Universal healthcare and Single-payer system
The Michael Moore’s Sicko film text and questions in module 2 unleashed many interesting perspectives, it gets one thinking about the similarities and differences that exist throughout Health Care in the United States and the rest of the world.
Demonstrate competence through a final term research paper to learn about the many differences between Universal healthcare and a Single payer healthcare system and why it matters for every person in the United Sates. This understanding will help one to be competent as a parent, communicator and essentially help to prevent financial conflict within household.
“Examining is the impact of cost and the Differences Between Universal healthcare and a Single payer healthcare system”
Goal:
To examine and compare that there are large consistent differences between Universal healthcare and a Single payer healthcare system in the United States.
By posing questions and using methods of formal research to answer questions about the differentiation of between Universal healthcare and Single payer healthcare system.
Learning Outcomes
Can Articulate one or more definitions, theories, or models that describe Universal healthcare and a Single payer healthcare system.
Planned Research Strategies
Reflecting on initial assessment in the 2.1 discussion module and plan to conduct research on academic journals. As well as using a combination of PubMed, Google Scholar, and Google, using combinations of Single-payer” OR “single-payer”) AND (“cost” OR “model” OR “economic” OR “cost-benefit”) AND Universal healthcare.
The Impact Of Cost And The Differences Between Universal Healthcare And A Single Payer Healthcare System
Introduction
The health care system in the U.S. is unique among the most industrialized countries which evokes continual debates. Conspicuously, the United States has no definite nationwide system of health insurance which is usually purchased in the private market places or provided by the government to certain groups of people. Notably, the Americans largely rely on two kinds of healthcare systems that dominate the country which are the Universal Healthcare and a Single Payer Healthcare System as featured in Michael Moore’s Sicko. The purpose of this research paper, therefore, is to examine the impact of costs, differences, and similarities between Healthcare and a Single Payer Healthcare System which are the Universal Healthcare and a Single Payer Healthcare System and their role and significance in the American population. A crucial interest unleashes through the analysis of why the American healthcare outcomes continue to deteriorate despite the high expenditure by the government in this sector.
Background to the Study
The healthcare system in the United States remains the most fragmented and uncoordinated among the developed countries. While America is presumed to be a leader in biomedical research, it remains disadvantaged in terms of health care systems which emphasizes on intervention rather than comprehensive health management. These challenges poise an exponential concern by the public and policy makers. According to DPE (2016), about 283 million (86%) Americans had some type of health insurance in 2014 of which 66% of workers were covered by a private health insurance plan. Among the insured population, 36% were covered through the government through Medicaid and Medicare. However about 32 million of the Americans had no insurance and plans to extend the insured were made though implementation of Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).
Nonetheless, a comparison of health policies with Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries indicated that America reported the highest spending on health care per capita (DPE 2016, p.2). Notably, the Americans who live below average income levels are more likely to avoid reporting health issues, visit physicians when sick, seeing a dentist, making follow up for care, and filling prescriptions compared to the high-income individuals. Such attributes to the high costs of medical care, which depicts the reason behind the production of the film ‘Sicko’ by Michael Moore’s. The film asserts that despite the relentless efforts by the American government to provide healthcare coverage to every citizen, these goals remain unattained (Moore). As such, numerous Americans are uninsured and this poises a significant risk due to the inability to access healthcare services.
Additionally, the policies governing health insurance in America remain irrelevant and complex. Such is because of the numerous unexplained terms and conditions on these policies which subject the Americans to incur more costs while inquiring for healthcare services. American Healthcare is regulated through universal and single payer systems which dictate the status of this social phenomenon. Universal Healthcare describes a system whereby every person has an insurance cover especially through the government. However, healthcare insurance can also be administered through a combination of private participants. Conversely, single payer system (Medicare for all) describes the system where individuals solely pay for their medical costs or aided by private health insurance especially through their employers. Conspicuously, most of the insured individuals are disappointed by the healthcare system once they inquire for healthcare services and discover the policies are worthless as the insurance investigators reel off a long list of procedures and conditions not covered. In other words, the systems are poorly designed resulting in lack of integration which harms the patients’ access to quality services.
The efforts to increase healthcare coverage and affordable access to quality services initiates the hot debate of whether single payer or universal system resolves these challenges. On this note, various factors have to be considered in determining the most appropriate approach to achieving these goals. Such include the social factors which have impact profoundly on individual and population health costs and outcomes, socioeconomic status, occupational conditions and housing, the environment and food security. While single payer system is applauded for its cost-benefit through elimination of squandorous practices by private entities, it is criticized by various scholars for its incompetency in enhancing access to health care. Such include there who argue that even when the government ensures a full coverage for the whole population, some patients will still skip their appointment dates and others fail to comply with therapy recommendations. The proponents of universal system advocate its characteristic as a human right owing to its abilities to ensure a large number of insured people. The government regulations ensures that all citizens are insured and hence promoting equality in terms of healthcare coverage.
Problem statement
Healthcare in the United State is a highly debated topic. This follows the skyrocketing costs of healthcare services which have been documented in news publication emphasizing the fact that massive amounts per capita are spent on Healthcare, yet the population has the lowest access to quality metrics among the developed nations (Ridic, Gleason & Ridic 2012, p.115). Notably, this phenomenon attributes to the incompetency of the adoption of both universal and single payer systems of Healthcare. It is noteworthy that a large number of Americans are restrained from accessing quality healthcare services following the complex insurance and government practices, systems, and policies (Woolf & Aron, 2013, p. 107). Some would opt to refrain from seeking medical services even when fully insured and this resonates to high mortality rates for the fear of the complex system. In this regard, there is a tremendous need to implement a lenient and appropriate system that promotes healthcare accessibility to all Americans. This should consider critical factors such as the social practices by various groups of people and the associated costs and impacts on the country’s economy status. This would increase the tendency of people to seek for insurance covers and implement efforts in seeking for medical attention when indulged in various ailments.
Purpose of the study
Universal Healthcare and single payer healthcare systems describe the predominant systems in the U.S. the two types of healthcare systems exhibit significant differences in the manner in which individuals access healthcare services as well as the quality of these services. The type of healthcare system adopted by a certain country is arguably predictive of the quality of healthcare services extended to the general population. While such systems seek to protect individuals from high costs of medical care while accessing routine quality healthcare services, the nature of health systems impacts unleashes various indicators (Ridic, Gleason, & Ridic, 2012, p.112). Besides, the kind of healthcare system adopted by an individual is dependent on the cost of the services provided. The unequal distribution of wealth reflects the quality of health services received by both high and low income individuals. Such unfolds the purpose of the study which is to examine the impact of cost and the differences between universal Healthcare and a single payer healthcare system.
Study Objective
During our initials assessment discussion module, a lot was introduced regarding the healthcare system in the U.S. Aside from this, the Moore’s documentary featured interesting concepts that analyze this phenomenon and hence thrashing the need to examine its impact on costs and quality of Healthcare. In this regard, the study objective is to further this research through academic journals. Further, the study aims to articulate the theories and models that describe both the single payer and universal healthcare systems.
Goal of the study: To examine and compare that there are large consistent differences between Universal healthcare cost and a Single payer healthcare system in the United States
Research Question: What are the consistent differences between Universal healthcare cost and a Single payer healthcare system in the United States?
Significance of the study
Understanding the healthcare system in America is a crucial factor. The understanding will help me be competent as a parent, communicator and essentially help to prevent financial conflict within our household. Admittedly, access to quality healthcare services is an exceptional aspect to ensure quality and longevity of life. The costs incurred in acquiring quality healthcare services is a vital aspect of consideration. Money is notably a scarce resource and understanding how one’s resources are used is vital. Essentially, it would be senseless to pay for something that one does not know its value or worth. As such, understating how single payer and universal payer systems work would help to make informed decisions in the case of options when seeking for medical cover, to opt for the most linient and cost-effective approaches.
Such will help to prevent financial conflicts among the family members in the cases of chronic diseases that tend to stoop heavy expenses in seeking medical services. Quality healthcare implies quality life and being the goal of every individual, understanding the parameters of healthcare systems would guide me in choosing the appropriate method to acquire such. Besides, it will help to ensure my children and family at large access the best healthcare services within my financial capabilities. Further, it is critical to understand the parameters within which both systems operate. Such would help to make prompt decisions in case of a health conditions and seek medical attention without challenges.
Literature review
The controversy in the American healthcare system questions on why the country lacks an embedded health system like most of the developed nations. this stems down to the diverse health status across populations, considering the economic status of the U.S. consequently, healthcare poises as a significant socio-political topic in the United States (U.S.).This follows the regrettable state of healthcare services due to the impressively complicated finance structure whereby multiple payers such as the movement and private insurance options are involved. admittedly, population-based services attributes to the signatur accomplishments of public health including the control of vaccine-preventable diseases (Woolf & Aron, 2013, p.109). the efforts by the public health agencies are credited with the benefits of increased high expecatancy witnessed in the developed countries. Whereas this is not the case in the United States where life expectancy remains low among other poor health outcomes, the citizens rank this issue as a vocal point of consideration when it comes to voting. American citizens remain constrained to supporting the political candidates who promise to straighten the healthcare system without negatively impacting on individual incomes and the economy at large (Greenfeld, E., 2020, p.6).). Besides, most of the citizens perceive the healthcare system as the litmus test for democratic presidential hopefuls. In the recent polling, single payer system was supported by a majority Americans in which the federal government would raise and allocate healthcare funding (Greenfeld, E., 2020, p.6). On this note, the scope of benefits would range from limiting the role of private insurance, to minimal cost-sharing.
Following the prevalent hot debate regarding the healthcare systems, numerous issues emerge that poise questions on whether healthcare systems impact positively or negatively on the American economy. Despite the heavy finances spent on Healthcare than the comparable countries, the Healthcare continue to deteriorate including low life expectancy among other outcomes (Greenfeld, 2020, p.30). This attributes to lack of price control and high administrative costs that further complicate the insurance networks. Resultantly, this gap has led to development of an inefficient, fragmented, inequitable, and expensive landscape. As the United States faces a lot of controversy in the healthcare policies rooted predominantly in the tradeoff between nurturing the economy and enhancing access to Healthcare, universal and single payer systems predominantly remain the most debated approaches to attaining quality health services to the whole population.
Besides, the issue of comparing the benefits of a single payer and universal system continues to spark interest in America and across the world. Such is because of the constantly increasing costs of Healthcare and the number of uninsured individuals. The two types of systems exhibit significant differences as well as similarities. Universal coverage is the healthcare system where every individual is insured against health risks, accomplished through government agencies or private health insurance systems, or a combination of the two. Primarily, universal system initiates insurance as a public plan that mandates to enlarge the individual market coverage. Conversely, single-payer system describes a system whereby the government is solely responsible for paying healthcare claims and collects money through tax system to cover such costs, hence the term (single-payer and Medicare-for-all) (Diamond, 2009, p.2). In this system, all the residents have access to necessary services such as hospitals, doctors, prescription drugs, and vision care amount others. Nonetheless, individuals have the opportunity to choose where to receive such services. Further, the costs associated with the two types of systems sparks considerable interest. In other words, both systems depict both cost benefits and disadvantages in the long run.
For instance, universal health coverage poises a significant cost benefit in relation to the government since it is relieved the burden of financing healthcare services to the large population. While each individual caters for their healthcare costs through employers and insurance companies, this ensures access to the healthcare services, affordable to individuals. However, this prompts a significant setback to the entire system by disadvantaging the less-income households who do not afford the costs for treating chronic diseases (Diamond, 2009, p.2). Such creates an inequality in the prevalence of mortality rates related to certain diseases reported among the rich and poor individuals. Additionally, despite the individual efforts to finance medical bills, the costs continue to increase exorable as have the number of the uninsured individuals estimated at 47 million (Crowley et al., 2020). This has acerbated intensive debates regarding the appropriate system that exhibits access to quality healthcare services at affordable and sustainable costs.
On this note, a large number of people suggest the single-payer system as the most appropriate and logical solution to this crisis in terms of affordability and access for important reasons. Firstly, while the federal government would control the system, it would indicate that every citizen is covered regardless of social and racial status, hence increased accessibility to healthcare services. A single-payer system poises a significant reduction in the cost of medical services. Such is through the minimized administrative expenses coupled with the emphasis on universal adoption of preventive medicine and electronic medical records (Diamond, M.A., 2009, p.2). Notably, the federal government would insist on transparency in the healthcare system and hence regard modernized methods over manual operations systems. This would save on labor costs and also eliminate cases of malpractices which would render unnecessary expenses. However, movement entities tend to become large and complex rather than efficient and lean, which disqualifies cost-reduction assurance within this system.
Cost Benefit universal payer system
The universal healthcare system sheer cost of providing quality healthcare for the entire population endorses a large expense for the government; the universal system poises as the most economical system in the long run. Such is because the government controls the prices set for medical services. This streamlining trickles down to the doctors who are prompted to minimize the administrative costs and reduce the number of staff (Diamond, 2009, p.2). This is because clinicians and healthcare professionals are not forced to deal with a myriad of insurance and healthcare companies. Notably, this system allows the government to control the prices through regulation and negotiation. Hence, Healthcare costs for the general population would significantly decrease with a subsequent increase in the number of people accessing quality services. Generally, universal Healthcare is presumably a logical solution to the high cost of medical services. However, the United States still lags behind in implementing this system compared to other developed countries.
However, the universal system has significant cost disadvantages. The American plethora of private insurance companies tends to initiate the squandering of resources as legions of staff manage independent computer systems (Crowley et al., 2020, p.28) . Insurance companies devote a massive number of personnel responding to emerging government regulations. The expense of this redundancy would poise as ‘overhead’ and eventually passed on to the consumer. Most Americans live expensive and unaffordable due to subsequent high tax rates in the efforts to cover these expenses.
Conclusion
Retrospectively, the broad spectrum of Healthcare in the United States is a widely debated topic. Interestingly, America is among the countries with the poorest healthcare system, despite its prominence in technological advancement and strong economic status. This sparks debates on why the country has delayed implementing an appropriate which ensures health insurance coverage for a general population while saving on costs. This paper discussed the two systems that regulate the healthcare sector in America: universal and single-payer systems. A large spectrum of studies indicated that a single-payer system would poise as the relevant solution to the healthcare sector’s challenges. Such is due to its wide coverage despite individual social status, racial, cultural, and moral beliefs. The paper also analyzed the cost benefits and disadvantages that the two systems impose on the costs of medical care.
References
Crowley, R., Daniel, H., Cooney, T.G. and Engel, L.S., 2020. Envisioning a better US health care system for all: coverage and cost of care. Annals of internal medicine, 172(2_Supplement), pp.S7-S32. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/abs/10.7326/M19-2415
Department for Professional Employees, 2016. The US health care system: An international perspective. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d10ef48024ce300010f0f0c/t/5d1b99c6d82c540001149055/1562089926263/US+Health+Care+in+Intl+Perspective+2016.pdf
Diamond, M.A., 2009, Con: Single-Payer Health Care: Why It’s Not the Best Answer. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine, Vol. 180, no. 10, pp.921-922. https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/full/10.1164/rccm.200906-0882ED
Greenfeld, E., 2020. The Current Political Climate In The United States And Its Threat To Democracy And Healthcare. p.1-32. https://repository.arizona.edu/handle/10150/651020
Moore M, Sicko Script http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/a1/sicko-script-transcript-michael-moore.html
Ridic, G., Gleason, S. & Ridic, O., 2012, Comparisons of health care systems in the United States, Germany and Canada. Materia socio-medica, Vol. 24, no. 2, p.112. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc3633404/
Woolf, S.H. & Aron, L., 2013, Panel on Understanding Cross-National Health Differences Among High-Income Countries. Committee on Population. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK115854/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK115854.pdf
Zieff, G., Kerr, Z.Y., Moore, J.B. & Stoner, L., 2020, Universal Healthcare in the United States of America: A Healthy Debate. Medicina, Vol. 56, no. 11, p.580. https://www.mdpi.com/1010-660X/56/11/580