Health Care Management and Financing

Author(s):  
William J. Litchy ◽  
Mark A. Matthias ◽  
Kurtis M. Hoppe ◽  
Kyle J. Kircher

Health care financing and health care management in the United States have been intricately intertwined in their evolution and have been dependent on technology, on public and private policy and funding, and the needs of employers and employees. Virtually all major changes in health care management in the United States have occurred in the last century. Little has changed over the decades; the cost of health care today is still only one-third the estimated cost of absenteeism and presenteeism in the workplace. The difference is that the individual's burden in many cases is now carried by employers and by state and federal governments. Movement toward other reimbursement mechanisms for health care was advanced as medical technology improved and health care costs increased.

2010 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
John F Cogan ◽  
R. Glenn Hubbard ◽  
Daniel Kessler

In this paper, we use publicly available data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey - Insurance Component (MEPS-IC) to investigate the effect of Massachusetts' health reform plan on employer-sponsored insurance premiums. We tabulate premium growth for private-sector employers in Massachusetts and the United States as a whole for 2004 - 2008. We estimate the effect of the plan as the difference in premium growth between Massachusetts and the United States between 2006 and 2008—that is, before versus after the plan—over and above the difference in premium growth for 2004 to 2006. We find that health reform in Massachusetts increased single-coverage employer-sponsored insurance premiums by about 6 percent, or $262. Although our research design has important limitations, it does suggest that policy makers should be concerned about the consequences of health reform for the cost of private insurance.


1998 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 138-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ted Schrecker

Toronto physician Brian Goldman had thought about “joining the camp that favours private health care for Canada.” Writing in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, he tells us that he changed his mind after one of his cats experienced a series of illnesses and misadventures that resulted in a Can$3,101 medical bill. “I’m just glad,” he says, “that the cost of health care never entered my deliberations.”’Canadian citizens and permanent residents are similarly free from most worries about the direct costs of their own medical care, and have been for more than a generation. This reflects a fundamental difference between the Canadian and United States contexts for health policy. Since the failure of President Clinton's first-term efforts to provide something approximating universal health insurance, reforms to the existing regime of providing and financing health care in the United States have been incremental, and primarily responsive to the changing nature of the health care marketplace. In Canada, universal publicly funded first-dollar coverage for most physicians’ and hospitals’ services has been a reality since the early 1970s.


2018 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 601-621 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lila Flavin ◽  
Leah Zallman ◽  
Danny McCormick ◽  
J. Wesley Boyd

In health care policy debates, discussion centers around the often-misperceived costs of providing medical care to immigrants. This review seeks to compare health care expenditures of U.S. immigrants to those of U.S.-born individuals and evaluate the role which immigrants play in the rising cost of health care. We systematically examined all post-2000, peer-reviewed studies in PubMed related to health care expenditures by immigrants written in English in the United States. The reviewers extracted data independently using a standardized approach. Immigrants’ overall expenditures were one-half to two-thirds those of U.S.-born individuals, across all assessed age groups, regardless of immigration status. Per capita expenditures from private and public insurance sources were lower for immigrants, particularly expenditures for undocumented immigrants. Immigrant individuals made larger out-of-pocket health care payments compared to U.S.-born individuals. Overall, immigrants almost certainly paid more toward medical expenses than they withdrew, providing a low-risk pool that subsidized the public and private health insurance markets. We conclude that insurance and medical care should be made more available to immigrants rather than less so.


2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (23) ◽  
pp. 3868-3874 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neal J. Meropol ◽  
Deborah Schrag ◽  
Thomas J. Smith ◽  
Therese M. Mulvey ◽  
Robert M. Langdon ◽  
...  

Advances in early detection, prevention, and treatment have resulted in consistently falling cancer death rates in the United States. In parallel with these advances have come significant increases in the cost of cancer care. It is well established that the cost of health care (including cancer care) in the United States is growing more rapidly than the overall economy. In part, this is a result of the prices and rapid uptake of new agents and other technologies, including advances in imaging and therapeutic radiology. Conventional understanding suggests that high prices may reflect the costs and risks associated with the development, production, and marketing of new drugs and technologies, many of which are valued highly by physicians, patients, and payers. The increasing cost of cancer care impacts many stakeholders who play a role in a complex health care system. Our patients are the most vulnerable because they often experience uneven insurance coverage, leading to financial strain or even ruin. Other key groups include pharmaceutical manufacturers that pass along research, development, and marketing costs to the consumer; providers of cancer care who dispense increasingly expensive drugs and technologies; and the insurance industry, which ultimately passes costs to consumers. Increasingly, the economic burden of health care in general, and high-quality cancer care in particular, will be less and less affordable for an increasing number of Americans unless steps are taken to curb current trends. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) is committed to improving cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment and eliminating disparities in cancer care through support of evidence-based and cost-effective practices. To address this goal, ASCO established a Cost of Care Task Force, which has developed this Guidance Statement on the Cost of Cancer Care. This Guidance Statement provides a concise overview of the economic issues facing stakeholders in the cancer community. It also recommends that the following steps be taken to address immediate needs: recognition that patient-physician discussions regarding the cost of care are an important component of high-quality care; the design of educational and support tools for oncology providers to promote effective communication about costs with patients; and the development of resources to help educate patients about the high cost of cancer care to help guide their decision making regarding treatment options. Looking to the future, this Guidance Statement also recommends that ASCO develop policy positions to address the underlying factors contributing to the increased cost of cancer care. Doing so will require a clear understanding of the factors that drive these costs, as well as potential modifications to the current cancer care system to ensure that all Americans have access to high-quality, cost-effective care.


1992 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 270-286
Author(s):  
E. Richard Brown

A nearly universal consensus has developed in the United States that the current health care financing system is a failure. The system has been unable to control the continuing rapid rise in health care costs (by far, the highest in the world), and it has been unable to stem the growing population that has no health insurance coverage (at least 36 million people). There is nearly universal political agreement that government must provide health insurance to a far greater share of the population than ever before. The political debate now focuses on whether this expanded government role should supplement the private insurance system with an enlarged public program covering those left out of private insurance coverage, or replace private insurance with a universal government health insurance program covering the entire population.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document