[ Every single study, regardless of ideological orientation,
predicted that it would yield net savings.] [[link removed]]

22 STUDIES AGREE: 'MEDICARE FOR ALL' SAVES MONEY  
[[link removed]]

 

Diane Archer
February 24, 2020
The Hill
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
* [[link removed]]

_ Every single study, regardless of ideological orientation,
predicted that it would yield net savings. _

, psmag.com

 

The evidence abounds: A "Medicare for All" single-payer system would
guarantee comprehensive coverage to everyone in America and save
money.

Christopher Cai and colleagues at three University of California
campuses examined 22 studies on the projected cost impact for
single-payer health insurance in the United States and reported their
findings in a recent paper in PLOS Medicine
[[link removed]].
Every single study predicted that it would yield net savings over
several years. In fact, it's the only way to rein in health care
spending significantly in the U.S.

All of the studies, regardless of ideological orientation, showed that
long-term cost savings were likely. Even the Mercatus Center
[[link removed]],
a right-wing think tank, recently found about $2 trillion in net
savings over 10 years from a single-payer Medicare for All system.
Most importantly, everyone in America would have high-quality health
care coverage.

Medicare for All is far less costly than our current system largely
because it reduces administrative costs. With one public plan
negotiating rates with health care providers, billing becomes quite
simple. We do away with three-quarters of the estimated $812 billion
the U.S. now spends on health care administration.

Administrative costs are so high because thousands of insurance
companies individually negotiate benefit rules and rates with
thousands of hospitals and doctors. On top of that, they rely on
different billing procedures - and this puts a costly burden on
providers.

Administrative savings from Medicare for All would be about $600
billion
[[link removed]] a
year. Savings on prescription drugs
[[link removed]] would
be between $200 billion and $300 billion a year, if we paid about the
same price as other wealthy countries pay for their drugs. A Medicare
for All system would save still more with implementation of global
health care spending budgets
[[link removed]].

Even more savings are possible in a Medicare for All system because,
like every other wealthy country, we would have a uniform electronic
health records system. Such a system generates additional savings
because system problems would be easier to detect and correct. A
uniform claims data system helps reduce health care spending for
fraudulent services. In 2018, total U.S. health care costs were $3.6
trillion
[[link removed]],
representing 17.7 percent of GDP.

Savings are in part a function of the benefits Medicare for All
covers. The Mercatus report and others
[[link removed]] projected
savings, even with the elimination of deductibles and out-of-pocket
costs. Under both Sen. Bernie Sanders
[[link removed]]'s (I-Vt.) Medicare for
All bill
[[link removed]] and
Rep. Pramila Jayapal [[link removed]]'s
(D-Wash.) Medicare for All bill
[[link removed]],
patients would not pay deductibles or coinsurance when they receive
medical care. Their bills also provide for vision, hearing and dental
care, as well as long-term services and supports, such as home care
and nursing home care.

No matter how you design a single-payer public health insurance
system, it would have lower overall health care costs, so long as
for-profit private health insurers no longer exist to drive up health
care costs. Yes, it's true that some other wealthy countries rely on
"private insurers" to provide benefits and spend far less than we do
on care. But, these insurers do not operate in any way like health
insurers in the U.S.

Other wealthy countries dictate virtually every element of the health
insurance people receive, including what's covered, what's paid, and
people's out-of-pocket costs - all identical for everyone. The
insurers operate like claims processors or bill payers. They follow
the coverage and payment rules set by the government, nothing like the
private health insurers in the U.S. which revel in product diversity
(read: complexity and confusion).

And, if you're thinking that having the federal government guarantee
coverage to all Americans is a big deal, it's actually not. The
government already pays for about two-thirds of health care costs.
Among other things, it pays for Medicare, Medicaid, VA, TriCare and a
wide range of state and local health care programs, along with private
insurance for government employees and tax subsidies for private
insurance.

Whether you call it single-payer or Medicare for All, it isn't some
socialist pipe dream. It's a sensible, efficient, and effective way to
guarantee excellent health insurance to everyone.

_Diane Archer is a senior adviser at Social Security Works._

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
* [[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web [[link removed]]
Submit via email
Frequently asked questions [[link removed]]
Manage subscription [[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org [[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]