Misplaced Pages

Healthcare reform in the United States: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:56, 25 October 2009 editEastTN (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,309 edits Democrats Abroad reaction: This subsection makes no sense; it's not parallel to the other subsections, and it's a reaction to something that is no longer referenced-Kenosis killed the SH section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:13, 11 December 2024 edit undoAndrew Davidson (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers43,654 edits remove banner tag -- vague and stale -- plenty of updates since it was placedTag: Visual edit 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|none}}
{{See also|Health care in the United States|Uninsured in the United States|History of health care reform in the United States}}
{{Health care reform in the United States}}
The debate over '''health care reform in the United States''' centers on questions about whether there is a fundamental ] to health care, on who should have access to health care and under what circumstances, on the quality achieved for the high sums spent, and on the sustainability of expenditures that have been rising faster than the level of general ] and the growth in the ]. The leading cause of personal ] is ]<ref>{{cite news
|url= http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/05/earlyshow/health/main5064981.shtml|title= Medical Debt Huge Bankruptcy Culprit&nbsp;— Study: It's Behind Six-In-Ten Personal Filings|publisher= ]|date =June 5, 2009|accessdate=June 22, 2009}}</ref><ref>"Medical Bills Leading Cause of Bankruptcy, Harvard Study Finds", ConsumerAffairs.com, February 3, 2005 http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html#ixzz0QdG8hYUvhttp://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html</ref> which is almost unknown in other countries in the developed world. <ref>{{cite news
| title = Medical Reasons Lie Behind 60 Per Cent Of US Bankruptcies, Study
| url = http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/152741.php
| publisher = Medical News Today
| date = June 15,2009
| accessdate = Sept 22, 2009
| quote = "Medical bankruptcy is almost a unique American phenomenon, which does not occur in countries that have national health insurance."Dr James E. Dalen, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson Az
}}</ref> The United States ], which has a higher level of for-profit providers and for-profit insurers than most similar industrialized countries, is also the most expensive in the world, with ] costing substantially more ] than in any other nation on Earth.<ref name="photius.com">. Press Release WHO/44 21 June 2000.</ref> A greater portion of ] is spent on health care in the U.S. than in any ] except for ],<ref name="WHO 2009">{{cite web |author=WHO |month=May |year=2009 |title=World Health Statistics 2009 |publisher=] |url=http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/2009/en/index.html |accessdate=August 2, 2009}}</ref> although the actual use of health care services in the U.S., by most measures of health services use, is below the median among ].<ref>Gerard F. Anderson, Uwe E. Reinhardt, Peter S. Hussey and Varduhi Petrosyan, , ''Health Affairs'', Volume 22, Number 3, May/June 2003. Accessed February 27, 2008.</ref>


{{Use mdy dates|date=February 2015}}
According to the ] of the ], the United States is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage".<ref name="IOM">, Institute of Medicine at the National Academies of Science, January 14, 2004, accessed October 22, 2007</ref> Americans are divided along ] lines in their views regarding the role of government in the health economy and especially whether a new public health plan should be created and administered by the federal government.<ref></ref> Those in favor of universal health care argue that the large number of uninsured Americans creates direct and hidden costs shared by all, and that extending coverage to all would lower costs and improve quality.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2004/Insuring-Americas-Health-Principles-and-Recommendations.aspx |title=Insuring America's Health: Principles and Recommendations |accessdate=October 27, 2007 |work=] of the National Academies }}</ref> Opponents of laws requiring people to have health insurance argue that this impinges on their personal freedom.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cato.org/research/articles/reynolds-021003.html |title=No Health Insurance? So What? |accessdate=October 27, 2007 | date=October 3, 2002 | work=The ] }}</ref> Both sides of the ] have also looked to more philosophical arguments, debating whether people have a fundamental right to have health care which needs to be protected by their government.<ref name="CESR">Center for Economic and Social Rights. October 29, 2004.</ref><ref name="Sade">Sade RM. "Medical care as a right: a refutation." ''N Engl J Med.'' 1971 December 2;285(23):1288-92. PMID 5113728. (Reprinted as )</ref>
{{Healthcare reform in the United States}}
'''Healthcare reform in the United States''' has had a long ]. Reforms have often been proposed but have rarely been accomplished. In 2010, landmark reform was passed through two ]: the ] (PPACA), signed March 23, 2010,<ref>{{cite news |author1=Stolberg, Sheryl Gay |author2=Pear, Robert |date=March 24, 2010 |title=Obama signs health care overhaul bill, with a flourish |newspaper=] |page=A19 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/health/policy/24health.html |access-date=March 23, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |author1=Pear, Robert |author2=Herszenhorn, David M. |date=March 22, 2010 |title=Obama hails vote on health care as answering 'the call of history' |newspaper=The New York Times |page=A1 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/health/policy/22health.html |access-date=March 22, 2010 |quote=With the 219-to-212 vote, the House gave final approval to legislation passed by the Senate on Christmas Eve.}}</ref> and the ] ({{USBill|111|H.R.|4872}}), which amended the PPACA and became law on March 30, 2010.<ref name="reuters.com">{{cite news |author1=Smith, Donna |author2=Alexander, David |author3=Beech, Eric |date=March 19, 2010 |title=Factbox – U.S. healthcare bill would provide immediate benefits |work=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1914020220100319 |access-date=March 24, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |date=March 26, 2010 |title=Timeline: when healthcare reform will affect you |publisher=CNN |url=http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/23/health.care.timeline/index.html |access-date=March 24, 2010}}</ref>


Future reforms of the ] continue to be proposed, with notable proposals including a ] and a reduction in ] medical care.<ref name="NYT-20131221">{{cite news |last=Rosenthal |first=Elisabeth |title=News Analysis – Health Care's Road to Ruin |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/22/sunday-review/health-cares-road-to-ruin.html |date=December 21, 2013 |work=The New York Times |access-date=December 22, 2013 }}</ref> The PPACA includes a new agency, the ] (CMS Innovation Center), which is intended to research reform ideas through pilot projects.
==Costs==
Current figures estimate that spending on health care in the U.S. is about 16% of its GDP.<ref name="NHE Fact Sheet"> ], referenced February 26, 2008</ref><ref></ref> In 2007, an estimated $2.26 trillion was spent on health care in the United States, or $7,439 ].<ref>, Office of the Actuary in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 2008. Accessed March 20, 2008.</ref> Health care costs are rising faster than ] or inflation, and the health share of GDP is expected to continue its upward trend, reaching 19.5 percent of GDP by 2017.<ref name="NHE Fact Sheet"/> In fact, ''government'' health care spending in the United States is consistently greater, as a portion of GDP, than in Canada, Italy, the United Kingdom and Japan (countries that have predominantly public health care).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34631_2085200_1_1_1_1,00.html|title=OECD Health Data 2009 - Frequently Requested Data|publisher=]|date=June 2009}}</ref> And an even larger portion is paid by ] and individuals themselves. A recent study found that medical expenditure was a significant contributing factor in 62% of ] in the United States during 2007.<ref></ref> "Unless you're ], your family is just one serious illness away from bankruptcy...for ], health insurance offers little protection...," said Dr. David Himmelstein of ], who helped compile the study.<ref></ref>


==History of national reform efforts==
The U.S. spends more on health care per capita than any other UN member nation.<ref name="WHO 2009"/> It also spends a greater fraction of its national budget on health care than Canada, Germany, France, or Japan. In 2004, the U.S. spent $6,102 per capita on health care, 92.7% more than any other ] country, and 19.9% more than ], which, after the U.S., had the highest spending in the ] (OECD).<ref>http://ocde.p4.siteinternet.com/publications/doifiles/012006061T02.xls</ref> Although the U.S. Medicare coverage of prescription drugs began in 2006, most ]ed ]s are more costly in the U.S. than in most other countries. Factors involved are the absence of government ]s, enforcement of ] limiting the availability of ]s until after patent expiration, and the ] purchasing power seen in national single-payer systems.{{Citation needed|date=October 2007}} Some U.S. citizens obtain their medications, directly or indirectly, from foreign sources, to take advantage of lower prices.

The U.S. system already has substantial public components. The federal ] program covers nearly 45 million elderly and some people with disabilities; the federal-state ] program provides coverage to the poor; the ] (SCHIP) extends coverage to low-income families with children; Native Americans are covered both on the reservation (by tribal hospital), and in the urban setting (by hospitals maintained by the Indian Health Service) ; merchant seamen are covered by the Public Health System;{{Citation needed|date=August 2009}} and retired railway workers and military veterans are also covered by the government.<ref></ref>

]
The ] has argued that the Medicare program as currently structured is unsustainable without significant reform, as tax revenues dedicated to the program are not sufficient to cover its rapidly increasing expenditures. Further, the CBO also projects that "total federal Medicare and Medicaid outlays will rise from 4 percent of GDP in 2007 to 12 percent in 2050 and 19 percent in 2082—which, as a share of the economy, is roughly equivalent to the total amount that the federal government spends today. The bulk of that projected increase in health care spending reflects higher costs per beneficiary rather than an increase in the number of beneficiaries associated with an aging population."<ref></ref> The ] reported that the unfunded liability facing Medicare as of January 2007 was $32.1 trillion, which is the ] of the program deficits expected for the next 75 years in the absence of reform.<ref></ref> According to the ], spending on Medicare will grow from approximately $500 billion during 2009 to $930 billion by 2018. Without changes, the system is guaranteed “to basically break the federal budget,” President Obama said at a White House news conference July 22.<ref></ref>

==Uninsured==
{{Main|Uninsured in the United States}}
According to the ], people in the U.S. without health insurance coverage at some time during 2007 totaled 15.3% of the population, or 45.7 million people.<ref name="Census 2007"> ]. Issued August 2008.</ref><ref name="Census 2006"> ]. Issued August 2007.</ref> According to the Census Bureau, this number decreased slightly from 47 million in 2006 due to increased ] in addition to the fact that about 300,000 more people were covered in ] under the ] law in 2007.<ref name="kaisercom"></ref> In 2009, the Census Bureau estimated that there are 47 million Americans who do not have any health insurance at all.<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/News-Conference-by-the-President-July-22-2009/</ref> Other studies, which complement the Census Bureau and include data from the ], have placed the number of uninsured for all or part of the years 2007-2008 as high as 86.7 million, about 29% of the U.S. population, or about one-in-three among those under 65 years of age.<ref name="familiesusa.org">Families USA (2009) press release summarizing a ] study: "New Report Finds 86.7 Million Americans Were Uninsured at Some Point in 2007-2008" </ref><ref>http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/americans-at-risk.pdf</ref>

It is estimated that the ] and rising unemployment rate likely will have caused the number of uninsured to grow by at least 2 million in 2008.<ref name="kaisercom"/><ref name="familiesusa.org"/> ] wrote that only 38% of small businesses provide health insurance for their employees during 2009, versus 61% in 1993, due to rising costs.<ref></ref>

During September 2009, Senator ] (D-IL) stated that the average family pays an additional $1,000 per year in insurance premiums to cover the uninsured.<ref></ref> President Obama, in his September 9 remarks to a joint session of Congress on health care, called the cost of uninsured Americans "a hidden and growing tax."<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-to-a-Joint-Session-of-Congress-on-Health-Care/</ref> However, ] found that while broadening insurance coverage might lead to less cost shifting, "that effect would probably be relatively small and would not directly produce net savings in national or federal spending on health care."<ref>http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10311/06-16-HealthReformAndFederalBudget.pdf</ref> The ] argues that the uninsured subsidize the insured, do not drive up the cost of health care, and use fewer services than the insured.<ref>http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/docLib/20070408_HPPv5n2_0207.pdf</ref> A 2004 editorial in ] asserted that ] (HHS) data show the uninsured are unfairly billed for services at rates far higher—on average 305% at urban hospitals in California—than are the insured; USA Today concluded that "millions of are forced to subsidize insured patients."<ref name="usatoday.com">http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-07-01-our-view_x.htm</ref> According to the editorial: <blockquote>"Many hospitals say they have to charge the uninsured high 'sticker prices' or risk violating a federal ban on charging Medicare patients more than other customers. Hospitals also must try to collect what patients owe, or they could lose Medicare reimbursement for bad debts, notes a 2003 study by the Commonwealth Fund, a health-policy-research foundation."<ref name="usatoday.com"/></blockquote>
Citing data from the ] and the experience of ], the ] argues that without the uninsured, "The insured would pay more, not less."<ref>Michael F. Cannon, Briefing Paper no. 114, , September 23, 2009 (pdf accessed October 16, 2009)</ref>

A 2009 Harvard study published in the American Journal of Public Health found more than 44,800 excess deaths annually in the United States associated with uninsurance,<ref></ref><ref></ref> and more broadly, the total number of people in the United States, whether insured or uninsured, who die because of lack of medical care were estimated in a 1997 analysis to be nearly 100,000 per year.<ref>A 1997 study carried out by Professors David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler (''New England Journal of Medicine'' 336, no. 11 ) "concluded that almost 100,000 people died in the United States each year because of lack of needed care—three times the number of people who died of AIDs." , ''Monthly Review'', Vicente Navarro, September 2003. Retrieved September 10, 2009</ref>

==Comparisons with other health care systems==
]

The cost and quality of care in the United States are frequently the two major issues of discussion. While cost comparisons are relatively easy, the reasons for higher costs in the U.S. and quality measures are frequently subject to debate. The ] in such measures as ] and ], which are among the most widely collected, hence useful, international comparative statistics. For 2006-2010, the U.S. life expectancy will lag 38th in the world, after most developed nations, lagging last of the ] (Japan, France, Germany, U.K., U.S.) and just after Chile (35th) and Cuba (37th).<ref>] using: United Nations World Population Prospects: 2006 revision -Table A.17. Life expectancy at birth (years) 2005-2010. All data from the ranking is included, except for ''Martinique'' and ''Guadeloupe'' (due to imaging difficulties).</ref> However, both males and females in the United States have better cancer survivor rates than their counterparts in Europe.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560849/UK-cancer-survival-rate-lowest-in-Europe.html</ref>

In 2000, the ] (WHO) ranked the ] 37th in overall performance, right next to ], and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study).<ref name="photius.com"/><ref name="who.int"></ref> The WHO study has been criticized by the free market advocate ] because "fairness in financial contribution" was used as an assessment factor, marking down countries with high per-capita private or fee-paying health treatment.<ref name="fmc">], , ''Free Market Cure'', July 16, 2007</ref> One study found that there was little correlation between the WHO rankings for health systems and the satisfaction of citizens using those systems.<ref name="Public vs the WHO">Robert J. Blendon, Minah Kim and John M. Benson, , Health Affairs, May/June 2001</ref> Some countries, such as Italy and Spain, which were given the highest ratings by WHO were ranked poorly by their citizens while other countries, such as Denmark and Finland, were given low scores by WHO but had the highest percentages of citizens reporting satisfaction with their health care systems.<ref name="Public vs the WHO"/> WHO staff, however, say that the WHO analysis does reflect system "responsiveness" and argue that this is a superior measure to consumer satisfaction, which is influenced by expectations.<ref>Christopher J.L. Murray, Kei Kawabata, and Nicole Valentine, , Health Affairs, May/June 2001</ref>

Despite larger spending, the United States has a worse ] (6.26)<ref name="im">{{cite web|url=https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html|title=Infant mortality rate|publisher=CIA Factbook|accessdate=August 18, 2009}}</ref> and ] (78.11)<ref name="le">{{cite web|url=https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html|title=Life expectancy at birth|publisher=CIA Factbook|accessdate=August 18, 2009}}</ref> than the ] (5.72<ref name="im"/> and 78.67<ref name="le"/>). Various reasons have been suggested to explain the high infant mortality rates in the U.S. The ] (CDC) suggests that higher rates of infant mortality in the U.S. are "due in large part to disparities which continue to exist among various racial and ethnic groups in this country, particularly ]s".<ref name=autogenerated1></ref> Some studies claim the data collected regarding infant mortality and life expectancy do not lend themselves to fair comparison.<ref name=autogenerated4>David Hogberg, ], , July 2006</ref> A ] survey has stated that Americans are less likely than citizens of other countries, such as ], to ] fetuses with disabilities and other medical problems; the group views this a complicating factor towards these calculations.<ref name="Tanner Grass Isn't Greener"/> Other complaints relate to apples-to-oranges comparisons, which calls attention to the fact that different definitions are used to define live births in different nations, and that Europe's definitions are broadly different from that of the USA and Canada. Such differences in basic definitions make statistical equivalences inappropriate. <ref> </ref>

Another metric used to compare the quality of health care across countries is ] (YPLL). By this measure, the United States comes third to last in the ] for women (ahead of only Mexico and Hungary) and fifth to last for men (ahead of Poland and ] aditionally), according to OECD data. Yet another measure is ] (DALY); again the United States fares relatively poorly.{{Citation needed|date=August 2009}} According to ], health care scholars prefer these more "finely tuned" statistical measures for international comparisons in place of the relatively "crude" infant mortality and life expectancy.<ref></ref>

Access to advanced medical treatments and technologies in the U.S. is greater than in most other developed nations and waiting times may be substantially shorter for treatment by specialists.<ref name=autogenerated5>Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, February 26, 2006</ref>

The lack of universal coverage contributes to another flaw in the current U.S. health care system: on most dimensions of performance, it underperforms relative to other industrialized countries.<ref name="Commonwealth">{{cite web |url=http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=482678 |title=Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: An International Update on the Comparative Performance of American Health Care | date=May 15, 2007 |accessdate=May 22, 2007 |work=Report by the Commonwealth Fund }}</ref> In a 2007 comparison by the ] of health care in the U.S. with that of Germany, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, the U.S. ranked last on measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and outcomes.<ref name="Commonwealth"/>

However, a Manhattan Institute study by Frank R. Lichtenberg of Columbia University, found that the correlation between life expectancy and health insurance was not statistically significant.<ref>http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/mpr_04.htm</ref> He did find that access to advanced drugs (newly approved by the FDA) had a statistically significant correlation with higher rates of life expectancy.Additionally, Dr. Hertzlinger of Harvard University found that Americans are twice as likely to receive life saving kidney dialysis and other expensive life saving treatments than people in the U.K.<Ref>http://www.mhprofessional.com/product.php?isbn=0071487808</ref>

The U.S. system is often compared with that of its northern neighbor, Canada (see ]). Canada's system is largely publicly funded. In 2006, Americans spent an estimated $6,714 per capita on health care, while Canadians spent US$3,678.<ref name="OECD Canada"></ref> This amounted to 15.3% of U.S. GDP in that year, while Canada spent 10.0% of GDP on health care.

A 2007 review of all studies comparing health outcomes in Canada and the U.S. found that "health outcomes may be superior in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States, but differences are not consistent."<ref name="Open Medicine">Open Medicine, Vol 1, No 1 (2007), Research: A systematic review of studies comparing health outcomes in Canada and the United States, Gordon H. Guyatt, et al.</ref>

==History of reform efforts==
{{Main|History of health care reform in the United States}} {{Main|History of health care reform in the United States}}
U.S. efforts to achieve universal coverage began with ], who had the support of ] health care reformers in the 1912 election but was defeated.<ref>{{citation | title = The history of health care as a campaign issue | journal = Physician Executive | date = May-June, 2008 | author = Lee legel | url = http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0843/is_3_34/ai_n27871607 }}</ref> And President Harry S Truman called for universal health care as a part of his ] in 1949 but strong opposition stopped that part of the Fair Deal.<ref>
In 1949, accessdate=2009-10-07 as part of his Fair Deal:
*On April 24, 1949 The ] denounced this health program.
*On April 25, 1949 The Murray-Dingell omnibus health legislation (S.1679 and H.R. 4312) were introduced into the Senate and the House; the Congress adjourned in October 1949 without acting on these bills.
</ref><ref>
Monte M. Poen (1996) in his ''Harry S. Truman versus the Medical Lobby: The Genesis of Medicare'', University of Missouri Press ISBN 978-0-8262-1086-9 pp 161-168</ref>


The following is a summary of reform achievements at the national level in the United States. For failed efforts, state-based efforts, native tribes services, and more details, see the ] article.
The ] program was established by legislation signed into law on July 30, 1965, by President Lyndon B. Johnson. Medicare is a social insurance program administered by the United States government, providing health insurance coverage to people age 65 and over, or who meet other special criteria. The ] (COBRA) amended the ] of 1974 (ERISA) to give some employees the ability to continue ] coverage after leaving employment.
* '''1965''': President ] enacted legislation that introduced ], covering both hospital (Part A) and supplemental medical (Part B) insurance for senior citizens. The legislation also introduced ], which permitted the Federal government to partially fund a program for the poor, with the program managed and co-financed by the individual states.<ref name="MedHist">{{cite web |year=2010 |title=Brief history of the Medicare program |publisher=New Tech Media |location=San Antonio, Tex. |url=http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/2000%20Files/Aug%2000/FTR-08-04-00MedCarHistry.htm |access-date=August 31, 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100628194022/http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/2000%20Files/Aug%2000/FTR-08-04-00MedCarHistry.htm |archive-date=June 28, 2010 |df=mdy-all }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |author=Ball, Robert M. |date=October 24, 1961 |title=The role of social insurance in preventing economic dependency (address at the Second National Conference on the Churches and Social Welfare, Cleveland, Ohio) |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=] |url=http://www.ssa.gov/history/churches.html |access-date=August 31, 2010}}
* Robert M. Ball, the then Deputy Director of the Bureau of Old-Age and Survivors Insurance in the Social Security Administration, had defined the major obstacle to financing health insurance for the elderly several years earlier: the high cost of care for the aged and the generally low incomes of retired people. Because retired older people use much more medical care than younger, employed people, an insurance premium related to the risk for older people needed to be high, but if the high premium had to be paid after retirement, when incomes are low, it was an almost impossible burden for the average person. The only feasible approach, he said, was to finance health insurance in the same way as cash benefits for retirement, by contributions paid while at work, when the payments are least burdensome, with the protection furnished in retirement without further payment.</ref>
* '''1985''': The ] (COBRA) amended the ] of 1974 (ERISA) to give some employees the ability to continue ] coverage after leaving employment.<ref>{{cite web |year=2010 |title=An employee's guide to health benefits under COBRA – The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=], ] |url=http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/cobraemployee.pdf |access-date=November 8, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131227210946/http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/cobraemployee.pdf |archive-date=December 27, 2013 |url-status=dead |df=mdy-all }}</ref>
* '''1996''': The ] (HIPAA) not only protects health insurance coverage for workers and their families when they change or lose their jobs, it also made health insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions. If such condition had been diagnosed before purchasing insurance, insurance companies are required to cover it after patient has one year of continuous coverage. If such condition was already covered on their current policy, new insurance policies due to changing jobs, etc... have to cover the condition immediately.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ191/html/PLAW-104publ191.htm|title=Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996|website=gpo.gov|access-date=27 September 2023}}</ref>
* '''1997''': The ] introduced two new major Federal healthcare insurance programs, Part C of Medicare and the ], or SCHIP. Part C formalized longstanding "Managed Medicare" (HMO, etc.) demonstration projects and SCHIP was established to provide health insurance to children in families at or below 200&nbsp;percent of the federal poverty line. Many other "entitlement" changes and additions were made to Parts A and B of fee for service (FFS) Medicare and to Medicaid within an omnibus law that also made changes to the Food Stamp and other Federal programs.<ref>{{cite web |year=2007 |title=What is SCHIP? |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=] |url=http://www.schip-info.org/42.html |access-date=September 1, 2010}}</ref>
* '''2000''': The Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act (BIPA) effectively reversed some of the cuts to the three named programs in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 because of Congressional concern that providers would stop providing services.
* '''2003''': The ] (also known as the Medicare Modernization Act or MMA) introduced supplementary optional coverage within Medicare for self-administered prescription drugs and as the name suggests also changed the other three existing Parts of Medicare law.
* '''2010''': The ], called PPACA or ACA but also known as Obamacare, was enacted, including the following provisions:<ref name="reuters.com" />
** the phased introduction over multiple years of a comprehensive system of mandated health insurance reforms designed to eliminate "some of the worst practices of the insurance companies"—pre-existing condition screening and premium loadings, policy cancellations on technicalities when illness seems imminent, annual and lifetime coverage caps
] by state:<ref name="KFF-Medicaid">{{cite web |title=Status of State Medicaid Expansion Decisions: Interactive Map |url=https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/status-of-state-medicaid-expansion-decisions-interactive-map |publisher=]. Map is updated as changes occur. Click on states for details.}}</ref>
{{legend|#2b83ba|Not adopted}}
{{legend|#FECDAC|Implemented}}]]
** Expanded ] to cover uninsured working-age adults (18-65) earning under 138% of the Federal Poverty Line (and therefore not eligible for subsidies on the health insurance marketplace) along with some whose existing insurance plans were too expensive based on their income. The ACA expanded Medicaid eligibility in all 50 states and the ], however that provision was successfully challenged in ] where the ] ruled that individual states could choose whether or not to expand coverage. Initially 25 states and D.C. expanded Medicaid with funding from the federal government provided by the ACA beginning in 2014, and as of Sep 26 2023 there are 41 states (including Washington, D.C.) that have expanded coverage.
** created ]s with three standard insurance coverage levels to enable like-for-like comparisons by consumers, and a web-based ] where consumers can compare prices and purchase plans.
** mandates that insurers fully cover certain preventative services
** created high-risk pools for uninsureds
** tax credits for businesses to provide insurance to employees
** created an insurance company ]
** allowed dependents to remain on their plan until 26
** It also sets a minimum medical loss ratio of direct health care spending to premium income creates price competition
** created ] to study ] funded by a fee on insurers per covered life
** allowed for approval of generic ] drugs and specifically allows for 12 years of exclusive use for newly developed biologic drugs
** many changes to the 1997, 2000, and 2003 laws that had previously changed Medicare and further expanded eligibility for Medicaid (that expansion was later ruled by the Supreme Court to be at the discretion of the states)
** explores some programs intended to increase incentives to provide quality and collaborative care, such as ]s. The ] was created to fund pilot programs which may reduce costs;<ref>Kuraitis V. (2010). . e-CareManagement.com.</ref> the experiments cover nearly every idea healthcare experts advocate, except malpractice/].<ref name="NewYorker-Gawande">{{Cite magazine|author=Gawande A|date=December 2009|title=Testing, Testing|url=https://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/12/14/091214fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all|magazine=]|access-date=March 22, 2010|author-link=Atul Gawande}}</ref>
** requires for reduced Medicare reimbursements for hospitals with excess readmissions and eventually ties physician Medicare reimbursements to quality of care metrics.
* '''2015''': The ] (MACRA) made significant changes to the process by which many Medicare Part B services are reimbursed and also extended SCHIP
* '''2017''': ] signs ] in anticipation of a repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, one of his campaign promises. The ] is introduced and passed in the House of Representatives and introduced but not voted upon in the Senate. President Donald Trump signs ] which allows insurance companies to sell low-cost short-term plans with lesser coverage, enables small business to collectively purchase association health plans, and expands health savings accounts.
* '''2021''': ] repeals the Trump ] and ].
* '''2022: ]''' signs the ] into law. The bill allows Medicare to negotiate certain drug prices, caps ] costs for seniors at $2,000 per month, and provides $64 billion for Affordable Care Act subsidies through 2025, originally expanded under the ].


==Motivation==
Health care reform was a major concern of the ] headed by First Lady ]; however, the ] was not enacted into law. The ] of 1996 (HIPAA) made it easier for workers to keep health insurance coverage when they change jobs or lose a job, and also made use of national data standards for tracking, reporting and protecting personal health information.
{{Main|Healthcare reform debate in the United States}}
].<ref name=life>. May 26, 2017. By ] at ]. Click the sources tab under the chart for info on the countries, healthcare expenditures, and data sources. See the later version of the chart .</ref><ref name=Kenworthy2011>{{Cite web |last= Kenworthy |first= Lane |date= July 10, 2011 |title= America's inefficient health-care system: another look |publisher= Consider the Evidence (blog) |url= http://lanekenworthy.net/2011/07/10/americas-inefficient-health-care-system-another-look/ |access-date= September 11, 2012}}</ref>]]
]. Public and private spending. US dollars ]. $6,319 for Canada in 2022. $12,555 for the US in 2022.<ref name=OECD-barcharts/>]]
]. Percent of GDP (]). 11.2% for Canada in 2022. 16.6% for the United States in 2022.<ref name=OECD-barcharts>] Data. . {{doi|10.1787/8643de7e-en}}. 2 bar charts: For both: From bottom menus: Countries menu > choose OECD. Check box for "latest data available". Perspectives menu > Check box to "compare variables". Then check the boxes for government/compulsory, voluntary, and total. Click top tab for chart (bar chart). For GDP chart choose "% of GDP" from bottom menu. For per capita chart choose "US dollars/per capita". Click fullscreen button above chart. Click "print screen" key. Click top tab for table, to see data.</ref>]]
], compared amongst various first world nations]]


] have found that the United States spends more per-capita than other similarly developed nations but falls below similar countries in various health metrics, suggesting inefficiency and waste. In addition, the United States has significant ] and significant impending unfunded liabilities from its aging demographic and its ] programs ] and ] (Medicaid provides free care to anyone that make less than 200% of the Federal Poverty Line). The fiscal and human impact of these issues have motivated reform proposals.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Fundamental health reform like &#8216;Medicare for All&#8217; would help the labor market: Job loss claims are misleading, and substantial boosts to job quality are often overlooked |url=https://www.epi.org/publication/medicare-for-all-would-help-the-labor-market/ |access-date=2024-10-19 |website=Economic Policy Institute |language=en-US}}</ref>
During the ], both the ] and ] campaigns offered health care proposals.<ref>Robin Toner , The New York Times, Tuesday, December 18, 2007</ref><ref> The New York Times, October 3, 2004</ref> As president, ] signed into law the ] which included a prescription drug plan for ] and ] Americans.<ref>http://cms.hhs.gov</ref>


U.S. healthcare costs were approximately $3.2 trillion or nearly $10,000 per person on average in 2015. Major categories of expense include hospital care (32%), physician and clinical services (20%), and prescription drugs (10%).<ref name="CDC_NCHS1">{{cite web|url=https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/health-expenditures.htm|title=FastStats|date=July 18, 2017|website=www.cdc.gov}}</ref> U.S. costs in 2016 were substantially higher than other OECD countries, at 17.2% GDP versus 12.4% GDP for the next most expensive country (Switzerland).<ref name="OECD_HS1">{{cite web|url=http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm|title=OECD Health Statistics 2017 - OECD|website=www.oecd.org}}</ref> For scale, a 5% GDP difference represents about $1 trillion or $3,000 per person. Some of the many reasons cited for the cost differential with other countries include: Higher administrative costs of a private system with multiple payment processes; higher costs for the same products and services; more expensive volume/mix of services with higher usage of more expensive specialists; aggressive treatment of very sick elderly versus palliative care; less use of government intervention in pricing; and higher income levels driving greater demand for healthcare.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/why-does-health-care-cost-so-much-in-america-ask-harvards-david-cutler/|title=Why does health care cost so much in America? Ask Harvard's David Cutler|website=PBS NewsHour|date=2013-11-19}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/toddhixon/2012/03/01/why-are-u-s-health-care-costs-so-high/#5e1a5e4e1dae|title=Why Are U.S. Health Care Costs So High?|first=Todd|last=Hixon|website=forbes.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/07/why-do-other-rich-nations-spend-so-much-less-on-healthcare/374576/|title=Why Do Other Rich Nations Spend So Much Less on Healthcare?|first=Victor R.|last=Fuchs|website=theatlantic.com|date=2014-07-23}}</ref> Healthcare costs are a fundamental driver of ], which leads to coverage affordability challenges for millions of families. There is ongoing debate whether the current law (ACA/Obamacare) and the Republican alternatives (AHCA and BCRA) do enough to address the cost challenge.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.vox.com/2017/6/30/15894832/senate-bill-health-prices|title=The Senate bill does nothing to fix America's biggest health care problem|website=vox.com|date=2017-06-30}}</ref>
===Health reform and the 2008 presidential election===
{{Main|Health care reform in the United States presidential election, 2008}}
Both of the major party presidential candidates offered positions on health care.


According to 2009 World Bank statistics, the U.S. had the highest ] relative to the size of the economy (GDP) in the world, even though estimated 50 million citizens (approximately 16% of the September 2011 estimated population of 312 million) lacked insurance.<ref name="WHO 2009">{{cite web |author=WHO |date=May 2009 |title=World Health Statistics 2009 |publisher=] |url=https://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/2009/en/index.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090525094010/http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/2009/en/index.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=May 25, 2009 |access-date=August 2, 2009}}</ref> In March 2010, billionaire ] commented that the high costs paid by U.S. companies for their employees' health care put them at a competitive disadvantage.<ref>{{Cite news | last = Funk | first = Josh | title = Buffett says economy recovering but at slow rate | newspaper = San Francisco Chronicle | publisher = SFGate.com | date = March 1, 2010 | url = https://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/2010-03-01/business/18371919_1_berkshire-hathaway-billionaire-warren-buffett-health-care | access-date = April 3, 2010 | url-status = live | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20100306012352/http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-03-01/business/18371919_1_berkshire-hathaway-billionaire-warren-buffett-health-care | archive-date = March 6, 2010 | df = mdy-all }}</ref>
]'s proposals focused on open-market competition rather than government funding. At the heart of his plan were tax credits - $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families who do not subscribe to or do not have access to health care through their employer. To help people who are denied coverage by insurance companies due to pre-existing conditions, McCain proposed working with states to create what he called a "Guaranteed Access Plan."<ref>Robert E. Moffit and Nina Owcharenko, The ], October 15, 2008</ref>


Further, an estimated 77 million ] are reaching retirement age, which combined with significant annual increases in healthcare costs per person will place enormous budgetary strain on U.S. state and federal governments, particularly through ] and ] spending (Medicaid provides long-term care for the elderly poor).<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.economist.com/media/globalexecutive/coming_gen_storm_e_02.pdf |title=coming_gen_storm_e.indd |access-date=January 12, 2012 |newspaper=The Economist}}</ref> Maintaining the long-term fiscal health of the U.S. federal government is significantly dependent on healthcare costs being controlled.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.charlierose.com/download/transcript/10697 |title=Charlie Rose-Peter Orszag Interview Transcript |date=November 3, 2009 |access-date=January 12, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120111174416/http://www.charlierose.com/download/transcript/10697 |archive-date=January 11, 2012 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>
] called for ]. His health care plan called for the creation of a ] that would include both private insurance plans and a Medicare-like government run option. Coverage would be guaranteed regardless of health status, and premiums would not vary based on health status either. It would have required parents to cover their children, but did not require adults to buy insurance.


===Insurance cost and availability===
'']'' reported that the two plans had different philosophical focuses. They described the purpose of the McCain plan as to "make insurance more affordable," while the purpose of the Obama plan was for "more people to have health insurance."<ref>Stacey Burling, ], September 28, 2008</ref> '']'' characterized the plans similarly.<ref>Tony Leys, ], September 29, 2008</ref>
{{further|Health insurance coverage in the United States}}
In addition, the number of employers who offer health insurance has declined and costs for employer-paid health insurance are rising: from 2001 to 2007, premiums for family coverage increased 78%, while wages rose 19% and prices rose 17%, according to the ].<ref name="Kaiser 2007">{{cite press release |title=Health Insurance Premiums Rise 6.1% In 2007, Less Rapidly Than In Recent Years But Still Faster Than Wages And Inflation |publisher=Kaiser Family Foundation |date=September 11, 2007 |url=http://www.kff.org/insurance/ehbs091107nr.cfm |access-date=September 13, 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130329111855/http://www.kff.org/insurance/ehbs091107nr.cfm |archive-date=March 29, 2013 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> Even for those who are employed, the private insurance in the US varies greatly in its coverage; one study by the ] published in ] estimated that 16 million U.S. adults were underinsured in 2003. The underinsured were significantly more likely than those with adequate insurance to forgo health care, report financial stress because of medical bills, and experience coverage gaps for such items as prescription drugs. The study found that underinsurance disproportionately affects those with lower incomes—73% of the underinsured in the study population had annual incomes below 200% of the federal poverty level.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Cathy Schoen |author2=Michelle M. Doty |author3=Sara R. Collins |author4=Alyssa L. Holmgren | title = Insured But Not Protected: How Many Adults Are Underinsured? | journal = Health Affairs Web Exclusive |date=June 14, 2005 |pmid=15956055 |doi=10.1377/hlthaff.w5.289 |doi-access=free | volume = Suppl Web Exclusives | pages = W5–289–W5–302 }}</ref> However, a study published by the ] in 2008 found that the typical large employer ] (PPO) plan in 2007 was more generous than either ] or the ] Standard Option.<ref>Dale Yamamoto, Tricia Neuman and Michelle Kitchman Strollo, , ], September 2008</ref> One indicator of the consequences of Americans' inconsistent health care coverage is a study in ''Health Affairs'' that concluded that half of personal bankruptcies involved medical bills,<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Himmelstein DU, Warren E, Thorne D, Woolhandler S |s2cid=73034397 |title=Illness and injury as contributors to bankruptcy |journal=Health Aff (Millwood) |volume=Suppl Web Exclusives |pages=W5–63–W5–73 |year=2005 |pmid=15689369 |doi=10.1377/hlthaff.w5.63|url=https://semanticscholar.org/paper/6206ff282722fd78010bf7fc4584bc1ba28e32b9 }}</ref> although other sources dispute this.<ref>Todd Zywicki, , 99 NWU L. Rev. 1463 (2005)</ref>


There are health losses from insufficient health insurance. A 2009 Harvard study published in the ''American Journal of Public Health'' found more than 44,800 excess deaths annually in the United States due to Americans lacking health insurance.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-insurance-and-mortality-in-US-adults.pdf|title=American Journal of Public Health &#124; December 2009, Vol 99, No. 12}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://pnhp.org/excessdeaths/excess-deaths-state-by-state.pdf|title=State-by-state breakout of excess deaths from lack of insurance}}</ref> More broadly, estimates of the total number of people in the United States, whether insured or uninsured, who die because of lack of medical care were estimated in a 1997 analysis to be nearly 100,000 per year.<ref>A 1997 study carried out by Professors David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler (''New England Journal of Medicine'' 336, no. 11 1997) "concluded that almost 100,000 people died in the United States each year because of lack of needed care—three times the number of people who died of AIDs." , ''Monthly Review'', Vicente Navarro, September 2003. Retrieved September 10, 2009</ref> A study of the effects of the Massachusetts universal health care law (which took effect in 2006) found a 3% drop in mortality among people 20–64 years old—1 death per 830 people with insurance. Other studies, just as those examining the randomized distribution of Medicaid insurance to low-income people in Oregon in 2008, found no change in death rate.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/2014/05/05/death-rate-drops-massachusetts-after-state-health-law-implemented-study-suggests/8JELx4L1MgWMN4yauxpnyM/story.html|date=May 5, 2014|title=Study calls wide Mass. coverage a lifesaver|agency=Boston Globe}}</ref>
A poll released in early November 2008, found that voters supporting Obama listed health care as their second priority; voters supporting McCain listed it as fourth, tied with the war in Iraq. Affordability was the primary health care priority among both sets of voters. Obama voters were more likely than McCain voters to believe government can do much about health care costs.<ref>Robert J. Blendon, Drew E. Altman, John M. Benson, Mollyann Brodie,Tami Buhr, Claudia Deane, and Sasha Buscho, '']'' 359;19, November 6, 2008</ref>


The cost of insurance has been a primary motivation in the reform of the US healthcare system, and many different explanations have been proposed in the reasons for high insurance costs and how to remedy them. One critique and motivation for healthcare reform has been the development of the ]. This relates to moral arguments for health care reform, framing healthcare as a social good, one that is fundamentally immoral to deny to people based on economic status.<ref>{{Cite book|jstor=j.ctt7zswmt.7|date=2014-01-01|publisher=Georgetown University Press|isbn=9781626160774|editor-last=CRAIG|editor-first=DAVID M.|series=Religious Values and American Democracy|pages=85–120|last1=Craig|first1=David M.|title=Health Care as a Social Good}}</ref> The motivation behind healthcare reform in response to the medical-industrial complex also stems from issues of social inequity, promotion of medicine over preventative care.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|jstor=j.ctt183p79j|title=To Live and Die in America: Class, Power, Health and Healthcare|last1=Chernomas|first1=Robert|last2=Hudson|first2=Ian|date=2013-01-01|publisher=Pluto Books|isbn=9780745332123}}</ref> The medical-industrial complex, defined as a network of health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and the like, plays a role in the complexity of the US insurance market and a fine line between government and industry within it.<ref name=":1">{{Cite book|jstor=10.7591/j.ctt1h4mjdm.6|date=2016-01-01|publisher=Cornell University Press|isbn=9781501702310|editor-last=Ehrenreich|editor-first=John|series=How Money, Power, and the Pursuit of Self-Interest Have Imperiled the American Dream|pages=39–77|last1=Ehrenreich|first1=John|title=Third Wave Capitalism|chapter=The Health of Nations|doi=10.7591/9781501703591-004}}</ref> Likewise, critiques of insurance markets being conducted under a capitalistic, free-market model also include that medical solutions, as opposed to preventative healthcare measures, are promoted to maintain this medical-industrial complex.<ref name=":1" /> Arguments for a market-based approach to health insurance include the Grossman model, which is based on an ideal competitive model, but others have critiqued this, arguing that fundamentally, this means that people in higher socioeconomic levels will receive a better quality of healthcare.<ref name=":0" />
==Public policy debate==
{{Main|Health care reform debate in the United States}}


;Uninsured rate
The political debate over health care reform has for several decades revolved around the questions of whether fundamental reform of the system is needed, what form those reforms should take, and how they should be funded. Issues regarding ] are frequently the subject of political debate.<ref></ref> Whether or not a publicly funded ] system should be implemented is one such example.<ref></ref>


With the implementation of the ACA, the level of uninsured rates severely decreased in the U.S. This is due to the expansion of qualifications for access to medicaid, subsidizing insurance, prevention of insurance companies from underwriting, as well as enforcing the individual mandate which requires citizens to purchase health insurance or pay a fee. In a research study which was conducted comparing the effects of the ACA before and after it was fully implemented in 2014, it was discovered that ] benefited more than whites with many gaining insurance coverage which they lacked before allowing for many to seek treatment improving their overall health.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Chen|first1=Jie|last2=Vargas-Bustamante|first2=Arturo|last3=Mortensen|first3=Karoline|last4=Ortega|first4=Alexander N.|date=February 2016|title=Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care Access and Utilization Under the Affordable Care Act|journal=Medical Care|volume=54|issue=2|pages=140–146|doi=10.1097/MLR.0000000000000467|issn=0025-7079|pmc=4711386|pmid=26595227}}</ref> In June 2014, ]–Healthways Well–Being conducted a survey and found that the uninsured rate is decreasing with 13 percent of U.S. adults uninsured in 2014 compared to 17 percent in January 2014 and translates to roughly 10 million to 11 million individuals who gained coverage. The survey also looked at the major demographic groups and found each is making progress towards getting health insurance. However, Hispanics, who have the highest uninsured rate of any racial or ethnic group, are lagging in their progress. Under the new health care reform, Latinos were expected to be major beneficiaries of the new health care law. Gallup found that the biggest drop in the uninsured rate (3 percentage points) was among households making less than $36,000 a year.<ref name="ALONSO-ZALDIVAR :survey">{{cite news|url=http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_OVERHAUL_UNINSURED?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-03-10-03-31-55|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140310195507/http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_OVERHAUL_UNINSURED?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-03-10-03-31-55|url-status=dead|archive-date=March 10, 2014|title=Survey: Uninsured Rate Drops; Health Law Cited|last=Alonso-Zaldivar|first=Ricardo|date=March 10, 2014|newspaper=The Associated Press|access-date=March 10, 2014}}</ref><ref name="Easly-ACA">{{cite news|url=http://www.politicususa.com/2014/03/10/republicans-darkest-fears-realized-obamacare-number-uninsured-drop-age-group.html|title=Republicans Darkest Fears Realized: ACA Causes Number of Uninsured to Drop Across All Ages|last=Easley|first=Jason|date=March 10, 2014|newspaper=Politicus USA|access-date=March 10, 2014}}</ref><ref name="Howell-uninsured">{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/10/rate-uninsured-americans-dropping-gallup/|title=Rate of uninsured Americans is dropping: Gallup|last=Howell|first=Tom|date=March 10, 2014|newspaper=] |access-date=March 10, 2014}}</ref>
In spite of the amount spent on health care in the U.S., a 2008 report by the ] ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among the 19 compared countries.<ref></ref> Opponents of government intervention, such as the ] and the ], argue that the U.S. system performs better in some areas such as the responsiveness of treatment, the amount of technology available, and higher cure rates for some serious illnesses such as ], ], and ] in men.<ref name="Tanner Grass Isn't Greener"/><ref name="how">{{citenews|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/16/AR2007071601391.html|title=A Story Michael Moore Didn't Tell|publisher=''Washington Post''|date=July 18, 2007|accessdate=August 26, 2009|first=Paul|last=Howard}}</ref>


===Waste and fraud===
According to economist and former ] ], only a "big, national, public option" can force insurance companies to cooperate, share information, and reduce costs. Scattered, localized, "insurance cooperatives" are too small to do that and are "designed to fail" by the moneyed forces opposing Democratic health care reform.<ref></ref><ref> </ref>
In December 2011 the outgoing administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, ], asserted that 20% to 30% of health care spending is waste. He listed five causes for the waste: (1) overtreatment of patients, (2) the failure to coordinate care, (3) the administrative complexity of the ], (4) burdensome rules and (5) fraud.<ref>{{cite news | last = Pear | first = Robert | title = Health Official Takes Parting Shot at 'Waste' | newspaper =The New York Times | date = December 3, 2011 | url = https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/health/policy/parting-shot-at-waste-by-key-obama-health-official.html?_r=1&emc=eta1| access-date =December 20, 2011}}</ref>


An estimated 3–10% of all health care expenditures in the U.S. are fraudulent. In 2011, Medicare and Medicaid made $65 billion in improper payments (including both error and fraud). Government efforts to reduce fraud include $4 billion in fraudulent payments recovered by the Department of Justice and the FBI in 2012, longer jail sentences specified by the Affordable Care Act, and ]—volunteers trained to identify and report fraud.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.bankrate.com/financing/retirement/how-big-is-medicare-fraud/ | title=How big is Medicare fraud? | publisher=Bankrate | work=Retirement Blog | date=February 21, 2013 | access-date=November 28, 2013 | author=Phipps, Jennie L.}}</ref>
==Current reform advocacy==
===General strategies===
] President and CEO Denis Cortese has advocated an overall strategy to guide reform efforts. He argued that the U.S. has an opportunity to redesign its healthcare system and that there is a wide consensus that reform is necessary. He articulated four "pillars" of such a strategy:<ref></ref>
*Focus on value, which he defined as the ratio of quality of service provided relative to cost;
*Pay for and align incentives with value;
*Cover everyone;
*Establish mechanisms for improving the healthcare service delivery system over the long-term, which is the primary means through which value would be improved.


In 2007, the Department of Justice and Health and Human Services formed the ] to combat fraud through data analysis and increased community policing. As of May 2013, the Strike Force has charged more than 1,500 people for false billings of more than $5 billion. ] often takes the form of kickbacks and money-laundering. Fraud schemes often take the form of billing for medically unnecessary services or services not rendered.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/May/13-crm-553.html | title=Medicare Fraud Strike Force Charges 89 Individuals for Approximately $223 Million in False Billing | publisher=U.S. Department of Justice | date=May 14, 2013 | access-date=November 28, 2013}}</ref>
Writing in ], surgeon ] further distinguished between the delivery system, which refers to how medical services are provided to patients, and the payment system, which refers to how payments for services are processed. He argued that reform of the delivery system is critical to getting costs under control, but that payment system reform (e.g., whether the government or private insurers process payments) is considerably less important yet gathers a disproportionate share of attention. Gawande argued that dramatic improvements and savings in the delivery system will take "at least a decade." He recommended changes that address the over-utilization of healthcare; the refocusing of incentives on value rather than profits; and comparative analysis of the cost of treatment across various healthcare providers to identify best practices. He argued this would be an iterative, empirical process and should be administered by a "national institute for healthcare delivery" to analyze and communicate improvement opportunities.<ref name="newyorker.com"></ref>


===Quality of care===
A report published by the ] in December 2007 examined 15 federal policy options and concluded that, taken together, they had the potential to reduce future increases in health care spending by $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. These options included increased use of health information technology, research and incentives to improve medical decision making, reduced tobacco use and obesity, reforming the payment of providers to encourage efficiency, limiting the tax federal exemption for health insurance premiums, and reforming several market changes such as resetting the benchmark rates for Medicare Advantage plans and allowing the Department of Health and Human Services to negotiate drug prices. The authors based their modeling on the effect of combining these changes with the implementation of universal coverage. The authors concluded that there are no magic bullets for controlling health care costs, and that a multifaceted approach will be needed to achieve meaningful progress.<ref>Cathy Schoen, Stuart Guterman, Anthony Shih, Jennifer Lau, Sophie Kasimow, Anne Gauthier, and Karen Davis, ], December 2007</ref>
There is significant debate regarding the quality of the U.S. healthcare system relative to those of other countries. Although there are advancements in the quality of care in America due to the acknowledgement of various health related topics such as how insurance plans are now mandated to include coverage for those with mental health and substance abuse disorders as well with the inability to deny a person who has ] through the ACA,<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Skinner|first=Daniel|date=2013|title=Defining Medical Necessity under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act|journal=Public Administration Review|volume=73|pages=S49–S59|issn=0033-3352|jstor=42003021|doi=10.1111/puar.12068}}</ref> there is still much that needs to be improved. Within the U.S., those who are a racial/ethnic minority along with those who poses a lower income have higher chances of experiencing a lower quality of care at higher cost. The most vulnerable to are the elderly and low-income households, and particularly in geographic areas with depleted or stagnant economic activity.  One impact of increasing the eligibility age for care is that many will undergo even greater extended periods without adequate health care, posing increased risks to their health and economic stability.  Being insured allows individuals access not just to the treatment of existing illnesses, but also very crucial preventative healthcare, which is viewed as the most excellent form of healthcare and allows individuals to take action and make lifestyle adjustments before preventable health issues occur. Despite the advancements with the ACA, this may discourage a person from seeking medical treatment.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=SOMMERS|first1=BENJAMIN D.|last2=McMURTRY|first2=CAITLIN L.|last3=BLENDON|first3=ROBERT J.|last4=BENSON|first4=JOHN M.|last5=SAYDE|first5=JUSTIN M.|date=2017|title=Beyond Health Insurance: Remaining Disparities in US Health Care in the Post-ACA Era|journal=The Milbank Quarterly|volume=95|issue=1|pages=43–69|issn=0887-378X|jstor=26300309|doi=10.1111/1468-0009.12245|pmid=28266070|pmc=5339398}}</ref> ], a pro-] ] system of ] advocacy group, has claimed that a free market solution to health care provides a lower quality of care, with higher mortality rates, than publicly funded systems.<ref name="fpb">, ''Physicians for a National Health Program''</ref> The quality of ] and ] have also been criticized by this same group.<ref>, ''Physicians for a National Health Program''</ref>


According to a 2000 study of the ], publicly funded systems of industrial nations spend less on health care, both as a percentage of their GDP and per capita, and enjoy superior population-based health care outcomes.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_en.pdf |title=Prelims i-ixx/E |access-date=January 12, 2012}}</ref> However, conservative commentator ] and the ], a ] think tank, have both criticized the WHO's comparison method for being biased; the WHO study marked down countries for having private or fee-paying health treatment and rated countries by comparison to their expected health care performance, rather than objectively comparing quality of care.<ref name="fmc">], {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090312071328/http://www.freemarketcure.com/whynotgovhc.php |date=March 12, 2009 }}, ''Free Market Cure'', July 16, 2007</ref><ref>Glen Whitman, , ], February 28, 2008</ref>
===Over-utilization of services and comparative effectiveness research===
]
Over-utilization of healthcare services refers to when a patient overuses a doctor or to a doctor ordering more tests or services than may be required to address a particular condition effectively. Several treatment alternatives may be available for a given medical condition, with significantly different costs yet no statistical difference in outcome. Such scenarios offer the opportunity to maintain or improve the quality of care, while significantly reducing costs, through comparative effectiveness research. According to economist ] and research cited by the ] (CBO), the cost of healthcare per person in the U.S. also varies significantly by geography and medical center, with little or no statistical difference in outcome.<ref></ref> Comparative effectiveness research has shown that significant cost reductions are possible. ] Director ] stated: "Nearly thirty percent of Medicare's costs could be saved without negatively affecting health outcomes if spending in high- and medium-cost areas could be reduced to the level of low-cost areas."<ref name="newyorker.com"/>
===Independent advisory panels===
President Obama has proposed an "Independent Medicare Advisory Panel" (IMAC) to make recommendations on Medicare reimbursement policy and other reforms. Comparative effectiveness research would be one of many tools used by the IMAC. The IMAC concept was endorsed in a letter from several prominent healthcare policy experts, as summarized by ] Director ]:<ref></ref>


Some medical researchers say that patient satisfaction surveys are a poor way to evaluate medical care. Researchers at the ] and the ] asked 236 elderly patients in two different managed care plans to rate their care, then examined care in medical records, as reported in ]. There was no correlation. "Patient ratings of health care are easy to obtain and report, but do not accurately measure the technical quality of medical care," said John T. Chang, ], lead author.<ref> David Wessel, Wall Street Journal, September 7, 2006.</ref><ref>{{cite press release |title=Rand study finds patients' ratings of their medical care do not reflect the technical quality of their care |publisher=RAND Corporation |date=May 1, 2006 |url=https://www.rand.org/news/press.06/05.01.html |access-date=August 27, 2007}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Chang JT, Hays RD, Shekelle PG, etal |s2cid=53091172 |title=Patients' global ratings of their health care are not associated with the technical quality of their care |journal=Ann. Intern. Med. |volume=144 |issue=9 |pages=665–72 |date=May 2006 |pmid=16670136 |doi=10.7326/0003-4819-144-9-200605020-00010|citeseerx=10.1.1.460.3525 }}</ref>
{{quote|Their support of the IMAC proposal underscores what most serious health analysts have recognized for some time: that moving toward a health system emphasizing quality rather than quantity will require continual effort, and that a key objective of legislation should be to put in place structures (like the IMAC) that facilitate such change over time. And ultimately, without a structure in place to help contain health care costs over the long term as the health market evolves, nothing else we do in fiscal policy will matter much, because eventually rising health care costs will overwhelm the federal budget.}}


==Public opinion==
Both Mayo Clinic CEO Dr. Denis Cortese and Surgeon/Author Atul Gawande have argued that such panel(s) will be critical to reform of the delivery system and improving value. Washington Post columnist ] has also recommended that President Obama engage someone like Cortese to have a more active role in driving reform efforts.<ref></ref>
]'' magazine]]
Public opinion polls have shown a majority of the public supports various levels of government involvement in health care in the United States,<ref name="content.healthaffairs.org">''Health Affairs'', Volume 20, No. 2. "Americans' Views on Health Policy: A Fifty-Year Historical Perspective." March/April 2001. http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/20/2/33.full.pdf+html</ref> with stated preferences depending on how the question is asked.<ref name="politifact1">{{cite web|url=http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/01/michael-moore/michael-moore-claims-majority-favor-single-payer-h/ |title=Michael Moore claims a majority favor a single-payer health care system |publisher=PolitiFact |access-date=November 20, 2011}}</ref> Polls from Harvard University in 1988,<ref>{{cite journal | author = Blendon Robert J. | year = 1989 | title = Views on health care: Public opinion in three nations | journal = Health Affairs | volume = 8 | issue = 1| pages = 149–57 | doi=10.1377/hlthaff.8.1.149| pmid = 2707718 |display-authors=etal| doi-access = free }}</ref> the '']'' in 1990,<ref>''Los Angeles Times'' poll: "Health Care in the United States," Poll no. 212, Storrs, Conn.: Administered by the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, March 1990</ref> and ''The Wall Street Journal'' in 1991<ref>Wall Street Journal-NBC poll: Michael McQueen, "Voters, sick of the current health –care systems, want federal government to prescribe remedy," The Wall Street Journal, June 28, 1991</ref> all showed strong support for a health care system compared to the system in Canada. More recently, however, polling support has declined for that sort of health care system,<ref name="content.healthaffairs.org"/><ref name="politifact1"/> with a 2007 Yahoo/AP poll showing 54% of respondents considered themselves supporters of "single-payer health care,"<ref>AP/Yahoo poll: Administered by Knowledge Networks, December 2007: http://surveys.ap.org/data/KnowledgeNetworks/AP-Yahoo_2007-08_panel02.pdf {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131005003222/http://surveys.ap.org/data/KnowledgeNetworks/AP-Yahoo_2007-08_panel02.pdf |date=October 5, 2013 }}</ref> a majority in favor of a number of reforms according to a joint poll with the ''Los Angeles Times'' and ''Bloomberg'',<ref>''Los Angeles Times''/''Bloomberg'': {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150908012914/http://www.nationaljournal.com/scripts/printpage.cgi?%2Fmembers%2Fpolltrack%2F2007%2Ftodays%2F10%2F1025latimesbloomberg.htm |date=September 8, 2015 }} October 25, 2007.</ref> and a plurality of respondents in a 2009 poll for '']'' magazine showed support for "a national single-payer plan similar to Medicare for all".<ref>''Time'' magazine/ABT SRBI – July 27–28, 2009 Survey: {{cite web |url=http://www.srbi.com/TimePoll4794_Final_%20Report.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=2009-09-13 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101231023337/http://www.srbi.com/TimePoll4794_Final_%20Report.pdf |archive-date=December 31, 2010 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> Polls by Rasmussen Reports in 2011<ref>: Rasmussen Reports. January 1, 2010. Retrieved November 20, 2011.</ref> and 2012<ref>: Rasmussen Reports. Retrieved December 30, 2012.</ref> showed pluralities opposed to single-payer health care. Many other polls show support for various levels of government involvement in health care, including polls from '']''/]<ref>{{cite news|last=Sack |first=Kevin |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/policy/21poll.html |title=In Poll, Wide Support for Government-Run Health |work=The New York Times |date=June 20, 2009 |access-date=January 12, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/SunMo_poll_0209.pdf |title=CBS News/New York Times Poll, For Release: Sunday, February 1, 2009, 9:00 AM, American Public Opinion: Today Vs. 30 Years Ago, January 11–15, 2009 | work=CBS News |access-date=February 19, 2015}}</ref> and '']''/],<ref>{{cite web|url=https://abcnews.go.com/images/pdf/935a3HealthCare.pdf |title=Here's an initial summary of headlines from our health care poll, followed by the full trended results |website=] |access-date=January 12, 2012}}</ref> showing favorability for a form of ]. The ]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/7943.pdf |title=Kaiser Health Tracking Poll: July 2009 – Topline |access-date=January 12, 2012|date=2009-07-02 }}</ref> showed 58% in favor of a national health plan such as Medicare-for-all in 2009, with support around the same level from 2017 to April 2019, when 56% said they supported it.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.kff.org/interactive/tracking-public-opinion-on-national-health-plan/|title=Tracking Public Opinion on National Health Plan: Interactive|date=2019-04-24|website=The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation|access-date=2019-05-07}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer-national-health-plans-and-expanding-access-to-medicare-coverage/|title=Public Opinion on Single-Payer, National Health Plans, and Expanding Access to Medicare Coverage|date=2019-04-24|website=The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation|access-date=2019-05-07}}</ref> A ] poll in three states in 2008 found majority support for the government ensuring "that everyone in the United States has adequate health-care" among likely Democratic primary voters.<ref>{{cite web |author=Quinnipiac University – Office of Public Affairs |url=http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1164 |title=Question 9: "Do you think it's the government's responsibility to make sure that everyone in the United States has adequate health-care, or don't you think so?" |publisher=Quinnipiac.edu |date=April 2, 2008 |access-date=January 12, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111031064609/http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1164 |archive-date=October 31, 2011 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>


A 2001 article in the ] '']'' studied fifty years of American public opinion of various health care plans and concluded that, while there appears to be general support of a "national health care plan," poll respondents "remain satisfied with their current medical arrangements, do not trust the federal government to do what is right, and do not favor a single-payer type of national health plan."<ref name="content.healthaffairs.org"/> ] rated a 2009 statement by ] "false" when he stated that "he majority actually want single-payer health care." According to Politifact, responses on these polls largely depend on the wording. For example, people respond more favorably when they are asked if they want a system "like Medicare".<ref name="politifact1"/>
===Tax reform===
]


]
The ] has described how the tax treatment of insurance premiums may affect behavior:<ref></ref>
{{Quote|One factor perpetuating inefficiencies in health care is a lack of clarity regarding the cost of health insurance and who bears that cost, especially employment-based health insurance. Employers’ payments for employment-based health insurance and nearly all payments by employees for that insurance are excluded from individual income and payroll taxes. Although both theory and evidence suggest that workers ultimately finance their employment-based insurance through lower take-home pay, the cost is not evident to many workers...If transparency increases and workers see how much their income is being reduced for employers’
contributions and what those contributions are paying for, there might be a broader change in cost-consciousness that shifts demand.}}


==Alternatives and research directions==
] wrote in the '']'' that the current exclusion of insurance premiums from compensation represents a $200 billion subsidy for the private insurance industry and that it would likely not exist without it.<ref></ref>
There are alternatives to the exchange-based market system which was enacted by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which have been proposed in the past and continue to be proposed, such as a single-payer system and allowing health insurance to be regulated at the federal level.


In addition, the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act of 2010 contained provisions which allows the ] (CMS) to undertake pilot projects which, if they are successful could be implemented in future.
Employer-provided health insurance receives uncapped tax benefits. According to the OECD, it "encourages the purchase of more generous insurance plans, notably plans with little cost sharing, thus exacerbating moral hazard".<ref name="oecdhealthreform2008">{{cite web|url=http://www.oecd.org/document/51/0,3343,en_2649_34117_41809843_1_1_1_1,00.html|title=Economic Survey of the United States 2008: Health Care Reform|publisher=OECD|date=December 9, 2008}}</ref> Consumers want unfettered access to medical services; they also prefer to pay through insurance or tax rather than out of pocket. These two needs create cost-efficiency challenges for health care.<ref name="Kling">{{cite book |title=Crisis of Abundance: Rethinking How We Pay for Health Care |last=Kling |first=Arnold |authorlink=Arnold Kling |year=2006 |publisher=] |isbn=978-1930865891 |pages= }}</ref> Some studies have found no consistent and systematic relationship between the type of financing of health care and cost containment.<ref>Sherry A. Glied, , ] Working Paper No. 13881, March 2008</ref>


===Single-payer health care===
Premium tax subsidies to help individuals purchase their own health insurance have also been suggested as a way to increase coverage rates. Research confirms that consumers in the individual health insurance market are sensitive to price. It appears that price sensitivity varies among population subgroups and is generally higher for younger individuals and lower income individuals. However, research also suggests that subsidies alone are unlikely to solve the uninsured problem in the U.S.<ref> ], 2005 </ref><ref>M. Susan Marquis, Melinda Beeuwkes Buntin, Jose J. Escarce, Kanika Kapur, and Jill M. Yegian, Health Services Research 39:5 (October 2004)</ref>
{{Further|Single-payer healthcare#United States}}


A number of proposals have been made for a universal single-payer healthcare system in the United States, most recently the ], but none have achieved more political support than 20% congressional co-sponsorship. Advocates argue that ] expenditures can save several hundreds of billions of dollars per year because publicly funded universal health care would benefit employers and consumers, that employers would benefit from a bigger pool of potential customers and that employers would likely pay less, and would be spared administrative costs of health care benefits. It is also argued that inequities between employers would be reduced.<ref>{{cite book|last=Institute of Medicine|first=Committee on the Consequences of Uninsurance; Board on Health Care Services|title=Hidden Costs, Value Lost: Uninsurance in America|date=2003|publisher=The National Academies Press|location=Washington, DC|url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780309089319|isbn=9780309089319|doi=10.17226/10719|pmid=25057665}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Lincoln|first=Taylor|title=Severing the Tie That Binds: Why a Publicly Funded, Universal Health Care System Would Be a Boon to U.S. Businesses|url=http://www.citizen.org/documents/severing-the-ties-that-bind-business-universal-healthcare-report.pdf|publisher=Public Citizen|access-date=May 20, 2014|date=April 8, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Ungar|first=Rick|title=A Dose Of Socialism Could Save Our States – State Sponsored, Single Payer Healthcare Would Bring In Business & Jobs|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/04/06/a-dose-of-socialism-could-save-our-states-state-sponsored-single-payer-healthcare-would-bring-in-business-jobs/|access-date=May 20, 2014|newspaper=Forbes|date=April 6, 2012}}</ref> Also, for example, ] patients are more likely to be diagnosed at ] where curative treatment is typically a few outpatient visits, instead of at ] or later in an ] where treatment can involve years of hospitalization and is often terminal.<ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Hogg | first1 = W. | last2 = Baskerville | first2 = N. | last3 = Lemelin | first3 = J. | title = Cost savings associated with improving appropriate and reducing inappropriate preventive care: Cost-consequences analysis | journal = BMC Health Services Research | volume = 5 | issue = 1 | pages = 20 | year = 2005 | doi = 10.1186/1472-6963-5-20 | pmid = 15755330 | pmc =1079830 | doi-access = free }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Single Payer 101|url=http://www.amsa.org/AMSA/Libraries/Committee_Docs/SinglePayer101.sflb.ashx|publisher=American Medical Student Association|access-date=May 20, 2014|author=Kao-Ping Chua|author2=Flávio Casoy|date=June 16, 2007|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101212220841/http://amsa.org/AMSA/Libraries/Committee_Docs/SinglePayer101.sflb.ashx|archive-date=December 12, 2010|df=mdy-all}}</ref> Others have estimated a long-term savings amounting to 40% of all national health expenditures due to ],<ref name=canadasavings>{{cite journal | doi = 10.1186/1472-6963-5-20 | last1 = Hogg | first1 = W. | last2 = Baskerville | year = 2005 | first2 = N | last3 = Lemelin | first3 = J | title = Cost savings associated with improving appropriate and reducing inappropriate preventive care: cost-consequences analysis | journal = BMC Health Services Research | volume = 5 | issue = 1| page = 20 | pmid = 15755330 | pmc = 1079830 | doi-access = free }}</ref> although estimates from the ] and '']'' have found that preventative care is more expensive.<ref>PolitiFact: February 10, 2012.</ref>
===Insurance company antitrust reforms===
Some conservatives advocate free market reforms such as breaking up state monopolies on insurance and licensing and allowing consumers to purchase health insurance licensed by other states.<ref> </ref> <ref></ref>


Any national system would be paid for in part through taxes replacing insurance premiums, but advocates also believe savings would be realized through preventative care and the elimination of insurance company overhead and hospital billing costs.<ref name="nytimes">{{cite news|last=Krugman |first=Paul |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/13/opinion/13krugman.html |title=One Nation, Uninsured |newspaper=The New York Times |date=June 13, 2005 |access-date=December 4, 2011}}</ref> An analysis of a single-payer bill by the ] estimated the immediate savings at $350 billion per year.<ref name=pnhpsavings>] (2008) {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101206190254/http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_system_cost.php?page=all |date=December 6, 2010 }} ''PNHP.org''</ref> The Commonwealth Fund believes that, if the United States adopted a universal health care system, the mortality rate would improve and the country would save approximately $570 billion a year.<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Friedman|first=Gerald|title=Funding a National Single-Payer System 'Medicare for All' Would save Billions, and Could Be Redistributive|magazine=]}}</ref>
===Preventive strategies===


Recent enactments of single-payer systems within individual states, ], may serve as living models supporting federal single-payer coverage, however in 2014 then Governor Peter Shumlin announced that his administration would not move forward with the creation of a single-payer system in the states.<ref> {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130921061213/http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/health-care-financing/files/2012/09/hsiao_2011_-_state-based_single_payer.pdf |date=September 21, 2013 }} ''New England Journal of Medicine'' 364;13:1188–90, March 31, 2011</ref><ref>http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/single-payer-vermont-113711.html Politico (20 Dec 2014). Accessed 20 May 2015.</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2014-12-17 |title=Shumlin: It's 'Not The Right Time' For Single Payer |url=https://www.vermontpublic.org/vpr-news/2014-12-17/shumlin-its-not-the-right-time-for-single-payer |access-date=2022-07-23 |website=Vermont Public |language=en}}</ref>
Preventing obesity and overweight conditions presents a significant opportunity to reduce costs. The ] reported that approximately 9% of healthcare costs in 1998 were attributable to overweight and obesity, or as much as $92.6 billion in 2002 dollars. Nearly half of these costs were paid for by the government via Medicare or Medicaid.<ref></ref> However, by 2008 the CDC estimated these costs had nearly doubled to $147 billion.<ref></ref> The CDC identified a series of expensive conditions more likely to occur due to obesity.<ref></ref> The CDC released a series of strategies to prevent obesity and overweight, including: making healthy foods and beverages more available; supporting healthy food choices; encouraging kids to be more active; and creating safe communities to support physical activity.<ref></ref><ref></ref> An estimated 25.6% of U.S. adults in 2007 were obese, versus 23.9% in 2005. State obesity rates ranged from 18.7% to 30%. Obesity rates were roughly equal among men and women.<ref></ref> Some have proposed a so-called "]" to provide incentives for healthier behavior, either by levying the tax on products (such as soft drinks) that are thought to contribute to obesity,<ref></ref> or to individuals based on body measures, as they do in Japan.<ref></ref>


On June 1, 2017, in light of the recent Trump administration's efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, California Democratic Senator Ricardo Lara proposed a bill to establish single-payer healthcare within the state of California (SB 562), calling on fellow senators to act quickly in defense of healthcare. The legislation would implement "Medicare for All," placing all levels of healthcare in the hands of the state. The bill proposed to the California Senate by Senator Lara lacked a method of funding required to finance the $400 billion-dollar policy. Despite this lack of foresight, the bill gained approval from the senate and will move on to await approval by the state assembly.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-single-payer-healthcare-plan-advances-1496361965-htmlstory.html|title=Single- Payer healthcare plan advances in California Senate- without a way to pay its $400 billion tab|work=]|access-date=2017-08-06|issn=0458-3035}}</ref>
Increased use of preventive care (e.g., regular doctor visits) is often suggested as a way of reducing health care spending. Research suggests, however, that in most cases preventive care does not produce significant long-term cost savings. Preventive care is typically provided to many people who would never become ill, and for those who would have become ill, it is partially offset by the health care costs during additional years of life.<ref>David Brown, ], April 8, 2008</ref>


In wake of the Affordable Care Act, the state of California has experienced the greatest rise in newly insured people compared to other states. Subsequently, the number of physicians under MediCal are not enough to meet the demand, therefore 25% of physicians care for 80% of patients who are covered through MediCal.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Bindman|first1=Andrew B.|last2=Schneider|first2=Andreas G.|date=2011-04-21|title=Catching a Wave — Implementing Health Care Reform in California|journal=New England Journal of Medicine|volume=364|issue=16|pages=1487–1489|doi=10.1056/NEJMp1014109|issn=0028-4793|pmid=21449773}}</ref>
===Coverage mandates===
{{main|Health insurance mandate}}
Reforming or restructuring the private health insurance market is often suggested as a means for achieving health care reform in the U.S. Insurance market reform has the potential to increase the number of Americans with insurance, but is unlikely to significantly reduce the rate of growth in health care spending.<ref name="Blumberg & Nichols 1995"/> Careful consideration of basic insurance principles is important when considering insurance market reform, in order to avoid unanticipated consequences and ensure the long-term viability of the reformed system.<ref>Uninsured Work Group, ''Issue Brief'', ], July 2008</ref> According to one study conducted by the ], if not implemented on a systematic basis with appropriate safeguards, market reform has the potential to cause more problems than it solves.<ref name="Blumberg & Nichols 1995">Linda J. Blumberg and Len Nichols, ], November 1, 1995</ref>


In the past, California has struggled to maintain healthcare effectiveness, due in part to its unstable budget and complex regulations. The state has a policy in place known as the Gann Limit, otherwise entitled proposition 98, which ensures that a portion of state funds are directed towards the education system. This limit would be exceeded if California raises taxes to fund the new system which would require $100 billion in tax revenue. In order to avoid legal dispute, voters would be required to amend proposition 98 and exempt healthcare funding from required educational contributions.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://calbudgetcenter.org/blog/can-california-implement-single-payer-health-care-system-without-going-ballot/|title=Can California Implement a Single-Payer Health Care System Without Going to the Ballot? - California Budget & Policy Center|date=2017-07-21|work=California Budget & Policy Center|access-date=2017-08-06|archive-date=April 15, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210415015546/https://calbudgetcenter.org/blog/can-california-implement-single-payer-health-care-system-without-going-ballot/|url-status=dead}}</ref> The state announced on August 1, 2017 that coverage for health insurance will increase by 12.5% in next year, threatening the coverage of 1.5 million people <ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-covered-california-hike-20170801-story.html|title=Covered California premiums will rise 12.5%, and Anthem Blue Cross cuts coverage|last=Karlamangla|first=Soumya|date=2017-08-01|work=Los Angeles Times|access-date=2017-08-06|issn=0458-3035}}</ref>
Since most Americans with private coverage receive it through employer-sponsored plans, many have suggested employer "pay or play" requirements as a way to increase coverage levels (i.e., employers that do not provide insurance would have to pay a tax instead). However, research suggests that current pay or play proposals are limited in their ability to increase coverage among the working poor. These proposals generally exclude small firms, do not distinguish between individuals who have access to other forms of coverage and those who do not, and increase the overall compensation costs to employers.<ref>Richard Burkhauser and Kosali Simon, Employment Policies Institute, November 2007</ref>


===Public option===
Congress is debating bills such as the ], which would prevent insurers from excluding persons from coverage based on pre-existing medical conditions and limit the ability of insurance companies to cancel coverage.
{{Main| Public health insurance option}}


In January 2013, Representative ] and 44 other ] Democrats introduced {{USBill|113|HR|261}}, the "Public Option Deficit Reduction Act" which would amend the 2010 ] to create a public option. The bill would set up a government-run health insurance plan with premiums 5% to 7% percent lower than private insurance. The ] estimated it would reduce the ] by $104 billion over 10 years.<ref> ''The Hill'', January 16, 2013</ref>
Addressing the issue when it was proposed in 1994, ] wrote: "A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States."<ref>http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/48xx/doc4816/doc38.pdf</ref>


===Balancing doctor supply and demand===
Critics at both ends of the health care reform spectrum have criticised individual mandates. Arguing against requiring individuals to buy coverage, the ] has asserted that the Massachusetts' law forcing everyone to buy insurance caused costs there to increase faster than in the rest of the country.<ref>Michael F. Cannon, ], Reprint of article that appeared in the ] on August 27, 2009 (accessed October 16, 2009)</ref> Writing in the ] opinion ] "Room for Debate" the ] advocate ], former editor-in-chief of the ], said that a coverage mandate would not be necessary within a single-payer system and that even within the context of current system she was "troubled by the notion of an individual mandate."<ref name="roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com"/> She described the the Massachusetts mandates as "a windfall for the insurance industry" and wrote, "Premiums are rising much faster than income, benefit packages are getting skimpier, and deductibles and co-payments are going up."<ref name="roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com">The Editors, "Room for Debate" opinion ], '']'', June 4, 2009</ref>
The ] program regulates the supply of ]s in the U.S.<ref>{{cite web |title= Graduate Medical Education Funding Is Not Helping Solve Primary Care, Rural Provider Shortages, Study Finds |url= http://www.rwjf.org/en/blogs/human-capital-blog/2013/06/graduate_medicaledu.html |publisher= Robert Wood Johnson Foundation |date= June 19, 2013 |access-date= July 10, 2013 |archive-date= October 6, 2014 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20141006043856/http://www.rwjf.org/en/blogs/human-capital-blog/2013/06/graduate_medicaledu.html |url-status= dead }}</ref> By adjusting the reimbursement rates to establish more ] among the medical professions, the effective cost of medical care can be lowered.


===Bundled payments===
In April of 2009 ] reported that the number of people seeking emergency room care and the cost of emergency room visits had increased over the two year period from 2005 to 2007.<ref name="Kowalczyk 04-24-2009">Liz Kowalczyk, '']'', April 24, 2009</ref> The number of visits increased by 7% during that period, while costs rose by 17%.<ref name="Kowalczyk 04-24-2009"/> While state officials cautioned that it was too early to determine if the state's new coverage mandate had failed to reduce the emergency room use, but several physicians and policymakers said that it was unlikely that a coverage mandate alone could solve the problems of emergency room crowding and overuse.<ref name="Kowalczyk 04-24-2009"/> In August of 2009 ] reported that, since 2006 when Massachusetts mandated the uninsured to purchase insurance, insurance premiums had increased faster in the state than they have across the U.S. as a whole and were then the highest in the country.<ref name= "Lazar 08-22-2009">Kay Lazar, '']'', August 22, 2009</ref> As the Massachusetts reforms are often taken as a model for national reform, "advocates on various sides of the issue said the report underscores the urgency of including cost controls in any large-scale federal or state overhaul."<ref name= "Lazar 08-22-2009"/> Karen Davenport, director of health policy at the ], has argued that "before making coverage mandatory, we need to reform the health insurance market, strengthen public health insurance programs, and finance premium subsidies for people who can’t afford coverage on their own."<ref name="roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com"/>
A key project is one that could radically change the way the medical profession is paid for services under Medicare and Medicaid. The current system, which is also the prime system used by medical insurers is known as ] because the medical practitioner is paid only for the performance of medical procedures which, it is argued means that doctors have a financial incentive to do more tests (which generates more income) which may not be in the patients' best long-term interest. The current system encourages medical interventions such as surgeries and prescribed medicines (all of which carry some risk for the patient but increase revenues for the medical care industry) and does not reward other activities such as encouraging behavioral changes such as modifying dietary habits and quitting smoking, or follow-ups regarding prescribed regimes which could have better outcomes for the patient at a lower cost. The current fee-for-service system also rewards bad hospitals for bad service. Some{{Who|date=September 2010}} have noted that the best hospitals have fewer re-admission rates than others, which benefits patients, but some of the worst hospitals have high re-admission rates which is bad for patients but is perversely rewarded under the fee-for-service system.


Projects at CMS are examining the possibility of rewarding health care providers through a process known as "]s"<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.hfma.org/Templates/InteriorMaster.aspx?id=22682|title=The Medicare Bundled Payment Pilot Program: Participation Considerations|access-date=July 10, 2021|archive-date=August 3, 2012|archive-url=https://archive.today/20120803210546/http://www.hfma.org/Templates/InteriorMaster.aspx?id=22682|url-status=dead}}</ref> by which local doctors and hospitals in an area would be paid not on a fee for service basis but on a capitation system linked to outcomes. The areas with the best outcomes would get more. This system, it is argued, makes medical practitioners much more concerned to focus on activities that deliver real health benefits at a lower cost to the system by removing the perversities inherent in the fee-for-service system.
There is also disagreement as to whether federal mandates would be constitutional,<ref>http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/26/the-right-the-duty-to-bear-insurance-cards/?ref=us</ref> and state initiatives opposing federal mandates may lead to litigation and delay.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/us/29states.html?_r=1&hp</ref>


Though aimed as a model for health care funded by CMS, if the project is successful it is thought that the model could be followed by the commercial health insurance industry also.
===Reform of doctor's incentives===
Critics have argued that the healthcare system has several incentives that drive costly behavior. Two of these include:<ref></ref>
#Doctors are typically paid for services provided rather than with a salary. This provides a financial incentive to increase the costs of treatment provided.
#Patients that are fully insured have no financial incentive to minimize the cost when choosing from among alternatives. The overall effect is to increase insurance premiums for all.


=== Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation ===
Gawande quoted one surgeon who stated: "We took a wrong turn when doctors stopped being doctors and became businessmen." Gawande identified various revenue-enhancing approaches and profit-based incentives that doctors were using in high-cost areas that may have caused the over-utilization of healthcare. He contrasted this with lower-cost areas that used salaried doctors and other techniques to reward value, referring to this as a "battle for the soul of American medicine."<ref name="newyorker.com"/>
With the ACA improving the health of many by increasing the number of people who are insured, this is not the final stage for the ACA due to the push for a medicaid expansion reform. With the Democrats supporting the expansion and the Republicans against it, it was denied in the Supreme Court in the trial of NFIB vs Sebelius. The Court ruled that implementing taxes in order to pay for health insurance for all citizens was an unconstitutional exercise of Congress's power under Article I.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Sunkara|first1=Vasu|last2=Rosenbaum|first2=Sara|date=2016|title=The Constitution and the Public's Health: The Consequences of the US Supreme Court's Medicaid Decision in NFIB v Sebelius|journal=Public Health Reports|volume=131|issue=6|pages=844–846|issn=0033-3549|jstor=26374030|doi=10.1177/0033354916670870|pmid=28123233|pmc=5230834}}</ref> If the expansion eventually succeeds, Medicaid would become a fully federal program with new federal eligibility standards. This would alleviate the responsibility of state governments to fund Medicaid.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Brecher|first=Charles|date=October 2013|title=Medicaid's Next Metamorphosis|journal=Public Administration Review|volume= 73, The Health Care-Crucible Post-Reform: Challenges for Public Administration|pages=S60–S68|jstor=42003022|doi=10.1111/puar.12116}}</ref>


In addition to the reform for the medicaid expansion, there are additional reforms focused on addressing social determinants in the healthcare system through various programs and initiatives in order to reduce healthcare expenditures and improve health outcomes.
===Medical malpractice liability costs and tort reform===


Programs and initiatives recognizing and addressing non-medical social needs have sprung from various sectors within healthcare, with emerging efforts made by multi-payer federal and state initiatives, medicaid initiatives led by states, or by health plans, as well as provider level actions. State and federal initiatives, primarily sponsored CMMI (Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation) a division of ], seek to address basic social needs within the context of the healthcare delivery system. CMMI initiatives like the 2016 "Accountable Health Communities" (AHC) model have been created to focus on connecting Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries with community services to address health-related social needs, while providing funds to organizations so that they can systematically identify and address the health-related social needs of Medicare and Medicaid recipients through screening, referral, and community navigation services.<ref name=":4">{{Cite news|url=https://www.kff.org/disparities-policy/issue-brief/beyond-health-care-the-role-of-social-determinants-in-promoting-health-and-health-equity/|title=Beyond Health Care: The Role of Social Determinants in Promoting Health and Health Equity|date=2018-05-10|work=The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation|access-date=2018-10-10}}</ref> The model was officially implemented in 2017 and will be evaluated for its ability to affect cost of healthcare spending and reduce inpatient/outpatient utilization in 2022.<ref name=":4" /><ref name=":6">{{Cite web|url=https://innovation.cms.gov/initiatives/ahcm/|title=Accountable Health Communities Model {{!}} Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation|website=innovation.cms.gov|access-date=2018-11-12|archive-date=March 26, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200326193756/https://innovation.cms.gov/initiatives/ahcm/|url-status=dead}}</ref> Under the AHC model, funds have been allocated towards developing a 10-item screening tool to identify 5 different patient need domains that can be addressed through community resources (housing instability, food insecurity, transportation difficulties, utility assistance needs, and interpersonal safety).<ref name=":3">Billioux, A., K. Verlander, S. Anthony, and D. Alley. 2017. Standardized screening for health-related social needs in clinical settings: The accountable health communities screening tool. Discussion Paper, National Academy of Medicine, Washington, DC. https://nam.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ Standardized-Screening-for-Health-Related-Social-Needsin-Clinical-Settings.pdf</ref> Increasing bodies of evidence suggest that addressing social needs can help stop their damaging health effects, but screening for social needs is not yet standard clinical practice'''.''' Applying this tool in the AHC model will help CMS evaluate the impact of local partnerships between healthcare providers and community organizations in advancing the aims of addressing the cost and quality of health care across all settings.<ref name=":3" /> National recommendations around multi-dimension screening for social risk are not yet available since the evidence base to support such recommendations is highly under-developed at present. More research is still needed in this area to be able to demonstrate whether screening for social risk, and especially for multiple domains of social risk, will succeed in meeting the Wilson and Jungner screening criteria.<ref name=":5">{{Cite journal|last=Andermann|first=Anne|date=2018-06-22|title=Screening for social determinants of health in clinical care: moving from the margins to the mainstream|journal=Public Health Reviews|volume=39|pages=19|doi=10.1186/s40985-018-0094-7|issn=0301-0422|pmc=6014006|pmid=29977645 |doi-access=free }}</ref>
Critics have argued that ] costs (insurance and lawsuits, for example) are significant and should be addressed via ].<ref>http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/08/06/the_high_cost_of_medical_malpractice_97346.html RCP-Roth-The High Cost of Medical Malpractice-August 2009</ref>


==== Health plan specific initiatives ====
How much these costs are is a matter of debate. Some have argued that ] lawsuits are a major driver of medical costs.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/30/AR2009073002816.html|title=Health Reform's Taboo Topic|author=Philip K. Howard|date=Friday, July 31, 2009 }}</ref> A 2005 study estimated the cost around 0.2%, and in 2009 insurer WellPoint Inc. said "liability wasn’t driving premiums."<ref></ref> A 2006 study found neurologists in the United States ordered more tests in theoretical clinical situations posed than their German counterparts; U.S. clinicians are more likely to fear litigation which may be due to the teaching of defensive strategies which are reported more often in U.S. teaching programs.<ref>http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/clineu/article/PIIS0303846705001010/abstract</ref> Counting both direct and indirect costs, other studies estimate the total cost of malpractice "is linked to" between 5% and 10% of total U.S. medical costs.<ref>Ibid, Bloomberg.</ref>
Due to how new CMMI initiatives are, evidence supporting the effectiveness of its various initiatives of reducing healthcare spending and improving health outcomes of patients is relatively small, but is expected to grow within the coming years as many of CMMI's programs and initiatives will be due for their programmatic performance evaluation.<ref name=":6" /> However, it remains that there is more evidence of smaller scale initiatives in individual health plans/hospitals/clinics, as several health plans, hospitals, and clinics have sought out to address social determinants of health within their scope of care''.<ref name=":5"/>''


==== Transportation ====
A 2004 report by the ] put medical malpractice costs at 2 percent of U.S. health spending and "even significant reductions" would do little to reduce the growth of health-care expenses.<ref>Ibid, Bloomberg.</ref> A 2009 CBO report estimated that approximately $54 billion could be saved over ten years by limiting medical malpractice lawsuits. A tort reform package that includes caps on jury awards of $500,000 for punitive damages and $250,000 for "pain and suffering" damages would lower liability insurance premiums by about 10 percent.<ref></ref>
Transportation is a key social determinant impacting patient outcomes with approximately 3.6 million individuals unable to receive the necessary medical care due to transportation barrier, according to recent study.<ref name=":12">{{Cite journal|last1=Wallace|first1=Richard|last2=Hughes-Cromwick|first2=Paul|last3=Mull|first3=Hillary|last4=Khasnabis|first4=Snehamay|s2cid=220737225|date=January 2005|title=Access to Health Care and Nonemergency Medical Transportation: Two Missing Links|journal=Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board|volume=1924|pages=76–84|doi=10.1177/0361198105192400110|issn=0361-1981|citeseerx=10.1.1.114.4660}}</ref> In addition, these 3.6 million experience multiple conditions at a much higher rate than those who have stable access to transportation. Many conditions that they face, however, can be managed if appropriate care is made available. For some conditions, this care is cost-effective and results in health care cost savings that outweigh added transportation costs.<ref name=":12" /> without access to reliable, affordable, and convenient transportation, patients miss appointments and end up costing clinics money. According to a cross-study analysis, missed appointments and care delays cost the healthcare industry $150 billion each year.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://hbr.org/2010/03/how-behavioral-economics-can-h|title=How Behavioral Economics Can Help Cure the Health Care Crisis|date=2010-03-01|work=Harvard Business Review|access-date=2018-11-12}}</ref> Patients without transportation are also less likely to take medications as directed.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last1=Syed|first1=Samina T.|last2=Gerber|first2=Ben S.|last3=Sharp|first3=Lisa K.|title=Traveling Towards Disease: Transportation Barriers to Health Care Access|journal=Journal of Community Health|volume=38|issue=5|pages=976–993|doi=10.1007/s10900-013-9681-1|pmid=23543372|pmc=4265215|issn=0094-5145|date=October 2013}}</ref> One study found that 65 percent of patients felt transportation assistance would enable them to fill prescriptions as directed after discharge.<ref name=":2" /> According to a recent article published in the ''Journal of the American Medical Association'', ridesharing services such as Lyft and Uber can improve that healthcare disparity and cut down on the $2.7 million the federal government spends each year on non-emergency medical transportation services.<ref name=":7">{{Cite journal|last1=Powers|first1=Brian W.|last2=Rinefort|first2=Scott|last3=Jain|first3=Sachin H.|date=2016-09-06|title=Nonemergency Medical Transportation|journal=JAMA|volume=316|issue=9|pages=921–2|doi=10.1001/jama.2016.9970|pmid=27599325|issn=0098-7484}}</ref> To recover revenue and improve care quality, some health systems like MedStar Health and Denver Health Medical Center are teaming up with Uber, Lyft, and other ridesharing companies to connect patients with transportation.<ref name=":7" />


==== Housing ====
In August 2009, physician and former Democratic National Committee Chairman ] explained why tort reform was omitted from the Congressional health care reform bills then under consideration: "When you go to pass a really enormous bill like that, the more stuff you put in it, the more enemies you make, right?...And the reason tort reform is not on the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everybody else they were taking on. That is the plain and simple truth."<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/27/roundtable_on_health_care_reforms_costs_98082.html RCP-Roundtable on Health Reform Costs-August 2009</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaMj-WUC-aE</ref>
The University of Illinois Hospital, part of the University of Illinois Hospital & Health Sciences System, identified that large portion of the individuals with high rates of emergency department were also chronically homeless, and that these individuals were in the 10th decile for patient cost, with annual per patient expenses ranging from $51,000 to $533,000.<ref name=":8">{{Cite news|url=https://www.aha.org/news/insights-and-analysis/2018-03-06-case-study-university-illinois-hospital-health-sciences|title=Case Study: University of Illinois Hospital & Health Sciences System's Better Health Through Housing Program {{!}} AHA News|work=American Hospital Association {{!}} AHA News|access-date=2018-11-12}}</ref> The University of Illinois partnered with a community group called the Center for Housing and Health to initiate the Better Health Through Housing initiative in 2015, an initiative that connected chronically homeless individuals with transitional housing and case managers. In partnering with the Center for Housing and Health, the University of Illinois Hospital saw participant healthcare costs fall 42 percent, and more recent studies have found that costs dropped by 61 percent. The hospital's emergency department reported a 35% reduction in use.<ref name=":8" />


==== Malnutrition ====
Others have argued that even successful tort reform might not lead to lower aggregate liability. For example, the current contingent fee system skews litigation towards high-value cases while ignoring meritorious small cases; aligning litigation more closely with merit might thus increase the number of small awards, offsetting any reduction in large awards.<ref>http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/503853</ref> A New York study found that only 1.5% of hospital negligence led to claims; moreover, the CBO observed that "health care providers are generally not exposed to the financial cost of their own malpractice risk because they carry liability insurance, and the premiums for that insurance do not reflect the records or practice styles of individual providers but more-general factors such as location and medical specialty."<ref name="cbo.gov">http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4968&type=0</ref> Given that total liability is small relative to the amount doctors pay in malpractice insurance premiums, alternative mechanisms have been proposed to reform malpractice insurance.<ref>http://www.physiciansnews.com/law/1202roggenbaum.html</ref>
Some health plans have chosen to address some SDOH within their own means by establishing programs that directly deal with a single risk factor. Studies show that malnutrition can lead to higher costs of care and extended hospital states with the average hospital stay costing nearly $2,000 per day.<ref name=":02">{{Cite journal|last1=Sriram|first1=Krishnan|last2=Sulo|first2=Suela|last3=VanDerBosch|first3=Gretchen|last4=Partridge|first4=Jamie|last5=Feldstein|first5=Josh|last6=Hegazi|first6=Refaat A.|last7=Summerfelt|first7=Wm. Thomas|s2cid=3792309|date=2016-12-06|title=A Comprehensive Nutrition-Focused Quality Improvement Program Reduces 30-Day Readmissions and Length of Stay in Hospitalized Patients|journal=Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition|volume=41|issue=3|pages=384–391|doi=10.1177/0148607116681468|pmid=27923890|issn=0148-6071|doi-access=free}}</ref> Advocate Health Care, an accountable care organization in Chicago, Illinois, implemented a nutrition care program at four of its Chicago area hospitals, an initiative that resulted in more than $4.8 million in cost savings within 6 months due to shorter hospital states and lower readmission rates (reduced 30 day readmission rates by 27% and the average hospital stay by nearly two days).<ref name=":02" />


==Trump administration efforts==
In 2004, the CBO studied restrictions on malpractice awards proposed by the ] Administration and members of Congress; CBO concluded that "the evidence available to date does not make a strong case that restricting malpractice liability would have a significant effect, either positive or negative, on economic efficiency."<ref name="cbo.gov"/> Empirical data and reporting have since shown that some of the highest medical costs are now in states where tort reform had already caused malpractice premiums and lawsuits to drop substantially; unnecessary and injurious procedures are instead caused by a system "often driven to maximize revenues over patient needs."<ref>http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2009/06/atul-gawande-the-cost-conundrum-redux.html</ref><ref>http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande</ref><ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/17/60minutes/main563755.shtml</ref>
In 2016, ] was elected president on a platform that included a pledge to "repeal and replace" the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly called the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare). Trump proposed the ] (AHCA), which was drafted and passed by the House of Representatives in 2017 but did not pass the Senate. Had the AHCA become law, it would have returned insurance and healthcare to the market, leaving around 18 million Americans uninsured.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Galea|first=Sandro|date=2017|title=How the Trump Administration's Policies May Harm the Public's Health|journal=The Milbank Quarterly|volume=95|issue=2|pages=229–232|issn=0887-378X|jstor=26300321|doi=10.1111/1468-0009.12255|pmid=28589597|pmc=5461388}}</ref>


Incentivizing ]s is another goal.<ref>{{Cite journal|url=https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/forefront.20181026.832732/full/|title=Administration Moves To Incentivize Health Reimbursement Arrangements|journal=Health Affairs Forefront|year=2018|doi=10.1377/forefront.20181026.832732|last1=Keith |first1=Katie }}</ref>
===Rationing of care===
{{Main|Healthcare rationing in the United States}}
Healthcare rationing may refer to the restriction of medical care service delivery based on any number of objective or subjective criteria. Republican ] argued that the reform plans supported by President Obama expand the control of government over healthcare decisions, which he referred to as a type of healthcare rationing.<ref></ref> However, President ] has argued that U.S. healthcare is already rationed, based on income, type of employment, and pre-existing medical conditions, with nearly 46 million uninsured. He argued that millions of Americans are denied coverage or face higher premiums as a result of pre-existing medical conditions.<ref></ref>


== See also ==
Former Republican Secretary of Commerce ] argued that some form of rationing is inevitable and desirable considering the state of U.S. finances and the trillions of dollars of unfunded Medicare liabilities. He estimated that 25-33% of healthcare services are provided to those in the last months or year of life and advocated restrictions in cases where quality of life cannot be improved. He also recommended that a budget be established for government healthcare expenses, through establishing spending caps and pay-as-you-go rules that require tax increases for any incremental spending. He has indicated that a combination of tax increases and spending cuts will be required. All of these issues would be addressed under the aegis of a fiscal reform commission.<ref></ref>
{{Portal|Politics|United States}}

Rationing by price means accepting that there is no triage according to need. Thus in the private sector it is accepted that some people get expensive surgeries such as liver transplants or non life threatening ones such as cosmetic surgery, when others fail to get cheaper and much more cost effective care such as prenatal care, which could save the lives of many fetuses and newborn children. Some places, like Oregon for example, do explicitly ration Medicaid resources using medical priorities.<ref></ref>

===Payment system reform===
{{Main|Single-payer healthcare}}

The payment system refers to the billing and payment for medical services, which is distinct from the delivery system through which the services are provided. Converting to a ] is seen by proponents as a solution to flaws in the current system. Economist ] argued in 2005 that the U.S. converting to a single-payer system would save approximately $200 billion annually, mainly due to the removal of insurance company overhead. He stated this would more than offset the cost of providing coverage to those presently uninsured.<ref></ref>

Proponents of health care reform argue that moving to a single-payer system would reallocate the money currently spent on the administrative overhead required to run the hundreds<ref>The trade association , America's Health Insurance Plans, has some 1,300 members.</ref> of insurance companies in the U.S. to provide universal care.<ref>
By Paul Krugman, Robin Wells, New York Review of Books, March 23, 2006</ref> An often-cited study by Harvard Medical School and the Canadian Institute for Health Information determined that some 31 percent of U.S. health care dollars, or more than $1,000 per person per year, went to health care administrative costs.<ref>, Woolhandler, et al., NEJM 349(8) Sept. 21, 2003</ref> Other estimates are lower. One study of the billing and insurance-related (BIR) costs borne not only by insurers but also by physicians and hospitals found that BIR among insurers, physicians, and hospitals in California represented 20-22% of privately insured spending in California acute care settings.<ref name="pmid16284038">{{cite journal |author=Kahn JG, Kronick R, Kreger M, Gans DN |title=The cost of health insurance administration in California: estimates for insurers, physicians, and hospitals |journal=Health Aff (Millwood) |volume=24 |issue=6 |pages=1629–39 |date=2005 |pmid=16284038 |doi=10.1377/hlthaff.24.6.1629 |url=http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=16284038 |accessdate=January 22, 2008}}</ref>

Advocates of "single-payer" argue that shifting the U.S. to a single-payer health care system would provide universal coverage, give patients free choice of providers and hospitals, and guarantee comprehensive coverage and equal access for all medically necessary procedures, without increasing overall spending. Shifting to a single-payer system, by this view, would also eliminate oversight by managed care reviewers, restoring the traditional doctor-patient relationship.<ref name="PNHP">Physicians for a National Health Program. </ref> Among the organizations in support of ] in the U.S. is ] (PNHP), an organization of some 17,000 American physicians, medical students, and health professionals.<ref>http://www.pnhp.org/about/about_pnhp.php</ref>

===Healthcare technology===
The ] has concluded that increased use of health information technology has great potential to significantly reduce overall health care spending and realize large improvements in health care quality providing that the system is integrated. The use of health IT in an unintegrated setting will not realize all the projected savings. <ref>U.S. ], Pub. No. 2976, May 2008</ref>

==Common arguments for and against health care reform==
{{MultiCol}}
'''From supporters:'''
* In most cases, people have little influence on whether or not they will contract an illness. Consequently, illness may be viewed as a fundamental part of what it means to be ] and, as such, access to treatment for illness should be based on acknowledgement of the ], not the ability to pay<ref name="CESR">Center for Economic and Social Rights. October 29, 2004.</ref><ref>, Center for Economic and Social Rights, October 2004</ref><ref>, National Health Care for the Homeless Council</ref><ref name="NHCHC">National Health Care for the Homeless Council. </ref> or entitlement.<ref>Kereiakes DJ, Willerson JT. ''Circulation.'' 2004 March 30;109(12):1460-2.</ref> Therefore, health care may be viewed as a fundamental ] itself or as an extension of the ]. <ref name="UN">United Nations, , Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of December 10, 1948. Article 25 states: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."</ref>
* Since people perceive universal health care as ''free'', they are more likely to seek preventative care which, in the long run, lowers their overall health care expenditure by focusing treatment on small, less expensive problems ''before'' they become large and costly.<ref name=autogenerated8> by Phillip Longman, Washington Monthly, January 2005.</ref>
* A universal health care system allows for a larger capital base than can be offered by free market insurers (without violating ]). A larger capital base "spreads out" the cost of a payout among more people, lowering the cost to the individual.
* Universal health care would provide for uninsured adults who may forgo treatment needed for chronic health conditions.<ref>http://covertheuninsured.org/media/docs/release050205a.pdf</ref>
* In most free-market situations, the consumer of health care is entirely in the hands of a third party who has a direct personal interest in persuading the consumer to spend money on health care in his or her practice. The consumer is not able to make value judgments about the services judged to be necessary because he or she may not have sufficient expertise to do so.<ref>Blomqvist, Åke; Léger, Pierre Thomas (2005) Journal of Health Economics, Vol 24(4), pp. 775-793.</ref> This, it is claimed, leads to a tendency to over produce. In socialized medicine, hospitals are not run for profit and doctors work directly for the community and are assured of their salary. They have no direct financial interest in whether the patient is treated or not, so there is no incentive to over provide. When insurance interests are involved this furthers the disconnect between consumption and utility and the ability to make value judgments. <ref></ref> Others argue that the reason for over production is less cynically driven but that the end result is much the same.<ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15233303 NPR discussion with author Shannon Brownlee who argues that the system overly rewards doing stuff</ref>.
* The profit motive in medicine values money above public benefit.<ref name="pmid12915433">{{cite journal |author=Woolhandler S, Himmelstein DU, Angell M, Young QD |title=Proposal of the Physicians' Working Group for Single-Payer National Health Insurance |journal=JAMA |volume=290 |issue=6 |pages=798–805 |year=2003 |pmid=12915433 |doi=10.1001/jama.290.6.798 |url=http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=12915433 |accessdate=January 20, 2008}}</ref> For example, pharmaceutical companies have reduced or dropped their research into developing new antibiotics, even as antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria are increasing, because there's less profit to be gained there than in other drug research.<ref>{{cite news |first=Sabin |last=Russell |title=Bacteria race ahead of drugs
|url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/20/MN1234A1.DTL |work= |publisher=San Francisco Chronicle |date=January 20, 2008 |accessdate=January 20, 2008 }}</ref> Those in favor of universal health care posit that removing profit as a motive will increase the rate of medical innovation.<ref>For example, the recent discovery that dichloroacetate (DCA) can causes regression in several cancers, including lung, breast and brain tumors. The DCA compound is not patented or owned by any pharmaceutical company, and, therefore, would likely be an inexpensive drug to administer, Michelakis added. The bad news, is that while DCA is not patented, Michelakis is concerned that it may be difficult to find funding from private investors to test DCA in clinical trials.</ref>
* ] and Robin Wells say that in response to new medical technology, the American health care system spends more on state-of-the-art treatment for people who have good insurance, and spending is reduced on those lacking it.<ref> Paul Krugman, Robin Wells, </ref>
* The profit motive adversely affects the cost and quality of health care. If ] programs and their concomitant provider networks are abolished, then doctors would no longer be guaranteed patients solely on the basis of their membership in a provider group and regardless of the quality of care they provide. Theoretically, quality of care would increase as true competition for patients is restored.<ref></ref>
* Wastefulness and inefficiency in the delivery of health care would be reduced.<ref name="Krugman">Paul Krugman and Robin Wells, , New York Review of Books, March 23, 2006, accessed October 28, 2007</ref> A single payer system could save $286 billion a year in overhead and paperwork.<ref name="savings">Public Citizen. http://www.citizen.org. </ref> Administrative costs in the U.S. health care system are substantially higher than those in other countries and than in the public sector in the U.S.: one estimate put the total administrative costs at 24 percent of U.S. health care spending.<ref>http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/23/3/10 Reinhardt, Hussey and Anderson, "U.S. Health Care Spending In An International Context", Health Affairs, 23, no. 3 (2004): 10-25</ref> It might only take one government agent to do the job of two health insurance agents.<ref>William F. May. ''The Christian Century'', June 1-8, 1994, pp. 572-576.</ref> According to one estimate roughly 50% of health care dollars are spent on health care, the rest go to various middlemen and intermediaries. A streamlined, non-profit, universal system would increase the efficiency with which money is spent on health care.<ref name="Angell">, Physicians for a National Health Program, February 4, 2003. Accessed March 4, 2008</ref>
* About 60% of the U.S. health care system is already publicly financed with federal and state taxes, property taxes, and tax subsidies&nbsp;— a universal health care system would merely replace private/employer spending with taxes. Total spending would go down for individuals and employers.<ref name="PHNPtaxes"> PHNP.org. </ref>
* Several studies have shown a majority of taxpayers and citizens across the political divide would prefer a universal health care system over the current U.S. system<ref name="polls">Teixeira , Ruy. MotherJones September 27, 2005 .</ref><ref name="polls2">CBSNews. CBSNews March 1, 2007 .</ref><ref name="polls3">Blake, Aaron. TheHill.com June 28, 2007.</ref>
* America spends a far higher percentage of GDP on health care than any other country but has worse ratings on such criteria as quality of care, efficiency of care, access to care, safe care, equity, and wait times, according to the Commonwealth Fund.<ref name=autogenerated7>{{cite web
| title = Health Expenditures as a Percentage of GDP, 1980-2006
| url = http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Charts/Report/The-Swiss-and-Dutch-Health-Insurance-Systems--Universal-Coverage-and-Regulated-Competitive-Insurance/H/Health-Expenditures-as-a-Percentage-of-GDP--1980-2006.aspx
| accessdate = September 7, 2009}}</ref>
* A universal system would align incentives for investment in long term health-care productivity, preventive care, and better management of chronic conditions.<ref name=autogenerated8 />
* The Big Three of U.S. car manufacturers have cited health-care provision as a financial disadvantage. The cost of health insurance to U.S. car manufacturers adds between $900 and $1,400 to each car made in the U.S.A.<ref> Guardian Unlimited, November 15, 2006</ref>
* In countries in ] with public universal health care, private health care is also available, and one may choose to use it if desired. Most of the advantages of private health care continue to be present, see also ].<ref>
{{cite web
| url = http://www.farmindustria.it/farmindustria/documenti/001/etica.pdf
| title = "Uguali e diversi" davanti alla salute
| accessdate = January 22, 2008
| format = PDF
| language = {{it}}
}}</ref>
* Universal health care and public doctors would protect the right to privacy between insurance companies and patients.<ref>
{{cite web
| url = http://www.omceoto.it/News/31%20agosto%202005/TRIBUNE/MAGGIO%202005.pdf
| title = Il segreto professionale nella relazione medico-paziente
| accessdate = January 22, 2008
| format = PDF
| language = {{it}}
}}</ref>
* Public health care system can be used as independent third party in disputes between employer and employee.<ref>
{{cite web
| url = http://www.lomb.cgil.it/leggi/legge300.htm
| title = LEGGE 20 maggio 1970, n. 300 (Statuto dei lavoratori)
| accessdate = January 22, 2008
| pages = ART. 5. and ART. 6.
| language = {{it}}
}}</ref>
* A universal single-payer system would significantly lower administrative costs. Multiple peer-reviewed studies estimate the administrative savings alone from such a switch to be over $200 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.randcompare.org/current/dimension/waste|title=U.S. Health Care Today -> Waste|section=Table 1|publisher=]}}</ref> Medicare has a 4% overhead compared to a 14% administrative overhead in private insurance—30% if one combines profit and overhead.<ref>{{cite journal
|author=Catlin, Aaron and Cowan, Cathy and Heffler, Stephen and Washington, Benjamin and the National Health Expenditure Accounts Team,
|title=National Health Spending In 2005: The Slowdown Continues
|journal=]
|volume=26
|number=1
|pages=142-153
|doi=10.1377/hlthaff.26.1.142
|year=2007
|abstract=In 2005, U.S. health care spending increased 6.9 percent to almost $2.0 trillion, or $6,697 per person. The health care portion of gross domestic product (GDP) was 16.0 percent, slightly higher than the 15.9 percent share in 2004. This third consecutive year of slower health spending growth was largely driven by prescription drug expenditures. Spending for hospital and physician and clinical services grew at similar rates as they did in 2004.
|url=http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/1/142}} - Exhibit A</ref>
* In a private system, insurance companies may be motivated by ] to cancel the insurance policies of the sick, which is called ]. Thus, unlike the situation under national coverage, individuals find out that they have no health coverage when it is too late to do anything about it.<ref>, Karl Vick, Washington Post, Sep 8, 2009.</ref>
{{ColBreak}}

'''From opponents:'''
* Health care is not a right. <ref name="Sade"/><ref name="David E. Kelley">David E. Kelley, A Life of One's Own:Individual Rights and the Welfare State, ], October 1998, ISBN 1-882577-70-1</ref> Thus, it is not the responsibility of government to provide health care.<ref>Michael Tanner, ], Policy Analysis No. 565, April 5, 2006</ref>
* Free health care can lead to overuse of medical services, and hence raise overall cost.<ref>
Heritage Foundation News Release, Sept. 29, 2000</ref><ref name="Dr. Gratzer"> </ref>
* Universal health coverage does not in practice guarantee universal access to care. Many countries offer universal coverage but have long wait times or ration care.<ref name="Tanner Grass Isn't Greener">Michael Tanner, ], March 18, 2008</ref>
*The federal ] requires ]s and ] services to provide emergency care to anyone regardless of ], legal status or ability to pay.<ref></ref><ref></ref><ref> accessed 10-23-2008</ref><ref></ref>{{Clarify|date=September 2009}}<!--how is this a argument against a more public health care system? A public health care system that can provide more efficient care instead of the highly inefficient and expensive care of hospitals will lower costs to citizens.-->
* Eliminating the profit motive will decrease the rate of medical innovation and inhibit new technologies from being developed and utilized.<ref name="Friedman">Friedmen, David. ''The Machinery of Freedom.'' Arlington House Publishers: New York, 1978. p 65-69.</ref><ref>Miller, Roger Leroy, Daniel K. Benjamin, and Douglass Cecil North. ''The Economics of Public Issues''. 13th Ed.th ed. Boston: Addison-Wesley, 2003.</ref>
* Publicly-funded medicine leads to greater inefficiencies and inequalities. <ref name="Sade"/><ref name="Friedman" /><ref name="Goodman">Goodman, John. Cato Institute: ''Cato's Letter''. Winter, 2005.</ref> Opponents of universal health care argue that government agencies are less efficient due to bureaucracy.<ref name="Goodman"/> Universal health care would reduce efficiency because of more bureaucratic oversight and more paperwork, which could lead to fewer doctor-patient visits. <ref>Cato Handbook on Policy, ] 6th Edition (2005)</ref> Advocates of this argument claim that the performance of administrative duties by doctors results from medical ] and over-regulation, and may reduce charitable provision of medical services by doctors.<ref name="David E. Kelley"/>
* Converting to a single-payer system could be a radical change, creating administrative chaos.<ref>{{cite news |first=Leif Wellington |last=Haase | title=Universal Coverage: Many Roads to Rome? | url=http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2006/03/universal_coverage.html |publisher=Mother Jones |date=March 9, 2006 |accessdate=May 21, 2007}}</ref>
* Unequal access and health disparities still exist in universal health care systems.<ref name="Fuchs & Emanuel">Victor R. Fuchs and Ezekiel J. Emanuel, Health Affairs, November/December 2005</ref>
* ], CEO of ] has stated that 70% of health care costs are a direct result from behavior and are therefore preventable. He believes that individualized rational actions and market methods can create healthy behavior, which could reduce United States health-care costs by 40%. <ref name="Burd">Steven Burd, , Wallstreet Journal, June 12, 2009, accessed September 5, 2009</ref>
* The problem of rising health care costs is occurring all over the world; this is not a unique problem created by the structure of the U.S. system.<ref name="Tanner Grass Isn't Greener"/>
* According to the ] ] is a ] and therefore causes turmoil; causing governments to greatly increase taxes as costs rise year over year, as universal health care is economically impossible.<ref name="LRHuntoonMD">Lawrence R. Huntoon, </ref> Acc As an open-ended entitlement, Medicare does not weigh the benefits of technologies against their costs. Paying physicians on a fee-for-service basis also leads to spending increases. As a result, it is difficult to predict or control Medicare's spending.<ref name="Fuchs & Emanuel"/> ] reported in July 2008 that ] had "paid as much as $92 million since 2000" for medical equipment that had been ordered in the name of doctors who were dead at the time.<ref>Christopher Lee, ], July 9, 2008</ref><ref name="Sherlock 2009">Douglas B. Sherlock, , ], 2009</ref><ref>Jeff Lemieux, , ], 2005</ref><ref>Merrill Matthews, The Council for Affordable Health Insurance, January 10, 2006</ref><ref>Mark E. Litow, Milliman, Inc., January 6, 2006</ref> According to Centrists.Org large market-based public program such as the ] and ] can provide better coverage than ] while still controlling costs as well.<ref>Michael J. O’Grady, Joint Economic Committee, June 17, 2003</ref>{{Dead link|date=September 2009}}<ref>Jeff Lemieux, , June 2003</ref>
* Some commentators have opposed publicly-funded health systems on ideological grounds, arguing that public health care is a step towards ] and involves extension of state power and reduction of individual freedom.<ref>, ''National Review'', July 13, 2007</ref> Representative ] introduced an amendment that would allow Republicans with an ideological opposition to single-payer health care to vote to eliminate the ].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTh-Yu9RfF0|title=Weiner Challenges the Republicans to Put-Up or Shut-Up on Healthcare|date=July 30, 2009|author=Anthony Weiner|publisher=]}}</ref> Every representative on the ] Energy and Commerce Committee voted to keep the government-run, government-administered, single-payer Medicare system.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090730/hr3200_weiner_1_rc.pdf|title=Commitee on Energy and Commerce - 111th Congress Roll Call Vote|date=July 30, 2009|publisher=House Energy and Commerce Committee}}</ref>
* Universal health care systems, in an effort to control costs by gaining or enforcing ] power, sometimes outlaw medical care paid for by private, individual funds.<ref></ref><ref>Kent Masterson Brown, ], October 15, 2007</ref>
* Some supporters of American health care reform oppose capping the ability of Americans to seek monetary damages and redress ("] reform").<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYD/is_9_39/ai_n6044301/</ref>
*Much of the opposition to current proposals stems from the concern that they will lead to mandated abortion coverage or otherwise increase the number of abortions performed in the U.S. <ref>http://stoptheabortionmandate.com/</ref>

{{EndMultiCol}}

===Other arguments for reform===
Democrats are far more supportive of health care than are Republicans and overall more Democrats would support a ] based reform than would not,<ref>{{cite press release |title=Poll Finds Americans Split by Political Party Over Whether Socialized Medicine Better or Worse Than Current System |publisher=Harvard School of Public Health |date=February 14, 2007 |url=http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2008-releases/poll-americans-split-by-political-party-over-socialized-medicine.html|accessdate=February 27, 2008 |quote= }}</ref>{{Vague|date=September 2009}} arguing that it has several advantages over the ], ]{{Citation needed|date=September 2009}}<!--how is the existing system "free market" when the vast majority of consumers have no choice of coverage?--> system. It has been suggested that the largest obstacle is a lack of political will.<ref>. By Marie Cocco, Sacramento Bee, February 10, 2007</ref>

Conservatives and many Republicans argued against the Clinton era health care, viewing it as an expansion of government that violates their free-market, limited federal government ideology. Conservative reform proposals focus on enhanced private competition to lower costs and tax reform.<ref></ref><ref></ref> An August 2009 '']'' editorial asserted: {{quote|In recent weeks, it has become inescapably clear that Republicans are unlikely to vote for substantial reform this year. Many seem bent on scuttling President Obama’s signature domestic issue no matter the cost. As Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, so infamously put it: “If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.”<ref></ref>}}

===Other arguments against reform===

While polling data indicate that U.S. citizens are concerned about health care costs and there is substantial support for some type of reform (see ], below) most are generally satisfied with the quality of their own health care. According to a Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health in 2003, 86.9% of Americans reported being "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with their health care services, compared to 83.2% of Canadians.<ref name=autogenerated2> </ref> In the same study, 93.6% of Americans reported being "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with their physician services, compared to 91.5% of Canadians (according to the study authors, that difference was not statistically significant).

Some U.S. reformers argue for other, more incremental changes to achieve universal health care, such as tax credits or vouchers.<ref>Emanuel EJ, Fuchs VR. . N Engl J Med 2005;352:1255-1260.</ref> However, proponents of a single-payer system, such as Marcia Angell, M.D., former editor of the '']'', assert that incremental changes in a free-market system are "doomed to fail."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/Exprts_intrvw/m_angell.htm |title=Are we in a health care crisis? |accessdate=May 22, 2007 |work=PBS companion website: The Health Care Crisis: Who's At Risk? }}</ref>

==Current reform proposals==
===Obama administration proposals===
{{See also|Political positions of Barack Obama|Obama administration health care proposal}}

The current ] would:<ref>Please refer to ].</ref>
#Mandate health insurance among all citizens, but with a hardship exemption.
#Penalize financially capable citizens who are incompliant with the law.
#Result in ''tens of millions'' of new customers for insurance companies, drugmakers and devicemakers.
#Impose an affordable, fixed fee on those businesses that stand to gain significantly from the ''tens of millions'' of new customers created by the new law.

In July 2008, candidate Obama had promised to "bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family." His advisers had said that the $2,500 premium reduction includes, in addition to direct premium savings, the average family's share of the reduction in employer-paid health insurance premiums and the reduction in the cost of government health programs such as ] and ]. Ken Thorpe of ] issued estimates that supported Obama's proposal. Other health analysts, such as Joe Antos of the ], Karen Davis of the ] and Jonathan B. Oberlander of the ] expressed skepticism that Obama's proposals would achieve the stated level of cost savings.<ref>Kevin Sack, ], July 23, 2008</ref>

A September 2008 critique of Obama's health care ideas published in '']'' concluded that it did not address the core economic causes of rising health care spending, but would "greatly increase" federal regulation of health coverage.<ref name="Antos et al. 2008">Joseph Antos, Gail Wilensky, and Hanns Kuttner, '']'', September 16, 2008</ref> Its authors included a volunteer adviser to the presidential campaign of Senator ] and a scholar with the ].<ref>{{cite web | url = http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/eletters/27/6/w462#5011 |title=A Message From Health Affairs' Editor-In-Chief Susan Dentzer | publisher='']'' | date=Oct 17, 2008 | accessdate=August 20, 2009}}</ref>

The proposal includes implementing guaranteed eligibility for affordable health care for all Americans, paid for by insurance reform, reducing costs, and requiring employers to either furnish meaningful coverage or contribute to a new public plan.<ref name="Chronicle">Colliver, Victoria , San Francisco Chronicle, October 1, 2008, accessed October 1, 2008.</ref><ref></ref> He would provide for mandatory health care insurance for children.

The outlines of Obama's former health care proposal were described in his October 2008 campaign document entitled "Barack Obama and Joe Biden’s plan to lower health care costs and ensure affordable, accessible health coverage for all."<ref>{{cite
|url= http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf |title= Barack Obama and Joe Biden’s plan to lower health care costs and ensure affordable,accessible health coverage for all |date=October 3, 2008 |accessdate=August 9, 2009}}</ref>. The plan
aimed to "improve efficiency and lower costs in the health care system by adopting state-of-the-art health information technology systems; by ensuring that patients receive and providers deliver the best possible care, including prevention and chronic disease management services; reforming the market structure to increase competition; and offering federal reinsurance to employers to help ensure that unexpected or catastrophic illnesses do not make health insurance unaffordable or out of reach for businesses and their employees."

For those not insured through employment, Obama's October 2008 proposal included a ] that would include both private insurance plans and a Medicare-like, government-run option. Coverage would be guaranteed regardless of health status, and premiums would not vary based on health status either. The campaign estimated the cost of the program at $60 billion annually.<ref name="Hit Young the Hardest">], September 11, 2008</ref> According to the ], the program will need to attract young, healthy people into buying coverage to work, but at the state level guaranteed issue requirements have "often had the opposite effect." The plan required that parents cover their children, but it did not require adults to buy insurance.<ref name="Hit Young the Hardest"/>

An April 2009 reform plan, which President Obama was said to support and which is thought to be gaining support in Congress, would give the public the choice of a public sector competitor in the private health insurance market. An article in '']'' said that the inclusion of a public sector option could trigger insurance opposition which, in conjunction with employer health-care provider opposition, could kill health care reform. <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13414128 |publisher=The Economist |title= Health care: Harry and Louise ride again|date=April 2, 2009}}</ref>

Although in 2008 then-Senator Obama campaigned against requiring adults to buy insurance, in July 2009 President Obama reportedly "changed his mind" and announced that he was "now in favor of some sort of individual mandate as long as there's a hardship exemption."<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/deborahCohen/idUSTRE56E86X20090715</ref> Then, in contrast to earlier advocacy of a ] program, in August 2009 Obama administration officials announced they would support a ] in response to deep political unrest amongst Congressional Republicans and amongst citizens in town hall meetings held across America.<ref> Retrieved on August 17, 2009</ref><ref> Retrieved on August 17, 2009 </ref><ref> Retrieved on August 18, 2009</ref>

===Congressional proposals===
On August 9, 2009, the ''New York Times'' published a primer and table summarizing Congressional proposals including areas of agreement and disagreement.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/health/policy/10facts.html</ref> Some provisions of the Congressional proposals are directly contrary to the reform proposals that President Obama campaigned on; for example, the Congressional proposals would mandate all employers and individuals to purchase insurance or pay a penalty, and the Senate Finance Committee proposal would omit a public option from insurance choices.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/08/10/health/policy/10facts.graphicB.html</ref>

On May 5, 2009, the ] held hearings on Health care reform. On the panel of the "invited stakeholders," no supporter of the ] system was invited.<ref>http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20090517/NEWS01/905170301&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL</ref> The panel featured ] and industry panelists who argued against any kind of expanded health care coverage.<ref name="TRNSenateHearingsProtest">'''' ], May 7, 2009</ref> The preclusion of the single payer option from the discussion caused significant protest by doctors in the audience.<ref name="TRNSenateHearingsProtest"/>

There is one bill currently before Congress but others are expected to be presented soon. A merged single bill is the likely outcome.{{Citation needed|date=June 2009}} The main sticking points at the markup stage of the ] currently before the House of Representatives have been in two areas: whether the government should provide a ] to compete with the private insurance sector, and whether comparative effectiveness research should be used to contain costs met by the public providers of health care.{{Citation needed|date=June 2009}} Some Republicans have expressed opposition to the public insurance option believing that the government will not compete fairly with the private insurers. Republicans have also expressed opposition to the use of comparative effectiveness research (CER) to limit coverage in any public sector plan (including any public insurance scheme or any existing government scheme such as Medicare), which they regard as rationing by the back door.{{Citation needed|date=June 2009}} Democrats have claimed that the bill will not do this but are reluctant to introduce a clause that will prevent, arguing that it would limit the right of the Department of Health and Human Services to prevent payments for services that clearly do not work.{{Citation needed|date=June 2009}} America's Health Insurance Plans, the umbrella organization of the private health insurance providers in the United States has recently urged the use of CER to cut costs by restricting access to ineffective treatments and cost/benefit ineffective ones. Republican amendments to the bill would not prevent the private insurance sectors from citing CER to restrict coverage and apply rationing of their funds, a situation which would create a competition imbalance between the public and private sector insurers.{{Citation needed|date=June 2009}} A proposed but not yet enacted short bill with the same effect is the Republican sponsored ].{{Citation needed|date=June 2009}}

On June 15, 2009, the ] (CBO) issued a preliminary analysis of the major provisions of the Affordable Health Choices Act. <ref name="CBO&nbsp;— Prelim. Anal. of the Health Choices Act">], June 15, 2009</ref> The CBO estimated the ten-year cost to the federal government of the major insurance-related provisions of the bill at approximately $1.0 trillion.<ref name="CBO&nbsp;— Prelim. Anal. of the Health Choices Act"/> Over the same ten-year period from 2010 to 2019, the CBO estimated that the bill would reduce the number of uninsured Americans by approximately 16 million.<ref name="CBO&nbsp;— Prelim. Anal. of the Health Choices Act"/> At about the same time, the ] reported that the CBO had given Congressional officials an estimate of $1.6 trillion for the cost of a companion measure being developed by the Senate Finance Committee.<ref>DAVID ESPO, The ], Wednesday, June 17, 2009; 1:47 AM</ref> In response to these estimates, the Senate Finance Committee delayed action on its bill and began work on reducing the cost of the proposal to $1.0 trillion, and the debate over the Affordable Health Choices act became more acrimonious.<ref>RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, The ], Wednesday, June 17, 2009; 9:48 PM</ref><ref>Lori Montgomery, The ], Thursday, June 18, 2009</ref> Congressional Democrats were surprised by the magnitude of the estimates, and the uncertainty created by the estimates has increased the confidence of Republicans who are critical of the Obama Administration's approach to health care.<ref>CHARLES BABINGTON, The ], Saturday, June 20, 2009; 10:14 AM</ref><ref> Ceci Connolly, The ], Friday, June 19, 2009 </ref>

On July 2, 2009, the ] issued a preliminary estimate of another draft version of the Affordable Health Choices
Act.<ref name="CBO 07-02-2009">], July 2, 2009</ref> The cost was lower than the earlier estimate, due to several changes in the draft legislation. The premium subsidies were significantly reduced, a penalty was added for employers who do not offer subsidized coverage to their employees, and the ability of workers to claim a subsidy for individual coverage on the basis that their employer's plan was too expensive was limited.<ref name="CBO 07-02-2009"/> The new estimate placed the 10-year net increase in the federal budget deficit at $597 billion, and the net reduction in the uninsured at 20 million.<ref name="CBO 07-02-2009"/> While the proposal included a "public plan" option, the CBO said that it did not have a material effect on either the cost of the proposal or on the number of people who would be covered ". . . largely because the public plan would pay providers of health care at rates comparable to privately negotiated rates—and thus was not projected to have premiums lower than those charged by private insurance plans . . ."<ref name="CBO 07-02-2009"/> The draft proposal evaluated by CBO did not include Medicaid expansions or other subsidies for individuals below 150% of the Federal Poverty Level.<ref name="CBO 07-02-2009"/> In a July New York Times editorial, ] said that after adding an expansion of Medicaid for the poor and near-poor "we’re probably looking at between $1 trillion and $1.3 trillion" for the federal budget cost of the reform package (not counting unfunded mandates on employers and individuals).<ref>], Op Ed, ], July 5, 2009</ref>

In late July 2009 the director of the ] (CBO) testified that the proposals then under consideration would significantly increase federal spending and did not include the "fundamental changes" needed to control the rapid growth in health care spending.<ref>Lori Montgomery and Shailagh Murray, '']'', July 17, 2009</ref><ref>], '']'', July 17, 2009</ref> The CBO reviewed the potential impact of an independent Medicare Advisory Council, and estimated that it would save $2 billion over 10 years.<ref name="CBO 07-25-2009">], July 25, 2009</ref> The advisory panel had been pushed by the Obama administration as a key mechanism for reducing long-term health care costs.<ref name="Frates 07/25/2009">Chris Frates, '']'', July 25, 2009</ref> Republicans immediately began using the CBO estimate to argue that the Democratic reform proposals would not control health care costs.<ref name="Frates 07/25/2009"/>

In late September of 2009 the director of the CBO "contradicted President Barack Obama's oft-stated claim that seniors wouldn't see their Medicare benefits cut under a health care overhaul," saying that the Senate Finance Committee version, which includes a reduction of over $100 billion over ten years in payments to Medicare Advantage plans, "would reduce the extra benefits that would be made available to beneficiaries through Medicare Advantage plans."<ref>Erica Werner, ], ], September 22, 2009 (also published in ] September 22, 2009)</ref>

==State-level reform efforts==
{{See also|History of health care reform in the United States}}
A few states have taken serious steps toward universal health care coverage, most notably ], ], and ], with a recent example being the ].<ref></ref> The influx of more than a quarter of a million newly insured residents has led to overcrowded waiting rooms and overworked primary-care physicians who were already in short supply in Massachusetts.<ref>Beckel, Abigail Physicians Practice journal, volume 18, number 7, pages 26-40, July/August 2008, accessed July 1, 2009</ref> In July 2009, ] passed into law a plan called ], with the goal of achieving health-care coverage of 98% of its residents by 2014.<ref>http://www.aarp.org/states/ct/advocacy/articles/in_historic_vote_legislature_overrides_sustinet_veto.html</ref> Other states, while not attempting to insure all of their residents, cover large numbers of people by reimbursing hospitals and other health care providers using what is generally characterized as a ] scheme; ] is perhaps the best example of a state that employs the latter strategy.

Several single payer referendums have been proposed at the state level, but so far all have failed to pass: ] in 1994,<ref></ref> ] in 2000, and ] in 2002.<ref></ref>

The percentage of residents that are uninsured varies from state to state. ] has the highest percentage of residents without health insurance at 24%.<ref name="kshf"></ref> ] has the second highest percentage of uninsured at 22%.<ref name="kshf"/>

States play a variety of roles in the health care system including purchasers of health care and regulators of providers and health plans,<ref> statehealthfacts.org</ref> which give them multiple opportunities to try to improve how it functions. While states are actively working to improve the system in a variety of ways, there remains room for them to do more.<ref>Catherine Hess, Sonya Schwartz, Jill Rosenthal,
Andrew Snyder, and Alan Weil, The ], April 2008</ref>

] has established a program to provide health care to all uninsured residents (]).

==Public opinion==
{{Main|Public opinion on health care reform in the United States}}
Survey research in recent decades has shown that Americans generally see expanding coverage as a top national priority, and a majority express support for universal health care.<ref name="Bodenheimer 2005">Thomas Bodenheimer, Health Affairs, November/December 2005</ref> There is, however, much more limited support for tax increases to support health care reform.<ref name="Bodenheimer 2005"/><ref name="Blendon & Benson">Robert J. Blendon and John M. Benson, Health Affairs, March/April 2001</ref><ref>Daniel P. Kessler and David W. Brady, [http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/hlthaff.28.5.w917v1 "Putting The Public’s Money Where Its Mouth Is: Consumers’ enthusiasm for health reform wanes sharply when asked
to pay higher taxes to expand coverage,"] '']'', web exclusive, August 18, 2009, DOI 10.1377/hlthaff.28.5.w917</ref> Most Americans report satisfaction with their own personal health care.<ref>http://www.consumerreports.org/health/insurance/best-health-plans/overview/best-health-plans-ov.htm</ref> As of 2001, most do not support a ] system.<ref name="Blendon & Benson"/> Polls of public support for a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, the so-called "]", have varied widely between 40% to 83% in support of such a plan, depending on the particular poll.<ref name="fivethirtyeight.com">] (August, 2009) Public Support for the Public Option http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/public-support-for-public-option.html A June 2009</ref> Most of the recent polls show between 65% and 76% support of having the option to join a public plan.<ref name="fivethirtyeight.com"/>

In an article published in the May/June 2008 issue of ''Health Affairs'', pollsters William McInturff and Lori Weigel concluded that the current health care debate is very similar to that of the early 1990s, when the ] was under consideration. Similarities noted by the authors include a strong desire for change, a weakening economy, and an increased willingness to accept a larger governmental role in health care. New factors include high military spending and a higher burden placed on businesses by health care costs. However, the authors argue that many of the barriers to reform that existed in the early 1990s are still in play, including a strong resistance to government as the sole provider of care ("'I like national health insurance,' patiently explained one focus-group respondent. 'I just don’t want the government to run it.'"). The authors conclude that incremental change appears more likely than wholesale restructuring of the system.<ref>William D. McInturff and Lori Weigel, Health Affairs, Volume 27, Number 3, May/June 2008</ref>

A poll released in March 2008 by the ] and ] found that Americans are divided in their views of the U.S. health system, and that there are significant differences by political affiliation. When asked whether the U.S. has the best health care system or if other countries have better systems, 45% said that the U.S. system was best and 39% said that other countries' systems are better. Belief that the U.S. system is best was highest among Republicans (68%), lower among independents (40%), and lowest among Democrats (32%). Over half of Democrats (56%) said they would be more likely to support a presidential candidate who advocates making the U.S. system more like those of other countries; 37% of independents and 19% of Republicans said they would be more likely to support such a candidate. 45% of Republicans said that they would be less likely to support such a candidate, compared to 17% of independents and 7% of Democrats.<ref name="Harvard 2008 Release"> Press Release, ] and ], March 20, 2008</ref><ref name="Harvard 2008"> ] and ], March 20, 2008</ref> Differing levels of satisfaction with the current system result in differences in the preferred policy solutions of Democrats and Republicans. Democrats are more likely to believe that the primary responsibility for ensuring access to health care should fall on government, while Republicans are more likely to see health care as an individual responsibility, and are more likely to believe that private industry is more effective in providing coverage and controlling cost than government. Democrats are more likely to support higher taxes to expand coverage, and more likely to require everyone to purchase coverage.<ref name="Blendon 1/23/2008">Robert J. Blendon, Drew E. Altman, Claudia Deane, John M. Benson, Mollyann Brodie, and Tami Buhr, '']'' 358;4, January 24, 2008</ref>

A 2008 survey of over two thousand doctors published in '']'', shows that ]s support ] and ] by almost 2 to 1.<ref>, Reuters, March 31, 2008 (first reported in Annals of Internal Medicine).</ref>

A CBS News/New York Times poll taken in April 2009 found that healthcare is the most important issue after the economy, and that Americans 57 percent of Americans are willing to pay higher taxes for universal healthcare, compared to 38 percent that are not. Also 54 percent of Americans feel that providing health insurance for all is more important than the problem of keeping health costs down (49 percent). <ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_health_care_040609.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody CBS News/New York Times, national poll, April 6, 2009.</ref>

A ] poll issued in June 2009 found that "ost Americans believe that the nation’s health care system is in need of substantial changes."<ref name="Pew June 18, 2009"> ], June 18, 2009</ref> However, the survey found that, compared to the early 1990s when the Clinton Health Reform plan was being considered, fewer Americans believed the country was spending too much on health care, fewer believed that the health care system was in crisis, and fewer supported a complete restructuring of the system.<ref name="Pew June 18, 2009"/> Most supported extending coverage to the uninsured and slowing the increase in health care costs, but neither issue found the same level of support as they did in 1993.<ref name="Pew June 18, 2009"/> "ar fewer health care expenses are a major problem for themselves and their families than was the case in 1993."<ref name="Pew June 18, 2009"/>

A '']'' poll from July 2009 asked respondents if they would favor a "national single-payer plan similar to medicare for all" from Congress. The survey found 49% in support with 46% opposed and 5% unsure.<ref name=TIME>{{citeweb|date=July 29, 2009|url=http://www.srbi.com/TimePoll4794_Final_%20Report.pdf|title=TIME MAGAZINE/ABT SRBI&nbsp;– July 27- 28, 2009 Survey|publisher='']''|accessdate=September 10, 2009}}</ref>

In an August 2009 poll, ] showed the majority of Americans (77%) feel that it is either "Quite Important" or "Extremely Important to "give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance."<ref>{{citeweb|publisher=]|title=News Poll #15699 "Health Care Data Gathered Using NBC News Wall Street Journal Questions" on 8/19/09|date=August 20, 2009|url=http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=5ba17aa2-f1b9-4445-a6b8-62b9d1ba8693}}</ref>

==Prescription drug prices==
{{Main|Prescription drug prices in the United States}}

During the 1990s, the price of ] became a major issue in American politics as the prices of many new ]ed drugs increased sharply, and many citizens discovered that neither the government nor their insurer would pay the monopoly price of such drugs. In absolute currency, the U.S. spends the most on pharmaceuticals per capita in the world. However, national expenditures on pharmaceuticals accounted for only 12.9% of total health care costs, compared to an ] average of 17.7% (2003 figures).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/23/34970246.pdf|format=PDF|title=OECD Health Data, How Does the United States Compare|publisher=]|accessdate=April 14, 2007}}</ref> Some 23% of out-of-pocket health spending by individuals is for prescription drugs.<ref name="pmid15451969">{{cite journal |author=Heffler S, Smith S, Keehan S, Clemens MK, Zezza M, Truffer C |title=Health spending projections through 2013 |journal=Health Aff (Millwood) |volume=Suppl Web Exclusives |issue= |pages=W4–79–93, See especially exhibit 5 |year=2004 |pmid=15451969 |doi=10.1377/hlthaff.w4.79 |url=http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=15451969}}</ref>

==See also==
*]
*]
*]
===Related articles===
<!-- Please keep in alphabetical order --> <!-- Please keep in alphabetical order -->
* ]
*] - tabular comparisons of the U.S., Canada, and other countries not shown above.
* ]
*]
*] * ]
*] * ]
*] * ]
*] * ]
*] * ]
* {{section link|Health care system|International comparisons}}
*]
* ]
*]
* ]
*]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


==References== ==References==
{{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}
{{reflist|2}}
{{reflist|group=nb}}


==Further reading== ==Further reading==
<!-- Please maintain in source alphabetical order --> <!-- Please maintain in source alphabetical order -->
* Christensen, Clayton Hwang, Jason, Grossman, Jerome, {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131110021138/http://innovatorsprescription.com/ |date=November 10, 2013 }}, McGraw Hill, 2009. {{ISBN|978-0-07-159208-6}}.
===Books===
* ], ], and ], "The Only Way to Fix US Health Care" (partly a review of ] and ], ''We've Got You Covered: Rebooting American Health Care'', Portfolio, 2023, 275 pp.), '']'', vol. LXXI, no. 17 (7 November 2024), pp. 34, 36–38. "Under our patchwork public-private system, people lose coverage for many reasons.... simpler, more efficient, healthier, and fairer alternative has long been available: universal single-tier coverage. Representative ] and Senator ] have introduced ] bills delineating that approach.... Profit seeking in medicine is not new. ] complained of physicians' 'avarice, their greedy bargains made with those whose fate lies in the balances.'... he contemporary takeover of ] provision and financing by mammoth investor-owned firms – ... the ']'... – is unprecedented.... Beginning in the 1980s investor-owned hospital chains rapidly expanded... Now ] – one firm owning, say, insurance plans as well as medical providers – is remaking the medical landscape. Increasingly, your doctor is employed by your insurer and risks unemployment if they fight insurers' restrictions on your care.... Even more perniciously, ]s are invading health care... Nationwide, private equity acquisition causes a 24 percent fall in hospitals' assets and a 25 percent rise in patients' hospital-acquired complications, such as ]s and falls." "Another system of health care – without medical debt, insurance hassles, ], corporate predation, ]s, punishing ]s, and paltry care – is possible, not to mention that support for it is hugely popular." (p. 38.)
* Mahar, Maggie, , Harper/Collins, 2006. ISBN 9780060765330
* Leap, Terry L., ''Phantom Billing, Fake Prescriptions, and the High Cost of Medicine: Health Care Fraud and What to do about It'' (Cornell University Press, 2011).
* ], '']'', Basic Books, 1982. ISBN 0465079342
* Mahar, Maggie, , HarperCollins, 2006. {{ISBN|978-0-06-076533-0}}
* {{cite book|last=Reid|first=T.R.|title=The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper and Fairer Health Care|publisher=Penquin Books|date=2009|isbn=978-1594202346|accessdate=September 6, 2009}}
* {{Cite book|last=Reid|first=T. R.|title=The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper and Fairer Health Care|publisher=Penguin Books|year=2009|isbn=978-1-59420-234-6|url=https://archive.org/details/healingofamerica00reid}}

* ], '']'', Basic Books, 1982. {{ISBN|0-465-07934-2}}
====Articles and links====
*, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
*, Reuters, March 31, 2008 (first reported in Annals of Internal Medicine).
* from ]
* Institute of Medicine Committee on the Consequences of Uninsurance. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2003.
* from ]
* by Deloitte, January 2009
* from Frontline, PBS.
*
*
*
*
* President Obama September 9, 2009


==External links== ==External links==
{{North America topic|Health in}}
<!-- Please maintain in alphabetical order -->
;Government
* ''official government site''
* ''official White House rumor control site''
* from ''WhiteHouse.gov''
;Directory
*{{dmoz|Regional/North_America/United_States/Society_and_Culture/Politics/Issues/Health_Care_Reform}}
;News media
* from ]
* from ]
* from ''Governing Dynamo'', includes nearly all White House videos on health care reform
* collected news coverage from ]
* collected news coverage from ]
* collected news coverage from ]
* collected news coverage from ]
** interactive overview

{{North America topic|Health care in}}
{{United States topics}} {{United States topics}}


{{DEFAULTSORT:Health Care Reform In The United States}}
]
] ]
]
{{use mdy dates}}

Latest revision as of 12:13, 11 December 2024

This article is part of a series on
Healthcare reform in the
United States
Legislation
Preceding
Superseded
Proposed
Latest enacted
Reforms
Systems
Third-party payment models
flag United States portal
icon Health care portal

Healthcare reform in the United States has had a long history. Reforms have often been proposed but have rarely been accomplished. In 2010, landmark reform was passed through two federal statutes: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), signed March 23, 2010, and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (H.R. 4872), which amended the PPACA and became law on March 30, 2010.

Future reforms of the American health care system continue to be proposed, with notable proposals including a single-payer system and a reduction in fee-for-service medical care. The PPACA includes a new agency, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMS Innovation Center), which is intended to research reform ideas through pilot projects.

History of national reform efforts

Main article: History of health care reform in the United States

The following is a summary of reform achievements at the national level in the United States. For failed efforts, state-based efforts, native tribes services, and more details, see the history of health care reform in the United States article.

  • 1965: President Lyndon Johnson enacted legislation that introduced Medicare, covering both hospital (Part A) and supplemental medical (Part B) insurance for senior citizens. The legislation also introduced Medicaid, which permitted the Federal government to partially fund a program for the poor, with the program managed and co-financed by the individual states.
  • 1985: The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) amended the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to give some employees the ability to continue health insurance coverage after leaving employment.
  • 1996: The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) not only protects health insurance coverage for workers and their families when they change or lose their jobs, it also made health insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions. If such condition had been diagnosed before purchasing insurance, insurance companies are required to cover it after patient has one year of continuous coverage. If such condition was already covered on their current policy, new insurance policies due to changing jobs, etc... have to cover the condition immediately.
  • 1997: The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 introduced two new major Federal healthcare insurance programs, Part C of Medicare and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP. Part C formalized longstanding "Managed Medicare" (HMO, etc.) demonstration projects and SCHIP was established to provide health insurance to children in families at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty line. Many other "entitlement" changes and additions were made to Parts A and B of fee for service (FFS) Medicare and to Medicaid within an omnibus law that also made changes to the Food Stamp and other Federal programs.
  • 2000: The Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act (BIPA) effectively reversed some of the cuts to the three named programs in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 because of Congressional concern that providers would stop providing services.
  • 2003: The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (also known as the Medicare Modernization Act or MMA) introduced supplementary optional coverage within Medicare for self-administered prescription drugs and as the name suggests also changed the other three existing Parts of Medicare law.
  • 2010: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, called PPACA or ACA but also known as Obamacare, was enacted, including the following provisions:
    • the phased introduction over multiple years of a comprehensive system of mandated health insurance reforms designed to eliminate "some of the worst practices of the insurance companies"—pre-existing condition screening and premium loadings, policy cancellations on technicalities when illness seems imminent, annual and lifetime coverage caps
ACA Medicaid expansion by state:   Not adopted   Implemented
    • Expanded Medicaid to cover uninsured working-age adults (18-65) earning under 138% of the Federal Poverty Line (and therefore not eligible for subsidies on the health insurance marketplace) along with some whose existing insurance plans were too expensive based on their income. The ACA expanded Medicaid eligibility in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, however that provision was successfully challenged in NFIB v. Sebelius where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that individual states could choose whether or not to expand coverage. Initially 25 states and D.C. expanded Medicaid with funding from the federal government provided by the ACA beginning in 2014, and as of Sep 26 2023 there are 41 states (including Washington, D.C.) that have expanded coverage.
    • created health insurance marketplaces with three standard insurance coverage levels to enable like-for-like comparisons by consumers, and a web-based health insurance exchange where consumers can compare prices and purchase plans.
    • mandates that insurers fully cover certain preventative services
    • created high-risk pools for uninsureds
    • tax credits for businesses to provide insurance to employees
    • created an insurance company rate review program
    • allowed dependents to remain on their plan until 26
    • It also sets a minimum medical loss ratio of direct health care spending to premium income creates price competition
    • created Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to study comparative effectiveness research funded by a fee on insurers per covered life
    • allowed for approval of generic biologic drugs and specifically allows for 12 years of exclusive use for newly developed biologic drugs
    • many changes to the 1997, 2000, and 2003 laws that had previously changed Medicare and further expanded eligibility for Medicaid (that expansion was later ruled by the Supreme Court to be at the discretion of the states)
    • explores some programs intended to increase incentives to provide quality and collaborative care, such as accountable care organizations. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation was created to fund pilot programs which may reduce costs; the experiments cover nearly every idea healthcare experts advocate, except malpractice/tort reform.
    • requires for reduced Medicare reimbursements for hospitals with excess readmissions and eventually ties physician Medicare reimbursements to quality of care metrics.
  • 2015: The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) made significant changes to the process by which many Medicare Part B services are reimbursed and also extended SCHIP
  • 2017: Donald Trump signs Executive Order 13765 in anticipation of a repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, one of his campaign promises. The American Health Care Act is introduced and passed in the House of Representatives and introduced but not voted upon in the Senate. President Donald Trump signs Executive Order 13813 which allows insurance companies to sell low-cost short-term plans with lesser coverage, enables small business to collectively purchase association health plans, and expands health savings accounts.
  • 2021: Joe Biden repeals the Trump Executive Order 13765 and Executive Order 13813.
  • 2022: Joe Biden signs the Inflation Reduction Act into law. The bill allows Medicare to negotiate certain drug prices, caps Part D costs for seniors at $2,000 per month, and provides $64 billion for Affordable Care Act subsidies through 2025, originally expanded under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021.

Motivation

Main article: Healthcare reform debate in the United States
Life expectancy vs healthcare spending of rich OECD countries. US average of $10,447 in 2018.
Total healthcare cost per person. Public and private spending. US dollars PPP. $6,319 for Canada in 2022. $12,555 for the US in 2022.
Health spending by country. Percent of GDP (Gross domestic product). 11.2% for Canada in 2022. 16.6% for the United States in 2022.
Health spending per capita, in US$ PPP-adjusted, compared amongst various first world nations

International comparisons of healthcare have found that the United States spends more per-capita than other similarly developed nations but falls below similar countries in various health metrics, suggesting inefficiency and waste. In addition, the United States has significant underinsurance and significant impending unfunded liabilities from its aging demographic and its social insurance programs Medicare and Medicaid (Medicaid provides free care to anyone that make less than 200% of the Federal Poverty Line). The fiscal and human impact of these issues have motivated reform proposals.

U.S. healthcare costs were approximately $3.2 trillion or nearly $10,000 per person on average in 2015. Major categories of expense include hospital care (32%), physician and clinical services (20%), and prescription drugs (10%). U.S. costs in 2016 were substantially higher than other OECD countries, at 17.2% GDP versus 12.4% GDP for the next most expensive country (Switzerland). For scale, a 5% GDP difference represents about $1 trillion or $3,000 per person. Some of the many reasons cited for the cost differential with other countries include: Higher administrative costs of a private system with multiple payment processes; higher costs for the same products and services; more expensive volume/mix of services with higher usage of more expensive specialists; aggressive treatment of very sick elderly versus palliative care; less use of government intervention in pricing; and higher income levels driving greater demand for healthcare. Healthcare costs are a fundamental driver of health insurance costs, which leads to coverage affordability challenges for millions of families. There is ongoing debate whether the current law (ACA/Obamacare) and the Republican alternatives (AHCA and BCRA) do enough to address the cost challenge.

According to 2009 World Bank statistics, the U.S. had the highest health care costs relative to the size of the economy (GDP) in the world, even though estimated 50 million citizens (approximately 16% of the September 2011 estimated population of 312 million) lacked insurance. In March 2010, billionaire Warren Buffett commented that the high costs paid by U.S. companies for their employees' health care put them at a competitive disadvantage.

Further, an estimated 77 million Baby Boomers are reaching retirement age, which combined with significant annual increases in healthcare costs per person will place enormous budgetary strain on U.S. state and federal governments, particularly through Medicare and Medicaid spending (Medicaid provides long-term care for the elderly poor). Maintaining the long-term fiscal health of the U.S. federal government is significantly dependent on healthcare costs being controlled.

Insurance cost and availability

Further information: Health insurance coverage in the United States

In addition, the number of employers who offer health insurance has declined and costs for employer-paid health insurance are rising: from 2001 to 2007, premiums for family coverage increased 78%, while wages rose 19% and prices rose 17%, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Even for those who are employed, the private insurance in the US varies greatly in its coverage; one study by the Commonwealth Fund published in Health Affairs estimated that 16 million U.S. adults were underinsured in 2003. The underinsured were significantly more likely than those with adequate insurance to forgo health care, report financial stress because of medical bills, and experience coverage gaps for such items as prescription drugs. The study found that underinsurance disproportionately affects those with lower incomes—73% of the underinsured in the study population had annual incomes below 200% of the federal poverty level. However, a study published by the Kaiser Family Foundation in 2008 found that the typical large employer preferred provider organization (PPO) plan in 2007 was more generous than either Medicare or the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program Standard Option. One indicator of the consequences of Americans' inconsistent health care coverage is a study in Health Affairs that concluded that half of personal bankruptcies involved medical bills, although other sources dispute this.

There are health losses from insufficient health insurance. A 2009 Harvard study published in the American Journal of Public Health found more than 44,800 excess deaths annually in the United States due to Americans lacking health insurance. More broadly, estimates of the total number of people in the United States, whether insured or uninsured, who die because of lack of medical care were estimated in a 1997 analysis to be nearly 100,000 per year. A study of the effects of the Massachusetts universal health care law (which took effect in 2006) found a 3% drop in mortality among people 20–64 years old—1 death per 830 people with insurance. Other studies, just as those examining the randomized distribution of Medicaid insurance to low-income people in Oregon in 2008, found no change in death rate.

The cost of insurance has been a primary motivation in the reform of the US healthcare system, and many different explanations have been proposed in the reasons for high insurance costs and how to remedy them. One critique and motivation for healthcare reform has been the development of the medical–industrial complex. This relates to moral arguments for health care reform, framing healthcare as a social good, one that is fundamentally immoral to deny to people based on economic status. The motivation behind healthcare reform in response to the medical-industrial complex also stems from issues of social inequity, promotion of medicine over preventative care. The medical-industrial complex, defined as a network of health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and the like, plays a role in the complexity of the US insurance market and a fine line between government and industry within it. Likewise, critiques of insurance markets being conducted under a capitalistic, free-market model also include that medical solutions, as opposed to preventative healthcare measures, are promoted to maintain this medical-industrial complex. Arguments for a market-based approach to health insurance include the Grossman model, which is based on an ideal competitive model, but others have critiqued this, arguing that fundamentally, this means that people in higher socioeconomic levels will receive a better quality of healthcare.

Uninsured rate

With the implementation of the ACA, the level of uninsured rates severely decreased in the U.S. This is due to the expansion of qualifications for access to medicaid, subsidizing insurance, prevention of insurance companies from underwriting, as well as enforcing the individual mandate which requires citizens to purchase health insurance or pay a fee. In a research study which was conducted comparing the effects of the ACA before and after it was fully implemented in 2014, it was discovered that racial and ethnic minorities benefited more than whites with many gaining insurance coverage which they lacked before allowing for many to seek treatment improving their overall health. In June 2014, Gallup–Healthways Well–Being conducted a survey and found that the uninsured rate is decreasing with 13 percent of U.S. adults uninsured in 2014 compared to 17 percent in January 2014 and translates to roughly 10 million to 11 million individuals who gained coverage. The survey also looked at the major demographic groups and found each is making progress towards getting health insurance. However, Hispanics, who have the highest uninsured rate of any racial or ethnic group, are lagging in their progress. Under the new health care reform, Latinos were expected to be major beneficiaries of the new health care law. Gallup found that the biggest drop in the uninsured rate (3 percentage points) was among households making less than $36,000 a year.

Waste and fraud

In December 2011 the outgoing administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Donald Berwick, asserted that 20% to 30% of health care spending is waste. He listed five causes for the waste: (1) overtreatment of patients, (2) the failure to coordinate care, (3) the administrative complexity of the health care system, (4) burdensome rules and (5) fraud.

An estimated 3–10% of all health care expenditures in the U.S. are fraudulent. In 2011, Medicare and Medicaid made $65 billion in improper payments (including both error and fraud). Government efforts to reduce fraud include $4 billion in fraudulent payments recovered by the Department of Justice and the FBI in 2012, longer jail sentences specified by the Affordable Care Act, and Senior Medicare Patrols—volunteers trained to identify and report fraud.

In 2007, the Department of Justice and Health and Human Services formed the Medicare Fraud Strike Force to combat fraud through data analysis and increased community policing. As of May 2013, the Strike Force has charged more than 1,500 people for false billings of more than $5 billion. Medicare fraud often takes the form of kickbacks and money-laundering. Fraud schemes often take the form of billing for medically unnecessary services or services not rendered.

Quality of care

There is significant debate regarding the quality of the U.S. healthcare system relative to those of other countries. Although there are advancements in the quality of care in America due to the acknowledgement of various health related topics such as how insurance plans are now mandated to include coverage for those with mental health and substance abuse disorders as well with the inability to deny a person who has preexisting conditions through the ACA, there is still much that needs to be improved. Within the U.S., those who are a racial/ethnic minority along with those who poses a lower income have higher chances of experiencing a lower quality of care at higher cost. The most vulnerable to are the elderly and low-income households, and particularly in geographic areas with depleted or stagnant economic activity.  One impact of increasing the eligibility age for care is that many will undergo even greater extended periods without adequate health care, posing increased risks to their health and economic stability.  Being insured allows individuals access not just to the treatment of existing illnesses, but also very crucial preventative healthcare, which is viewed as the most excellent form of healthcare and allows individuals to take action and make lifestyle adjustments before preventable health issues occur. Despite the advancements with the ACA, this may discourage a person from seeking medical treatment. Physicians for a National Health Program, a pro-universal single-payer system of health care advocacy group, has claimed that a free market solution to health care provides a lower quality of care, with higher mortality rates, than publicly funded systems. The quality of health maintenance organizations and managed care have also been criticized by this same group.

According to a 2000 study of the World Health Organization, publicly funded systems of industrial nations spend less on health care, both as a percentage of their GDP and per capita, and enjoy superior population-based health care outcomes. However, conservative commentator David Gratzer and the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, have both criticized the WHO's comparison method for being biased; the WHO study marked down countries for having private or fee-paying health treatment and rated countries by comparison to their expected health care performance, rather than objectively comparing quality of care.

Some medical researchers say that patient satisfaction surveys are a poor way to evaluate medical care. Researchers at the RAND Corporation and the Department of Veterans Affairs asked 236 elderly patients in two different managed care plans to rate their care, then examined care in medical records, as reported in Annals of Internal Medicine. There was no correlation. "Patient ratings of health care are easy to obtain and report, but do not accurately measure the technical quality of medical care," said John T. Chang, UCLA, lead author.

Public opinion

The spring 2010 healthcare reform issue of Ms. magazine

Public opinion polls have shown a majority of the public supports various levels of government involvement in health care in the United States, with stated preferences depending on how the question is asked. Polls from Harvard University in 1988, the Los Angeles Times in 1990, and The Wall Street Journal in 1991 all showed strong support for a health care system compared to the system in Canada. More recently, however, polling support has declined for that sort of health care system, with a 2007 Yahoo/AP poll showing 54% of respondents considered themselves supporters of "single-payer health care," a majority in favor of a number of reforms according to a joint poll with the Los Angeles Times and Bloomberg, and a plurality of respondents in a 2009 poll for Time magazine showed support for "a national single-payer plan similar to Medicare for all". Polls by Rasmussen Reports in 2011 and 2012 showed pluralities opposed to single-payer health care. Many other polls show support for various levels of government involvement in health care, including polls from The New York Times/CBS News and Washington Post/ABC News, showing favorability for a form of national health insurance. The Kaiser Family Foundation showed 58% in favor of a national health plan such as Medicare-for-all in 2009, with support around the same level from 2017 to April 2019, when 56% said they supported it. A Quinnipiac University poll in three states in 2008 found majority support for the government ensuring "that everyone in the United States has adequate health-care" among likely Democratic primary voters.

A 2001 article in the public health journal Health Affairs studied fifty years of American public opinion of various health care plans and concluded that, while there appears to be general support of a "national health care plan," poll respondents "remain satisfied with their current medical arrangements, do not trust the federal government to do what is right, and do not favor a single-payer type of national health plan." Politifact rated a 2009 statement by Michael Moore "false" when he stated that "he majority actually want single-payer health care." According to Politifact, responses on these polls largely depend on the wording. For example, people respond more favorably when they are asked if they want a system "like Medicare".

Uninsured Americans, with the numbers shown here from 1987 to 2008, are a major driver for reform efforts.

Alternatives and research directions

There are alternatives to the exchange-based market system which was enacted by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which have been proposed in the past and continue to be proposed, such as a single-payer system and allowing health insurance to be regulated at the federal level.

In addition, the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act of 2010 contained provisions which allows the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to undertake pilot projects which, if they are successful could be implemented in future.

Single-payer health care

Further information: Single-payer healthcare § United States

A number of proposals have been made for a universal single-payer healthcare system in the United States, most recently the Medicare for All Act, but none have achieved more political support than 20% congressional co-sponsorship. Advocates argue that preventative health care expenditures can save several hundreds of billions of dollars per year because publicly funded universal health care would benefit employers and consumers, that employers would benefit from a bigger pool of potential customers and that employers would likely pay less, and would be spared administrative costs of health care benefits. It is also argued that inequities between employers would be reduced. Also, for example, cancer patients are more likely to be diagnosed at Stage I where curative treatment is typically a few outpatient visits, instead of at Stage III or later in an emergency room where treatment can involve years of hospitalization and is often terminal. Others have estimated a long-term savings amounting to 40% of all national health expenditures due to preventative health care, although estimates from the Congressional Budget Office and The New England Journal of Medicine have found that preventative care is more expensive.

Any national system would be paid for in part through taxes replacing insurance premiums, but advocates also believe savings would be realized through preventative care and the elimination of insurance company overhead and hospital billing costs. An analysis of a single-payer bill by the Physicians for a National Health Program estimated the immediate savings at $350 billion per year. The Commonwealth Fund believes that, if the United States adopted a universal health care system, the mortality rate would improve and the country would save approximately $570 billion a year.

Recent enactments of single-payer systems within individual states, such as in Vermont in 2011, may serve as living models supporting federal single-payer coverage, however in 2014 then Governor Peter Shumlin announced that his administration would not move forward with the creation of a single-payer system in the states.

On June 1, 2017, in light of the recent Trump administration's efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, California Democratic Senator Ricardo Lara proposed a bill to establish single-payer healthcare within the state of California (SB 562), calling on fellow senators to act quickly in defense of healthcare. The legislation would implement "Medicare for All," placing all levels of healthcare in the hands of the state. The bill proposed to the California Senate by Senator Lara lacked a method of funding required to finance the $400 billion-dollar policy. Despite this lack of foresight, the bill gained approval from the senate and will move on to await approval by the state assembly.

In wake of the Affordable Care Act, the state of California has experienced the greatest rise in newly insured people compared to other states. Subsequently, the number of physicians under MediCal are not enough to meet the demand, therefore 25% of physicians care for 80% of patients who are covered through MediCal.

In the past, California has struggled to maintain healthcare effectiveness, due in part to its unstable budget and complex regulations. The state has a policy in place known as the Gann Limit, otherwise entitled proposition 98, which ensures that a portion of state funds are directed towards the education system. This limit would be exceeded if California raises taxes to fund the new system which would require $100 billion in tax revenue. In order to avoid legal dispute, voters would be required to amend proposition 98 and exempt healthcare funding from required educational contributions. The state announced on August 1, 2017 that coverage for health insurance will increase by 12.5% in next year, threatening the coverage of 1.5 million people

Public option

Main article: Public health insurance option

In January 2013, Representative Jan Schakowsky and 44 other U.S. House of Representatives Democrats introduced H.R. 261, the "Public Option Deficit Reduction Act" which would amend the 2010 Affordable Care Act to create a public option. The bill would set up a government-run health insurance plan with premiums 5% to 7% percent lower than private insurance. The Congressional Budget Office estimated it would reduce the United States public debt by $104 billion over 10 years.

Balancing doctor supply and demand

The Medicare Graduate Medical Education program regulates the supply of medical doctors in the U.S. By adjusting the reimbursement rates to establish more income equality among the medical professions, the effective cost of medical care can be lowered.

Bundled payments

A key project is one that could radically change the way the medical profession is paid for services under Medicare and Medicaid. The current system, which is also the prime system used by medical insurers is known as fee-for-service because the medical practitioner is paid only for the performance of medical procedures which, it is argued means that doctors have a financial incentive to do more tests (which generates more income) which may not be in the patients' best long-term interest. The current system encourages medical interventions such as surgeries and prescribed medicines (all of which carry some risk for the patient but increase revenues for the medical care industry) and does not reward other activities such as encouraging behavioral changes such as modifying dietary habits and quitting smoking, or follow-ups regarding prescribed regimes which could have better outcomes for the patient at a lower cost. The current fee-for-service system also rewards bad hospitals for bad service. Some have noted that the best hospitals have fewer re-admission rates than others, which benefits patients, but some of the worst hospitals have high re-admission rates which is bad for patients but is perversely rewarded under the fee-for-service system.

Projects at CMS are examining the possibility of rewarding health care providers through a process known as "bundled payments" by which local doctors and hospitals in an area would be paid not on a fee for service basis but on a capitation system linked to outcomes. The areas with the best outcomes would get more. This system, it is argued, makes medical practitioners much more concerned to focus on activities that deliver real health benefits at a lower cost to the system by removing the perversities inherent in the fee-for-service system.

Though aimed as a model for health care funded by CMS, if the project is successful it is thought that the model could be followed by the commercial health insurance industry also.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation

With the ACA improving the health of many by increasing the number of people who are insured, this is not the final stage for the ACA due to the push for a medicaid expansion reform. With the Democrats supporting the expansion and the Republicans against it, it was denied in the Supreme Court in the trial of NFIB vs Sebelius. The Court ruled that implementing taxes in order to pay for health insurance for all citizens was an unconstitutional exercise of Congress's power under Article I. If the expansion eventually succeeds, Medicaid would become a fully federal program with new federal eligibility standards. This would alleviate the responsibility of state governments to fund Medicaid.

In addition to the reform for the medicaid expansion, there are additional reforms focused on addressing social determinants in the healthcare system through various programs and initiatives in order to reduce healthcare expenditures and improve health outcomes.

Programs and initiatives recognizing and addressing non-medical social needs have sprung from various sectors within healthcare, with emerging efforts made by multi-payer federal and state initiatives, medicaid initiatives led by states, or by health plans, as well as provider level actions. State and federal initiatives, primarily sponsored CMMI (Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation) a division of CMS, seek to address basic social needs within the context of the healthcare delivery system. CMMI initiatives like the 2016 "Accountable Health Communities" (AHC) model have been created to focus on connecting Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries with community services to address health-related social needs, while providing funds to organizations so that they can systematically identify and address the health-related social needs of Medicare and Medicaid recipients through screening, referral, and community navigation services. The model was officially implemented in 2017 and will be evaluated for its ability to affect cost of healthcare spending and reduce inpatient/outpatient utilization in 2022. Under the AHC model, funds have been allocated towards developing a 10-item screening tool to identify 5 different patient need domains that can be addressed through community resources (housing instability, food insecurity, transportation difficulties, utility assistance needs, and interpersonal safety). Increasing bodies of evidence suggest that addressing social needs can help stop their damaging health effects, but screening for social needs is not yet standard clinical practice. Applying this tool in the AHC model will help CMS evaluate the impact of local partnerships between healthcare providers and community organizations in advancing the aims of addressing the cost and quality of health care across all settings. National recommendations around multi-dimension screening for social risk are not yet available since the evidence base to support such recommendations is highly under-developed at present. More research is still needed in this area to be able to demonstrate whether screening for social risk, and especially for multiple domains of social risk, will succeed in meeting the Wilson and Jungner screening criteria.

Health plan specific initiatives

Due to how new CMMI initiatives are, evidence supporting the effectiveness of its various initiatives of reducing healthcare spending and improving health outcomes of patients is relatively small, but is expected to grow within the coming years as many of CMMI's programs and initiatives will be due for their programmatic performance evaluation. However, it remains that there is more evidence of smaller scale initiatives in individual health plans/hospitals/clinics, as several health plans, hospitals, and clinics have sought out to address social determinants of health within their scope of care.

Transportation

Transportation is a key social determinant impacting patient outcomes with approximately 3.6 million individuals unable to receive the necessary medical care due to transportation barrier, according to recent study. In addition, these 3.6 million experience multiple conditions at a much higher rate than those who have stable access to transportation. Many conditions that they face, however, can be managed if appropriate care is made available. For some conditions, this care is cost-effective and results in health care cost savings that outweigh added transportation costs. without access to reliable, affordable, and convenient transportation, patients miss appointments and end up costing clinics money. According to a cross-study analysis, missed appointments and care delays cost the healthcare industry $150 billion each year. Patients without transportation are also less likely to take medications as directed. One study found that 65 percent of patients felt transportation assistance would enable them to fill prescriptions as directed after discharge. According to a recent article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, ridesharing services such as Lyft and Uber can improve that healthcare disparity and cut down on the $2.7 million the federal government spends each year on non-emergency medical transportation services. To recover revenue and improve care quality, some health systems like MedStar Health and Denver Health Medical Center are teaming up with Uber, Lyft, and other ridesharing companies to connect patients with transportation.

Housing

The University of Illinois Hospital, part of the University of Illinois Hospital & Health Sciences System, identified that large portion of the individuals with high rates of emergency department were also chronically homeless, and that these individuals were in the 10th decile for patient cost, with annual per patient expenses ranging from $51,000 to $533,000. The University of Illinois partnered with a community group called the Center for Housing and Health to initiate the Better Health Through Housing initiative in 2015, an initiative that connected chronically homeless individuals with transitional housing and case managers. In partnering with the Center for Housing and Health, the University of Illinois Hospital saw participant healthcare costs fall 42 percent, and more recent studies have found that costs dropped by 61 percent. The hospital's emergency department reported a 35% reduction in use.

Malnutrition

Some health plans have chosen to address some SDOH within their own means by establishing programs that directly deal with a single risk factor. Studies show that malnutrition can lead to higher costs of care and extended hospital states with the average hospital stay costing nearly $2,000 per day. Advocate Health Care, an accountable care organization in Chicago, Illinois, implemented a nutrition care program at four of its Chicago area hospitals, an initiative that resulted in more than $4.8 million in cost savings within 6 months due to shorter hospital states and lower readmission rates (reduced 30 day readmission rates by 27% and the average hospital stay by nearly two days).

Trump administration efforts

In 2016, Donald Trump was elected president on a platform that included a pledge to "repeal and replace" the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly called the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare). Trump proposed the American Health Care Act (AHCA), which was drafted and passed by the House of Representatives in 2017 but did not pass the Senate. Had the AHCA become law, it would have returned insurance and healthcare to the market, leaving around 18 million Americans uninsured.

Incentivizing health reimbursement arrangements is another goal.

See also

References

  1. Stolberg, Sheryl Gay; Pear, Robert (March 24, 2010). "Obama signs health care overhaul bill, with a flourish". The New York Times. p. A19. Retrieved March 23, 2010.
  2. Pear, Robert; Herszenhorn, David M. (March 22, 2010). "Obama hails vote on health care as answering 'the call of history'". The New York Times. p. A1. Retrieved March 22, 2010. With the 219-to-212 vote, the House gave final approval to legislation passed by the Senate on Christmas Eve.
  3. ^ Smith, Donna; Alexander, David; Beech, Eric (March 19, 2010). "Factbox – U.S. healthcare bill would provide immediate benefits". Reuters. Retrieved March 24, 2010.
  4. "Timeline: when healthcare reform will affect you". CNN. March 26, 2010. Retrieved March 24, 2010.
  5. Rosenthal, Elisabeth (December 21, 2013). "News Analysis – Health Care's Road to Ruin". The New York Times. Retrieved December 22, 2013.
  6. "Brief history of the Medicare program". San Antonio, Tex.: New Tech Media. 2010. Archived from the original on June 28, 2010. Retrieved August 31, 2010.
  7. Ball, Robert M. (October 24, 1961). "The role of social insurance in preventing economic dependency (address at the Second National Conference on the Churches and Social Welfare, Cleveland, Ohio)". Washington, D.C.: U.S. Social Security Administration. Retrieved August 31, 2010.
    • Robert M. Ball, the then Deputy Director of the Bureau of Old-Age and Survivors Insurance in the Social Security Administration, had defined the major obstacle to financing health insurance for the elderly several years earlier: the high cost of care for the aged and the generally low incomes of retired people. Because retired older people use much more medical care than younger, employed people, an insurance premium related to the risk for older people needed to be high, but if the high premium had to be paid after retirement, when incomes are low, it was an almost impossible burden for the average person. The only feasible approach, he said, was to finance health insurance in the same way as cash benefits for retirement, by contributions paid while at work, when the payments are least burdensome, with the protection furnished in retirement without further payment.
  8. "An employee's guide to health benefits under COBRA – The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986" (PDF). Washington, D.C.: Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. 2010. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 27, 2013. Retrieved November 8, 2009.
  9. "Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996". gpo.gov. Retrieved September 27, 2023.
  10. "What is SCHIP?". Washington, D.C.: National Center for Public Policy Research. 2007. Retrieved September 1, 2010.
  11. "Status of State Medicaid Expansion Decisions: Interactive Map". KFF. Map is updated as changes occur. Click on states for details.
  12. Kuraitis V. (2010). Pilots, Demonstrations & Innovation in the PPACA Healthcare Reform Legislation. e-CareManagement.com.
  13. Gawande A (December 2009). "Testing, Testing". The New Yorker. Retrieved March 22, 2010.
  14. Link between health spending and life expectancy: US is an outlier. May 26, 2017. By Max Roser at Our World in Data. Click the sources tab under the chart for info on the countries, healthcare expenditures, and data sources. See the later version of the chart here.
  15. Kenworthy, Lane (July 10, 2011). "America's inefficient health-care system: another look". Consider the Evidence (blog). Retrieved September 11, 2012.
  16. ^ OECD Data. Health resources - Health spending. doi:10.1787/8643de7e-en. 2 bar charts: For both: From bottom menus: Countries menu > choose OECD. Check box for "latest data available". Perspectives menu > Check box to "compare variables". Then check the boxes for government/compulsory, voluntary, and total. Click top tab for chart (bar chart). For GDP chart choose "% of GDP" from bottom menu. For per capita chart choose "US dollars/per capita". Click fullscreen button above chart. Click "print screen" key. Click top tab for table, to see data.
  17. "Fundamental health reform like ‘Medicare for All’ would help the labor market: Job loss claims are misleading, and substantial boosts to job quality are often overlooked". Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved October 19, 2024.
  18. "FastStats". www.cdc.gov. July 18, 2017.
  19. "OECD Health Statistics 2017 - OECD". www.oecd.org.
  20. "Why does health care cost so much in America? Ask Harvard's David Cutler". PBS NewsHour. November 19, 2013.
  21. Hixon, Todd. "Why Are U.S. Health Care Costs So High?". forbes.com.
  22. Fuchs, Victor R. (July 23, 2014). "Why Do Other Rich Nations Spend So Much Less on Healthcare?". theatlantic.com.
  23. "The Senate bill does nothing to fix America's biggest health care problem". vox.com. June 30, 2017.
  24. WHO (May 2009). "World Health Statistics 2009". World Health Organization. Archived from the original on May 25, 2009. Retrieved August 2, 2009.
  25. Funk, Josh (March 1, 2010). "Buffett says economy recovering but at slow rate". San Francisco Chronicle. SFGate.com. Archived from the original on March 6, 2010. Retrieved April 3, 2010.
  26. "coming_gen_storm_e.indd" (PDF). The Economist. Retrieved January 12, 2012.
  27. "Charlie Rose-Peter Orszag Interview Transcript". November 3, 2009. Archived from the original on January 11, 2012. Retrieved January 12, 2012.
  28. "Health Insurance Premiums Rise 6.1% In 2007, Less Rapidly Than In Recent Years But Still Faster Than Wages And Inflation" (Press release). Kaiser Family Foundation. September 11, 2007. Archived from the original on March 29, 2013. Retrieved September 13, 2007.
  29. Cathy Schoen; Michelle M. Doty; Sara R. Collins; Alyssa L. Holmgren (June 14, 2005). "Insured But Not Protected: How Many Adults Are Underinsured?". Health Affairs Web Exclusive. Suppl Web Exclusives: W5–289–W5–302. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.w5.289. PMID 15956055.
  30. Dale Yamamoto, Tricia Neuman and Michelle Kitchman Strollo, How Does the Benefit Value of Medicare Compare to the Benefit Value of Typical Large Employer Plans?, Kaiser Family Foundation, September 2008
  31. Himmelstein DU, Warren E, Thorne D, Woolhandler S (2005). "Illness and injury as contributors to bankruptcy". Health Aff (Millwood). Suppl Web Exclusives: W5–63–W5–73. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.w5.63. PMID 15689369. S2CID 73034397.
  32. Todd Zywicki, "An Economic Analysis of the Consumer Bankruptcy Crisis", 99 NWU L. Rev. 1463 (2005)
  33. "American Journal of Public Health | December 2009, Vol 99, No. 12" (PDF).
  34. "State-by-state breakout of excess deaths from lack of insurance" (PDF).
  35. A 1997 study carried out by Professors David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler (New England Journal of Medicine 336, no. 11 1997) "concluded that almost 100,000 people died in the United States each year because of lack of needed care—three times the number of people who died of AIDs." The Inhuman State of U.S. Health Care, Monthly Review, Vicente Navarro, September 2003. Retrieved September 10, 2009
  36. "Study calls wide Mass. coverage a lifesaver". Boston Globe. May 5, 2014.
  37. Craig, David M. (January 1, 2014). CRAIG, DAVID M. (ed.). Health Care as a Social Good. Religious Values and American Democracy. Georgetown University Press. pp. 85–120. ISBN 9781626160774. JSTOR j.ctt7zswmt.7.
  38. ^ Chernomas, Robert; Hudson, Ian (January 1, 2013). To Live and Die in America: Class, Power, Health and Healthcare. Pluto Books. ISBN 9780745332123. JSTOR j.ctt183p79j.
  39. ^ Ehrenreich, John (January 1, 2016). "The Health of Nations". In Ehrenreich, John (ed.). Third Wave Capitalism. How Money, Power, and the Pursuit of Self-Interest Have Imperiled the American Dream. Cornell University Press. pp. 39–77. doi:10.7591/9781501703591-004. ISBN 9781501702310. JSTOR 10.7591/j.ctt1h4mjdm.6.
  40. Chen, Jie; Vargas-Bustamante, Arturo; Mortensen, Karoline; Ortega, Alexander N. (February 2016). "Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care Access and Utilization Under the Affordable Care Act". Medical Care. 54 (2): 140–146. doi:10.1097/MLR.0000000000000467. ISSN 0025-7079. PMC 4711386. PMID 26595227.
  41. Alonso-Zaldivar, Ricardo (March 10, 2014). "Survey: Uninsured Rate Drops; Health Law Cited". The Associated Press. Archived from the original on March 10, 2014. Retrieved March 10, 2014.
  42. Easley, Jason (March 10, 2014). "Republicans Darkest Fears Realized: ACA Causes Number of Uninsured to Drop Across All Ages". Politicus USA. Retrieved March 10, 2014.
  43. Howell, Tom (March 10, 2014). "Rate of uninsured Americans is dropping: Gallup". The Washington Times. Retrieved March 10, 2014.
  44. Pear, Robert (December 3, 2011). "Health Official Takes Parting Shot at 'Waste'". The New York Times. Retrieved December 20, 2011.
  45. Phipps, Jennie L. (February 21, 2013). "How big is Medicare fraud?". Retirement Blog. Bankrate. Retrieved November 28, 2013.
  46. "Medicare Fraud Strike Force Charges 89 Individuals for Approximately $223 Million in False Billing". U.S. Department of Justice. May 14, 2013. Retrieved November 28, 2013.
  47. Skinner, Daniel (2013). "Defining Medical Necessity under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act". Public Administration Review. 73: S49 – S59. doi:10.1111/puar.12068. ISSN 0033-3352. JSTOR 42003021.
  48. SOMMERS, BENJAMIN D.; McMURTRY, CAITLIN L.; BLENDON, ROBERT J.; BENSON, JOHN M.; SAYDE, JUSTIN M. (2017). "Beyond Health Insurance: Remaining Disparities in US Health Care in the Post-ACA Era". The Milbank Quarterly. 95 (1): 43–69. doi:10.1111/1468-0009.12245. ISSN 0887-378X. JSTOR 26300309. PMC 5339398. PMID 28266070.
  49. For-Profit Hospitals Cost More and Have Higher Death Rates, Physicians for a National Health Program
  50. For-Profit HMOs Provide Worse Quality Care, Physicians for a National Health Program
  51. "Prelims i-ixx/E" (PDF). Retrieved January 12, 2012.
  52. David Gratzer, Why Is not Government Health Care The Answer? Archived March 12, 2009, at the Wayback Machine, Free Market Cure, July 16, 2007
  53. Glen Whitman, "WHO's Fooling Who? The World Health Organization's Problematic Ranking of Health Care Systems", Cato Institute, February 28, 2008
  54. Capital: In health care, consumer theory falls flat David Wessel, Wall Street Journal, September 7, 2006.
  55. "Rand study finds patients' ratings of their medical care do not reflect the technical quality of their care" (Press release). RAND Corporation. May 1, 2006. Retrieved August 27, 2007.
  56. Chang JT, Hays RD, Shekelle PG, et al. (May 2006). "Patients' global ratings of their health care are not associated with the technical quality of their care". Ann. Intern. Med. 144 (9): 665–72. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.460.3525. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-144-9-200605020-00010. PMID 16670136. S2CID 53091172.
  57. ^ Health Affairs, Volume 20, No. 2. "Americans' Views on Health Policy: A Fifty-Year Historical Perspective." March/April 2001. http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/20/2/33.full.pdf+html
  58. ^ "Michael Moore claims a majority favor a single-payer health care system". PolitiFact. Retrieved November 20, 2011.
  59. Blendon Robert J.; et al. (1989). "Views on health care: Public opinion in three nations". Health Affairs. 8 (1): 149–57. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.8.1.149. PMID 2707718.
  60. Los Angeles Times poll: "Health Care in the United States," Poll no. 212, Storrs, Conn.: Administered by the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, March 1990
  61. Wall Street Journal-NBC poll: Michael McQueen, "Voters, sick of the current health –care systems, want federal government to prescribe remedy," The Wall Street Journal, June 28, 1991
  62. AP/Yahoo poll: Administered by Knowledge Networks, December 2007: http://surveys.ap.org/data/KnowledgeNetworks/AP-Yahoo_2007-08_panel02.pdf Archived October 5, 2013, at the Wayback Machine
  63. Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg: President Bush, Health Care, The Economy. Archived September 8, 2015, at the Wayback Machine October 25, 2007.
  64. Time magazine/ABT SRBI – July 27–28, 2009 Survey: "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on December 31, 2010. Retrieved September 13, 2009.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  65. Rasmussen Reports: Rasmussen Reports. January 1, 2010. Retrieved November 20, 2011.
  66. Rasmussen Reports: Rasmussen Reports. Retrieved December 30, 2012.
  67. Sack, Kevin (June 20, 2009). "In Poll, Wide Support for Government-Run Health". The New York Times. Retrieved January 12, 2012.
  68. "CBS News/New York Times Poll, For Release: Sunday, February 1, 2009, 9:00 AM, American Public Opinion: Today Vs. 30 Years Ago, January 11–15, 2009" (PDF). CBS News. Retrieved February 19, 2015.
  69. "Here's an initial summary of headlines from our health care poll, followed by the full trended results" (PDF). ABC News. Retrieved January 12, 2012.
  70. "Kaiser Health Tracking Poll: July 2009 – Topline" (PDF). July 2, 2009. Retrieved January 12, 2012.
  71. "Tracking Public Opinion on National Health Plan: Interactive". The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. April 24, 2019. Retrieved May 7, 2019.
  72. "Public Opinion on Single-Payer, National Health Plans, and Expanding Access to Medicare Coverage". The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. April 24, 2019. Retrieved May 7, 2019.
  73. Quinnipiac University – Office of Public Affairs (April 2, 2008). "Question 9: "Do you think it's the government's responsibility to make sure that everyone in the United States has adequate health-care, or don't you think so?"". Quinnipiac.edu. Archived from the original on October 31, 2011. Retrieved January 12, 2012.
  74. Institute of Medicine, Committee on the Consequences of Uninsurance; Board on Health Care Services (2003). Hidden Costs, Value Lost: Uninsurance in America. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/10719. ISBN 9780309089319. PMID 25057665.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  75. Lincoln, Taylor (April 8, 2014). "Severing the Tie That Binds: Why a Publicly Funded, Universal Health Care System Would Be a Boon to U.S. Businesses" (PDF). Public Citizen. Retrieved May 20, 2014.
  76. Ungar, Rick (April 6, 2012). "A Dose Of Socialism Could Save Our States – State Sponsored, Single Payer Healthcare Would Bring In Business & Jobs". Forbes. Retrieved May 20, 2014.
  77. Hogg, W.; Baskerville, N.; Lemelin, J. (2005). "Cost savings associated with improving appropriate and reducing inappropriate preventive care: Cost-consequences analysis". BMC Health Services Research. 5 (1): 20. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-5-20. PMC 1079830. PMID 15755330.
  78. Kao-Ping Chua; Flávio Casoy (June 16, 2007). "Single Payer 101". American Medical Student Association. Archived from the original on December 12, 2010. Retrieved May 20, 2014.
  79. Hogg, W.; Baskerville, N; Lemelin, J (2005). "Cost savings associated with improving appropriate and reducing inappropriate preventive care: cost-consequences analysis". BMC Health Services Research. 5 (1): 20. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-5-20. PMC 1079830. PMID 15755330.
  80. PolitiFact: Barack Obama says preventive care 'saves money'. February 10, 2012.
  81. Krugman, Paul (June 13, 2005). "One Nation, Uninsured". The New York Times. Retrieved December 4, 2011.
  82. Physicians for a National Health Program (2008) "Single Payer System Cost?" Archived December 6, 2010, at the Wayback Machine PNHP.org
  83. Friedman, Gerald. "Funding a National Single-Payer System 'Medicare for All' Would save Billions, and Could Be Redistributive". Dollars & Sense.
  84. "State-Based Single-Payer Health Care – A Solution for the United States?" Archived September 21, 2013, at the Wayback Machine New England Journal of Medicine 364;13:1188–90, March 31, 2011
  85. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/single-payer-vermont-113711.html Politico (20 Dec 2014). Accessed 20 May 2015.
  86. "Shumlin: It's 'Not The Right Time' For Single Payer". Vermont Public. December 17, 2014. Retrieved July 23, 2022.
  87. "Single- Payer healthcare plan advances in California Senate- without a way to pay its $400 billion tab". Los Angeles Times. ISSN 0458-3035. Retrieved August 6, 2017.
  88. Bindman, Andrew B.; Schneider, Andreas G. (April 21, 2011). "Catching a Wave — Implementing Health Care Reform in California". New England Journal of Medicine. 364 (16): 1487–1489. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1014109. ISSN 0028-4793. PMID 21449773.
  89. "Can California Implement a Single-Payer Health Care System Without Going to the Ballot? - California Budget & Policy Center". California Budget & Policy Center. July 21, 2017. Archived from the original on April 15, 2021. Retrieved August 6, 2017.
  90. Karlamangla, Soumya (August 1, 2017). "Covered California premiums will rise 12.5%, and Anthem Blue Cross cuts coverage". Los Angeles Times. ISSN 0458-3035. Retrieved August 6, 2017.
  91. "House Dems push again for creation of government-run health insurance option" The Hill, January 16, 2013
  92. "Graduate Medical Education Funding Is Not Helping Solve Primary Care, Rural Provider Shortages, Study Finds". Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. June 19, 2013. Archived from the original on October 6, 2014. Retrieved July 10, 2013.
  93. "The Medicare Bundled Payment Pilot Program: Participation Considerations". Archived from the original on August 3, 2012. Retrieved July 10, 2021.
  94. Sunkara, Vasu; Rosenbaum, Sara (2016). "The Constitution and the Public's Health: The Consequences of the US Supreme Court's Medicaid Decision in NFIB v Sebelius". Public Health Reports. 131 (6): 844–846. doi:10.1177/0033354916670870. ISSN 0033-3549. JSTOR 26374030. PMC 5230834. PMID 28123233.
  95. Brecher, Charles (October 2013). "Medicaid's Next Metamorphosis". Public Administration Review. 73, The Health Care-Crucible Post-Reform: Challenges for Public Administration: S60 – S68. doi:10.1111/puar.12116. JSTOR 42003022.
  96. ^ "Beyond Health Care: The Role of Social Determinants in Promoting Health and Health Equity". The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. May 10, 2018. Retrieved October 10, 2018.
  97. ^ "Accountable Health Communities Model | Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation". innovation.cms.gov. Archived from the original on March 26, 2020. Retrieved November 12, 2018.
  98. ^ Billioux, A., K. Verlander, S. Anthony, and D. Alley. 2017. Standardized screening for health-related social needs in clinical settings: The accountable health communities screening tool. Discussion Paper, National Academy of Medicine, Washington, DC. https://nam.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ Standardized-Screening-for-Health-Related-Social-Needsin-Clinical-Settings.pdf
  99. ^ Andermann, Anne (June 22, 2018). "Screening for social determinants of health in clinical care: moving from the margins to the mainstream". Public Health Reviews. 39: 19. doi:10.1186/s40985-018-0094-7. ISSN 0301-0422. PMC 6014006. PMID 29977645.
  100. ^ Wallace, Richard; Hughes-Cromwick, Paul; Mull, Hillary; Khasnabis, Snehamay (January 2005). "Access to Health Care and Nonemergency Medical Transportation: Two Missing Links". Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 1924: 76–84. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.114.4660. doi:10.1177/0361198105192400110. ISSN 0361-1981. S2CID 220737225.
  101. "How Behavioral Economics Can Help Cure the Health Care Crisis". Harvard Business Review. March 1, 2010. Retrieved November 12, 2018.
  102. ^ Syed, Samina T.; Gerber, Ben S.; Sharp, Lisa K. (October 2013). "Traveling Towards Disease: Transportation Barriers to Health Care Access". Journal of Community Health. 38 (5): 976–993. doi:10.1007/s10900-013-9681-1. ISSN 0094-5145. PMC 4265215. PMID 23543372.
  103. ^ Powers, Brian W.; Rinefort, Scott; Jain, Sachin H. (September 6, 2016). "Nonemergency Medical Transportation". JAMA. 316 (9): 921–2. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.9970. ISSN 0098-7484. PMID 27599325.
  104. ^ "Case Study: University of Illinois Hospital & Health Sciences System's Better Health Through Housing Program | AHA News". American Hospital Association | AHA News. Retrieved November 12, 2018.
  105. ^ Sriram, Krishnan; Sulo, Suela; VanDerBosch, Gretchen; Partridge, Jamie; Feldstein, Josh; Hegazi, Refaat A.; Summerfelt, Wm. Thomas (December 6, 2016). "A Comprehensive Nutrition-Focused Quality Improvement Program Reduces 30-Day Readmissions and Length of Stay in Hospitalized Patients". Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition. 41 (3): 384–391. doi:10.1177/0148607116681468. ISSN 0148-6071. PMID 27923890. S2CID 3792309.
  106. Galea, Sandro (2017). "How the Trump Administration's Policies May Harm the Public's Health". The Milbank Quarterly. 95 (2): 229–232. doi:10.1111/1468-0009.12255. ISSN 0887-378X. JSTOR 26300321. PMC 5461388. PMID 28589597.
  107. Keith, Katie (2018). "Administration Moves To Incentivize Health Reimbursement Arrangements". Health Affairs Forefront. doi:10.1377/forefront.20181026.832732.

Further reading

External links

Health in North America
Sovereign states
Dependencies and
other territories
United States articles
History
By period
By event
By topic
Geography
Politics
Federal
Executive
Legislative
Judicial
Law
Uniformed
State,
Federal District,
and Territorial
Executive
Legislative
Judicial
Law
Tribal
Local
County
Cities
Minor divisions
Special district
Economy
Transport
Society
Culture
Social class
Health
Issues
Categories: