| |
Theoretical Models for Delivering Health Care
Speak Up, America! Health Care Is Our Right!
The growing number of uninsured individuals continues to be
one of this country's greatest tragedies. It is perpetually an
important political issue, although little is done to improve
the dire situation. Part of the problem is that no one can agree
on an approach to achieve universal health care coverage. The
purpose of the following primer is to identify the major theoretical
approaches to universal coverage, examine their advantages and
disadvantages, and to briefly discuss AMSA's position on each.
View a full in-depth discussion
of each approach. (PDF 219KB)
Single-Payer System
Basic Concept:
Under a single-payer health care system, one entity (usually
the federal government) is responsible for financing basic medical
costs for the entire population. Revenue is generated through
taxation. The central role of the government in this system is
to collect and distribute money. It does not necessarily control
any of the other aspects of health care.
Advantages:
- Every individual would receive necessary medical coverage,
regardless of age, health, employment, or socio-economic status.
- Health care spending would decline because centralized billing
procedures would reduce administrative overhead. Consequently,
a larger percentage of the cost of health care would actually
be spent on patient treatment.
- Increased access to preventive care and the ability of government
to purchase prescription medications in bulk would also help
drive down health care costs. However, the corresponding drop
in revenue for pharmaceutical companies could lead to a reduction
in overall research and development, slowing down technological
advancement.
- Patients can choose their physician and physicians can choose
the most appropriate treatment for their patients.
- There would be a removal of profit-motive in health care.
The driving force behind the health industry would be patient
care and not profit maximization.
Disadvantages:
- There are many political drawbacks. Convincing lawmakers
and their constituents that government should take over the financing
of health care through taxation will not be easy. Also, health
care could be threatened by changes in the political climate
that lead to budgetary adjustments.
- A large number of private sector jobs would be lost as insurance
companies would no longer be of consequence. However, many of
the unemployed would be highly educated and could easily find
work in another field or could be re-trained to fit the changing
needs of the health care system.
- If physicians are paid based on a negotiated fee-for-service
plan (as in Canada), there will be little incentive for health
care providers to try and control costs.
- Erasing people's negative, and often inaccurate, perceptions
of a single-payer health care system may prove to be difficult.
Long lines, inefficient bureaucracy, limited choice, and sub-standard
health care are just a few of the erroneous beliefs that would
need to be changed.
AMSA says: AMSA
believes that a single-payer national insurance system is the
best solution for our current health care crisis.
Multi-Payer System
Basic Concept:
Every citizen has access to health care coverage through a single-payer
system. However, individuals and/or employers have the ability
to purchase insurance privately.
Advantages:
- Ensures that everyone will receive health care coverage while
giving people the option of remaining with their current insurance
plan if they desire.
- Most of the benefits of a single-payer system would still
apply. Administrative costs would decrease, physician and patients
would have autonomy, and the profit-motive would be removed from
the single-payer part of the system.
- Is politically favorable because it does not eliminate private
insurance companies, and continues the perception of choice in
health care.
Disadvantages:
- Because it incorporates single payer, it has many of the
same disadvantages. These include vulnerability to the political
climate, loss of private sector jobs, potential overspending
by physicians, and a possible slowdown in technological advancement.
- Multi payer does not completely remove the profit motive
in health care. Those who choose to pursue privately financed
health care plans may be susceptible to the many problems that
plague the current system.
AMSA says: Although
AMSA believes that single payer is the ideal system, multi-payer
universal health care is a sound alternative. However, AMSA believes
that multi payer still leaves some people vulnerable to the abusive
practices of private insurance companies. Multi payer may be
most valuable as a step along the road to a single-payer system.
Tax Credits
Basic Concept:
The government would provide tax credits to individuals to be
used for the purchase of private health insurance. Depending
on how the tax-credit scheme is structured, uninsured people
would be able to use the tax credit to pay for all or a portion
of insurance premiums.
Advantages:
- The plan is relatively simple, is easy to implement, and
would not require major structural changes in the health care
market.
- Because the plan is simple, does not call for dramatic changes,
and relies on the health care system currently in place, it is
politically viable.
- The American Medical Association (AMA), which has used its
influence to block every previous attempt at universal health
care coverage, supports the use of tax credits to increase health
care access.
- Unlike some other plans, tax credits match the ideals of
many Americans who do not believe that health care coverage should
be standardized and mandated.
- Depending on the scenario, tax credits may increase patient
empowerment by providing individuals with more control and choice
over their health insurance.
Disadvantages:
- Using tax credits to facilitate the purchase of insurance
does not guarantee that every citizen of the United States will
have medical coverage. The tax credit may not necessarily pay
for the entire cost of insurance or it may not be a realistic
option for some.
- Because tax credits would allow the current system to remain
in place, there would be no reduction in health care spending.
- The maximization of profit will continue to be a driving
force in health care.
- Patients still may be restricted in choosing their physician
and doctors still may be limited in treating patients in the
manner that they best see fit.
AMSA says: AMSA
does not support using tax credits to reduce the number of uninsured.
AMSA believes that tax credits do not adequately solve the health
care problems for those who are most disenfranchised. AMSA also
believes that a health insurance system should be universal rather
than voluntary. Voluntary systems do not work in the best interests
of those who need care because they ask individuals to make decisions
based on facts (such as when, or how severely they will become
ill) that they cannot possibly know.
Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs)
Basic Concept:
Money is placed into a tax-exempt savings account for individuals
to use solely for health care. Some of the money is used to purchase
a high deductible catastrophic-insurance plan. Routine or minor
health care is paid for from the remainder of the savings account
or out of pocket.
Advantages:
- Theoretically there should be a decrease in unnecessary medical
spending because individuals would have to pay the costs of minor
care out of their own pocket. This discourages people from visiting
the doctor simply because their head hurts.
- Because individuals will have to pay some expenses, MSAs
may encourage more health conscious behaviors in an attempt to
avoid minor ailments.
- Paying some costs out of pocket will allow the consumer to
have more choices in providers. This will encourage them to seek
low-cost, high quality care.
Disadvantages:
- MSAs are not beneficial to lower-income individuals. Those
who are disenfranchised will continue to struggle paying for
out of pocket costs.
- In trying to reduce unnecessary health care utilization,
MSAs discourage preventive medicine by making patients pay for
routine visits to the doctor. The consequence may be rising health
care costs and worse outcomes as people wait until it is too
late before dealing with a medical problem.
- People are going to have to make a lot of choices on their
own about health care. It may be difficult for many to make informed
decisions about the cost-effectiveness and quality of care they
are receiving.
AMSA says: AMSA
does not support using MSAs to increase access to health care.
AMSA believes that MSAs do not solve the troubles of lower-income
uninsured and create greater problems by discouraging preventive
medicine.
Managed Competition
Basic Concept:
Employers and individuals join health care purchasing cooperatives
that negotiate with private insurers offering a minimum set of
benefits. Individuals choose among plans offered by their purchasing
cooperative, with employers paying most of the premium. The premiums
are priced the same for everyone in the plan, regardless of health
status. Cooperatives serve not only to negotiate prices but also
to gather relevant information for consumers about each available
option.
Advantages:
- Gives individuals and small employers the same advantages
that large employers currently have, making health care more
affordable and accessible.
- Any attempt to increase access to health care faces many
political hurdles. Managed competition's dependence on insurance
companies makes it more likely that these powerful corporations
will not act as a barrier.
- Because risk is spread among many individuals, the chance
of any one person paying exorbitant out-of-pocket costs is greatly
reduced.
Disadvantages:
- By strengthening the insurance companies' hold on the market
the problems currently faced with managed care will continue.
In particular, patients may be limited in choosing a health care
provider, physicians will still have their hands tied by bureaucrats,
and too much money will be spent on administration.
- Because they will have to accept both healthy and sick patients,
there will be little incentive for insurance companies to offer
high quality service or to improve technology and treatment for
more expensive, unhealthy individuals. This will encourage sick
patients to avoid enrolling in a plan, saving the insurance company
a lot of money.
- Employers would pay for a portion of only a very basic plan.
Citizens would have to pay out-of-pocket for a plan with increased
services. This allows wealthier individuals greater access to
better care.
- Bill Clinton tried to implement a form of managed competition
that was strongly opposed in 1994. Politicians may be apprehensive
about supporting a similar plan.
AMSA says: AMSA
does not support managed competition because of its reliance
on market forces and the private sector. AMSA believes that solutions
based on profit-driven systems cannot effectively solve the nation's
health care problems. |
|
|
|
|
|