Defining single-payer healthcare a problem for its liberal proponents
The battles over the Affordable Care Act (ACA), health policy and how to bend the cost curve in healthcare have led to more support for a “Medicare for all,” single-payor system in the U.S. What its liberal advocates are ignoring, according to Health Affairs contributor Rob Cunningham, is whether the system would actually reduce the cost of care.
Cunningham argues single-payor has been given “talismanic significance” by its proponents, without a clear definition of how it would work. Several important questions would need to be answered, he writes, like why a fully public system would work better when Medicare itself involves some mix of private plans?
“Why should it be assumed that “public option” plans run by government agencies with no experience in organizing the actual finance and delivery of care could be expected to do a better job than Geisinger or Kaiser Permanente?” Cunningham asks.
And then there’s the question of what happens to Medicaid. Click on the link below for the full article:
John joined TriMed in 2016, focusing on healthcare policy and regulation. After graduating from Columbia College Chicago, he worked at FM News Chicago and Rivet News Radio, and worked on the state government and politics beat for the Illinois Radio Network. Outside of work, you may find him adding to his never-ending graphic novel collection.