Health insurance in the United States is a highly politicized issue. In recent years, many strides have been made to extend health insurance coverage to all Americans with the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). While the program has been vigorously debated in the public realm, arguments are often centered around political ideology rather than economic theory. This paper seeks to challenge the entire structure of the current health insurance model, since its inception in the 1950s. Through the overuse of a third-party payer model, a magnitude of problems have emerged that severely diminish the efficiency of health care allocation in the United States. This paper proposes a model that seeks to correct issues of cost, access, and market efficiency by adapting the Medicare Part D payment scheme for an all encompassing insurance model.
Background
In 1954, Congress passed legislation allowing employers to provide health insurance benefits to employees on a tax-free basis (Sih and Singh 99). This legal provision marked the beginning of the rapidly expanding health care costs still apparent today due to the major incentives provided by the government to obtain employer-based health coverage. The overwhelming popularity of employer-based health insurance has led to a serious market inefficiency resulting from the system of third-party payment. As individuals rely on their insurance companies to pay for their medical expenses, this provides
Health insurance comes as second nature to many of us. We grab that blue and white card and put it in our wallet and forget about it until we are sick or injured. When this happens, there it is, cushioning our fall like the extra padding it provided to cushion our wallets. This is not the case with everyone, however. Many Americans have no cushion to fall back on, no blue and white card to show the emergency room when they have an unexpected health concern. No HMO with a convenient co-pay amount when their son or daughter develops an ear infection.
Health care plans are policies created to aid the patients in accessing medical services in form of insurance to cover the expenses incurred during treatment and hospital care. In analyzing the options given by two major health care plans elaboration will be based on two major insurance schemes namely indemnity insurance plan and Managed Care plan. All these vary yet with a common aim of providing medical services to the patients. In order for the analysis, consideration will be based on the costs and the coverage. These two plans differ in many important ways, more so in regard to how the services are offered, the way to obtain special care and the cost of care after recovery. Despite the diversities, the two care types share many
The first thing that would be enacted through my optimal health care reform plan would be making employer based insurance mandatory. Individuals who are employed will be eligible for health insurance coverage and will not be able to opt out with out proof of other insurance. Employer based insurance will become more affordable for both employers and employees through a tax credit incentive. Employers will be able to choose which plans to provide to employees through the use of a Health Exchange. No less than two plan options will be available to employees.
Prior to The ACA, the United States was primarily composed of a private health care system. This meant that employers, families or individuals would buy health insurance through private insurance companies. There were also Medicare and Medicaid government insurance programs for qualifying individuals. (Bradey, 2016) Typically the Medicare program is reserved for those individuals who have reached retirement age and Medicaid is for the poor. There are exceptions to each of the programs that this paper will not explore.
We live in the United States, “The Land of the Brave and Home of the Free.” However, the United States is the only developed country that does not provide guaranteed insurance coverage for all citizens and they’re thereby doing not ensure access to health services (Government hub, n.d.). Meaning other countries offer health coverage without cost. This always disappointed me because America is the richest, and most unequal, country (Sherman, 2015). So why wouldn’t America provide American’s health care insurance (McAlearney, 2003, p. 20). Since the United States does not provide universal health care coverage, we will discuss briefly forms of insurance offered to Americans, the categories of insurance and how individuals qualify for coverage and Affordable Healthcare Act (Obama Care).
Health care coverage in the United States is a big business with a relatively recent history. For a company like Castor insurance, providing health care coverage is just as much of a business enterprise as any venture undertaken by a modern organization. As with any business, the central goal idea is to ensure ongoing profitability and viability in an every changing and increasingly competitive environment. Therefore, before offering any company insurance coverage, there are, important economic factors that need to be considered such as which health care package best covers the needs of both the insured and the insurer. To determine the best decision as to which insurance coverage to offer it is important to understand the history and
Health insurance has been a matter of concern for long in the U.S. Several laws have been formulated to ensure every individual get insurance cover. The latest law is the Affordable Care Act. Every insurance company has its own products offered. There are various types of insurance offered. The most common types of health insurance plans are health maintenance organization (HMO), Exclusive Provider Organization (EPO), Preferred Provider Organization and Point of Service (POS) Plans.
U.S. health care reform is currently one of the most heavily discussed topics in health discourse and politics. After former President Clinton’s failed attempt at health care reform in the mid-1990s, the Bush administration showed no serious efforts at achieving universal health coverage for the millions of uninsured Americans. With Barack Obama as the current U.S. President, health care reform is once again a top priority. President Obama has made a promise to “provide affordable, comprehensive, and portable health coverage for all Americans…” by the end of his first term (Barackobama.com). The heated debate between the two major political parties over health care reform revolves around how to pay for it and more importantly, whether it
In attempting to remedy the unjust nature of the American health insurance system, one cannot determine what a just system should be based on the current assessment of society. Inequalities within the current system cannot foster discussion for what we believe is justice because preconceived notions cloud the judgment of even the foremost health policy intellectuals. Many philosophers therefore turn to creating hypothetical societies where these inequalities do not exist as a means to facilitate the discussion as to what true justice requires. Two such individuals, Ronald Dworkin and Charles Fried, have constructed such situations as a means to assess what a just healthcare system should be comprised of in a truly fair-market economy. Although they agree on issues pertaining to the resources available to individuals in a fair market, they also disagree on what constitutes justice in regards to how individuals may spend their allocations. An assessment of the disagreements between the two reveals that the main consideration for what justice demands of society boils down to the degree to which individuals are responsible for purchasing their share of health insurance as well as their fellow citizens’.
One major part of the U.S. healthcare system is Medicare, which is designed to deliver healthcare to those who are 65 or older, and also Medicaid, which delivers healthcare to those that are certain level below the poverty line. These two are the main parts of the Untied States healthcare system to deliver access to the highest risk groups, the old and impoverished. The majority of health insurance is provided by private insurance companies, 49% of which is through employers, however, after the passage of the ACA many have taken advantage of market place premiums.1 This fragmentation of a healthcare system poses several issues as healthcare costs continue to rise, and it is difficult to implement a universal
Employer-based health insurance has been present in the United States for many years, however with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) – future considerations must be deliberated. In the early years, during World War II, salaries were halted by the National War Labor Board. In order to entice workers and bypass the salary controls, companies would use employer-based health insurance. It was a positive situation for both, employee and employer because employer-based health insurance premiums paid by the employer was tax exempt (EBRI, 2015) and employees had the security of access to healthcare. Employers have the control and make the decision on which healthcare insurance plans their employees would have to choose from. However, the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) allows for many changes, including the ability for employees to have more freedom of choice. An analysis of employer-based health insurance and current trends reveals that the implementation of the PPACA will affect the employer-based health insurance existence, various advantages and disadvantages to group insurance, including adverse selection, moral hazard and uncertainty.
In this next paragraph we will talk about federal health reform’s impact on employer-sponsored health insurance. Employers now aren’t very sure how they are going to provide health insurance. They are trying to decide whether to go off of the plan they have at this moment or make a new plan. Most of their decisions are going come from the Hawaii experience where they are testing the employer based system. Overall they are going to have to follow the guidelines of the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act before making any major decisions. The purpose of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 is to cut down the number of uninsured Americans in the United States by making coverage more affordable and more effective. In 2009, 59% of young Americans had employer sponsored health insurance and another 13.8% had private health insurance. Private insurance is when an individual goes to a company and buys health insurance rather than having it supplied with their job. The uninsured were 18.9% of the population under the age of 65 years old. I believe that the reason the number of uninsured people is as high
Moreover; it is no secret that many Americans are opposed to a universal entitlement program because they believe it will lead to runaway costs. However, nations that entitle all residents to health care spend less money than the U.S. because they save on the administrative costs, which is a huge thing for Americans. Hence; politicians and business should do a comparative analysis another country's system as a starting point, in order to learn how to create a national health program that does not lead to increased costs for every American (Monahan, & Schwarcz, 2013). With this much room for possible improvement, the incentives should be sufficient to foster changes in behavior from politicians and
Healthcare didn’t always exist in the United States. Before the 1920’s, most people didn’t have health coverage. Most people were treated at home and hardly anyone, except a few large employers offered healthcare. Everyone else paid out of pocket. As the population shifted from rural areas to urban centers, families lived in smaller homes with less room to care for sick family members (Faulkner 1960, p. 509). Increasing requirements for licensing and accreditation, in addition to a rising demand for medical care, eventually led to rising costs. By the end of 1920s, there was an increased demand for medical care and the costs of medical care increased.
The United States does not offer health insurance to everyone like most industrialized countries. Instead, it guarantees health coverage through employers and federal programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid to those who are eligible. According to studies, a very small percentage of the population is insured via the individual market that is served by the ACA exchanges, about 10%. These people now benefit from regulation that prohibits discrimination based on health status, and tax credits that help them purchase insurance. The vast majority of Americans already have similar benefits. 50% get their insurance via an employer, and 31% via Medicare or Medicaid. Medicare and Employer Sponsored insurance can't discriminate based on health status.