Reducing the Burden of Catastrophic Health Expenditures in the United States

2018 ◽  
Vol 268 (1) ◽  
pp. e21
Author(s):  
Tim Xu ◽  
Ge Bai
Circulation ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 137 (4) ◽  
pp. 408-410 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rohan Khera ◽  
Jonathan C. Hong ◽  
Anshul Saxena ◽  
Alejandro Arrieta ◽  
Salim S. Virani ◽  
...  

1988 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vicente Navarro

This article provides empirical information that questions some of the major arguments put forward against the establishment of a comprehensive and universal health program in the United States. The positions that (1) “Americans do not want a further expansion of government roles in their lives,” (2) “a National Health Program would further increase the rate of growth of health expenditures,” (3) “the federal deficit is too large and needs to be reduced before establishing a National Health Program,” and (4) “people do not want to pay higher taxes,” are shown to be ideological rather than scientific. The author presents evidence that questions each of these assumptions.


Surgery ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 167 (6) ◽  
pp. 985-990 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel R. Rice ◽  
Ayesha Farooq ◽  
J. Madison Hyer ◽  
Anghela Z. Paredes ◽  
Junu Bae ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 77 (18) ◽  
pp. 789
Author(s):  
Stephen Yishu Wang ◽  
Javier Valero Elizondo ◽  
Hyeon-Ju Ali ◽  
Miguel Cainzos-Achirica ◽  
Ambarish Pandey ◽  
...  

PEDIATRICS ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 112 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. 725-726
Author(s):  
David Gordon

The Issue. A major independent inquiry into inequalities in health—and policies that would reduce them—was published in December 1998.1 It identified >40 recommendations designed to reduce inequalities in health. Lifting children out of poverty is among the most important strategies to improve child health. If we want to change policies on health and poverty, then we have to consider the broad political context within which our health systems work. In the United Kingdom, we have a welfare state that sends checks and cash income to 85% of households every month. Many people pay into the welfare state, many people get money back, and everybody receives services.2 In the United States, the situation is different. There, many people pay into the state, but only the poor and corporations actually receive a check. I leave you to decide who gets the most out of these respective systems. We also have fundamental differences in our health systems. In the United Kingdom, 97% of expenditures on health are made by the state; there is virtually no private spending. In the United States, only 44% of health expenditures are made by the state. The limited amount of private health expenditures in the United Kingdom will be reduced further as the National Health Service provides more dentistry in the future. In terms of the amount of resources, the United States spends 14% of its gross domestic product on health, compared with 6% in the United Kingdom. The United States spent $3700 per person on health care in 1997. In the United Kingdom, we spent less than one third of that.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document