NYTimes: Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

peggy_j

Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/07/upshot/why-sing...

excerpt:

Total costs are lower under single-payer systems for several reasons. One is that administrative costs average only about 2 percent of total expenses under a single-payer program like Medicare, less than one-sixth the corresponding percentage for many private insurers. Single-payer systems also spend virtually nothing on competitive advertising, which can account for more than 15 percent of total expenses for private insurers.

The most important source of cost savings under single-payer is that large government entities are able to negotiate much more favorable terms with service providers. In 2012, for example, the average cost of coronary bypass surgery was more than $73,000 in the United States but less than $23,000 in France.

Despite this evidence, respected commentators continue to cite costs as a reason to doubt that single-payer can succeed in the United States. A recent Washington Post editorial, for example, ominously predicted that budget realities would dampen enthusiasm for single-payer, noting that the per capita expenditures under existing single-payer programs in the United States were much higher than those in other countries.

But this comparison is misleading. In most other countries, single-payer covers the whole population, most of which has only minimal health needs. In contrast, single-payer components of the United States system disproportionately cover population subgroups with the heaviest medical needs: older people (Medicare), the poor and disabled (Medicaid) and returned service personnel (Department of Veterans Affairs).

In short, the evidence is clear that single-payer delivers quality care at significantly lower cost than the current American hybrid system. It thus makes no sense to reject single-payer on the grounds that it would require higher tax revenues. That's true, of course, but it's an irrelevant objection.

peggy_j

Another interesting article

Here Are 4 Better Options Than the GOP Health Care Bills

http://fortune.com/2017/07/10/senate-health-care-r...

This idea of providing basic coverage to everyone and allowing them to buy Medigap-like extra insurance has been used successful somewhere (France?) We don't have to reinvent the wheel.

Scwilly

I've experienced both single payer (UK) and the US system, and I definitely prefer single payer. I am also sure it is better for the populations a whole. My conscience could not sit happy if I didn't support better care and access for all. Single payer systems are also more concerned with prevention and also outcomes. I also worked within the NHS and know how much work being done to ensure efficiency and money is well spent. An anecdotal story is my Mum, who at 84 has today come from hospital having had her second knee replacement, and also had a hip replacement all after she became 80. No restrictions for her age, only her health and clinical need/capability. I know the NHS has its issues, and money is often quoted, but if the UK spent anywhere near as much as the US does (per capita) then it would be a phenomenal system.

At the moment our family has Kaiser, which is a managed health care company. A number of my doctors have told me they really like to work where they are paid to do a job and to only consider clinical need. My surgeon said he doesn't want to have in the back of his mind whether he is doing enough surgery to keep in money, only that its clinically necessary. My MO has told me she is not monitored as to what she prescribes, and that she can prescribe anything that is authorized in the US (sorry forgot the term I know there is one) Also - because we only have one provider, all my records are available online and to every doctor I see. No printing off all my records overtime I need to see a new doctor. I had a wonderful session last week with my primary care doctor where we reviewed all my blood tests, prescriptions and scans all available on the computer at my appointment. (Without any preplanning)

Perhaps managed care is the way to go for the US - where the insurance company and medical provider is one company and they are responsible for the health of their customers. I certainly feel its the closest system to the good ol' NHS and am so happy Kaiser is one of the options at my husbands work (don't get me going about why on earth health is so linked to employers!)

I say to those who luckily do not have major health care worries which brings major finance worries - you are only a diagnosis away from those less fortunate as you.

Listen to this Canadian doctor who eloquently and thoroughly explains to senetors why doctors there love the single payer system: Healthcare US vs Canada