Does private health insurance prevent the onset of critical illness and disability in a universal public insurance system?

Author(s):  
Daehwan Kim ◽  
Dong-hwa Lee
2003 ◽  
Vol 31 (S4) ◽  
pp. 60-62
Author(s):  
Karen Pollitz ◽  
Donna Imhoff ◽  
Charles Scott ◽  
Sara Rosenbaum

This is a volatile time for health insurance policy. Medicare and Medicaid are in turmoil, as is the private health insurance market. Public and private health insurance costs constitute eighty percent of healthcare spending in the United States. Public health professionals depend on the insurance system to behave in ways that are responsive to public health in prevention and crisis management.Seventy-five percent of the American population, excluding the elderly, has coverage through the private health insurance system. Ninety percent of this group receives their insurance through employer-sponsored programs, and the remaining ten percent buy their own coverage. Approximately ten percent of the non-elderly population has insurance through a government program, and fifteen percent of the non-elderly population, almost forty-one million Americans, is uninsured.


Health Policy ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 123 (10) ◽  
pp. 970-975
Author(s):  
Hamza Hanbali ◽  
Hubert Claassens ◽  
Michel Denuit ◽  
Jan Dhaene ◽  
Julien Trufin

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 26-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Podger

While health reform in Australia has been marked by piecemeal, incremental changes, the overall trend to increasing Commonwealth involvement has not been accidental or driven by power-hungry centralists: it has been shaped by broader national and international developments including technological change and the maturing of our nation and its place internationally, and by a widespread desire for a national universal health insurance system. In many respects the Australianhealth system performs well, but the emerging challenges demand a more integrated, patient-oriented system. This is likely to require a further shift towards the Commonwealth in terms of financial responsibility, as the national insurer. But it also requires close cooperation with the States, who could play a firmer role in service delivery and in supporting regional planning and coordination. The likelihood of sharing overall responsibility for the health system also suggests thereis a need to involve the States more fully in processes for setting national policies. This article draws heavily on a lecture presented at the Australian National University in October 2015. It includes an overview of Australia’s evolving federal arrangements and the context within which the current Federalism Review is being conducted. It suggests Australia will not return to ‘coordinate federalism’ with clearly distinct responsibilities, and that greater priority should be given to improving how we manage shared responsibilities. There is a long history of Commonwealth involvement in health, and future reform should build on that rather than try to reverse direction. While critical of the proposals from the Commission of Audit and in the 2014 Budget, the lecture welcomed the more pragmatic approaches that seemed to be emerging from the Federalism Review discussion papers and contributions from some Premiers which could promote more sensible measures to improve both the effectiveness and the financial sustainability of Australia’s health and health insurance system. The Commonwealth’s new political leadership in 2015 seemed interested in such measures and in moving away from the Abbott Government’s approach. But the legacy of that approach severely damaged the Turnbull Government in the 2016 federal election as it gave traction to Labor’s ‘Mediscare’ campaign. In addition to resetting the federalism debate as it affects health, the Turnbull Government now needs to articulate the principles of Medicare and to clarify the role of the private sector, including private health insurance, in Australia’s universal health insurance system. Labor also needs to address more honestly the role of the private sector and develop a more coherent policy itself. Abbreviations: COAG – Council of Australian Governments; NHHRC – National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission; PHI – Private Health Insurance; VFI – Vertical Fiscal Imbalance.


2004 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 461-464 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith Feder

Critics of the gaps in our nation’s health insurance decry the absence of a health insurance “system” and the resulting “patchwork” of private and public insurance that leaves so many Americans unprotected. There is no question that these gaps are unconscionable; but they are also no accident. They are the result of policy and political choices with substantial consequences for those who remain uncovered. In my view, (based on experience as well as the excellent scholarship of others) the fundamental political barrier to universal coverage is that our success in insuring most of the nation’s population has “crowded out” our political capacity to insure the rest. This paper will explain how we arrived at the mix of private and public insurance we now have, how that mix impedes efforts to achieve universal coverage, and how “crowd-out” affects strategy for improving coverage in the future.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document