNIVERSAL PRIMARY HEALTHCARE PROVISION ON MORTALITY RATES IN TURKEY Resul Cesur Pınar Mine Güneş Erdal Tekin Aydogan Ulker Working Paper 21510 http://www.nber.org/papers/w21510 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 August 2015, Revised May 2017 Previously circulated as "The Value of Socialized Medicine: The Impact of Universal Primary Healthcare Provision on Birth and Mortality Rates in Turkey." We thank Dr. Emel Ergu n Seyit for providing insights about the operational details of the family medicine program. We also thank Bulent Anil and seminar participants at the University of Connecticut, University of Alberta, University of Manitoba, University of South Florida, Yasar University, Izmir University of Economics, Ghent University, European Society for Population Economics in Turkey, TUSIAD-KOC ERF Conference on Health, Education and Worker Productivity in Turkey, Western Economic Association International Conference in Singapore, Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management Conference in United Kingdom for their helpful comments and suggestions. Erdal Tekin gratefully acknowledges support from the Gary and Stacey Jacobs Fellowship. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications. © 2015 by Resul Cesur, Pınar Mine Güneş, Erdal Tekin, and Aydogan Ulker. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source.
    [Show full text]
  • One Purpose of the Film Sicko Is to Get Some of the Facts out to the American People About the Things That Are Wrong with U.S. Health Care
    SiCKO One purpose of the film SiCKO is to get some of the facts out to the American people about the things that are wrong with U.S. health care. Michael Moore points out that wealthy stakeholders make huge investments to maintain a status quo which supports excessive industry profits instead of meeting our health care needs. His premise is that, because of those special interests, sometimes we are left with information that simply is not true. Affordable health care for everyone is referenced in a variety of ways in the film, depending on the country being highlighted, or the perspective of the person speaking. In the U.S. the terms often are used interchangeably and incorrectly, especially when we hear reports on the Town Hall Meetings or listen to the political pundits. Here are the different kinds of insurance referenced in the film and used in dialog about healthcare. When analyzing facts for your paper, be sure these definitions are clear to you. Universal Health Care – very simply… a health system designed to guarantee that everyone has access to quality health care which is comprehensive and affordable (All industrialized democracies except the U.S. have some sort of Universal Health Care.) National Health Insurance – insurance coverage provided by a nation that guarantees health care for all of its citizens, regardless of whether the health care is provided by government-employed health professionals (England) or private practitioners (France, Canada) Socialized Medicine (National Health Service) – a health system in which health care providers are government employees, health care facilities are run by the government and the government pays for health care services.
    [Show full text]
  • Federalism Issue
    © lunamarina/Shutterstock CHAPTER 2 How We Got Here: U.S. Health Policy History This chapter is designed to give healthcare leaders an understanding of U.S. health policy history by covering the following topics: ■ The history of health policy ■ How the U.S. health system developed ■ How selected major components of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act developed practice of medicine lacked standardization, ▸ History of Health with almost anyone who desired to practice medicine being able to open a practice and Policy and assume the title of doctor. With the rise of sev- eral alternative options to allopathic medicine, Development of the including homeopathic (1796), osteopathic U.S. Health System (1874), naturopathic (1895), and chiropractic (1895) medicine in the 1800s, the public was he history of health policy development not always certain about what they were get- in the United States had its beginnings ting when receiving treatment from a “doctor.” at the state, as opposed to federal, level, Doctors of Medicine were concerned about Twith few exceptions. These exceptions, begin- distinguishing themselves from alternative ning with the Sailors and Marines Act of 1798,1 practices with the establishment of licensing addressed the narrowest of constituencies. laws based on ensuring the quality of treatment State-level action began with a series of medical received from individuals claiming the title of licensing laws passed circa 1800, abolished circa “doctor.” While ensuring quality is the claim 1830, and re-established post-Civil War. Prior every trade group uses when seeking licensure, to post-Civil War era licensing regulations, the economists view licensure as a restraint of trade 1 This laid the foundation for what would become the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Single Payer Healthcare
    Position Paper: Single Payer Healthcare Alliance4Action Healthcare Action Team January, 2018 Issue The United States has a fragmented “system” of healthcare coverage funded by private insurance, governmental programs and individuals’ out of pocket payments. We spend more on healthcare than any other industrialized country yet health outcomes are poorer than those of comparable nations and coverage is not universal. Our Position We support a single payer or single payer hybrid model of healthcare funding. Why we have this position We feel quality healthcare is a right and should be affordable and accessible to all. A single payer or hybrid system is the best means to achieve universal coverage because it is the most cost-effective model, the least complex administratively, and offers opportunities for better quality control. Background A single payer healthcare system is one where the insurer, usually a government, pays for all covered health care costs. A hybrid system includes private insurance as part of the system. Three main models of universal healthcare systems, based on single-payer or hybrid systems, have been implemented around the world:1 Beveridge Model: This system, established in postwar England, Spain, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Cuba, and most Scandinavian countries, is named for the British social reformer, William Beveridge. This model is typically referred to as “socialized medicine”. Healthcare is universal and is funded by taxes. Most clinics and hospitals are owned and run by the government. Physicians and other providers are generally government employees. However, private insurance is still available for purchase by those individuals who can afford it and who prefer non-governmental healthcare providers and facilities.
    [Show full text]