Universal access to health care: a practical perspective.

R M Battistella, J M Kuder
{"title":"Universal access to health care: a practical perspective.","authors":"R M Battistella,&nbsp;J M Kuder","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Policy disconnected from economic reality is bad policy. Neither government financed health insurance nor an employer mandated health insurance approach are in the national interest. Higher national priorities compel a reallocation of resources from consumption to investment. This need not, however, cause an abandonment of efforts to deal with the problems of the uninsured and other health reforms. Successful health care reform is achievable provided it is responsive to higher priorities for economic growth. A strong economy and the production of wealth are indispensable to economic justice. Toward this end, a program of universal access is proposed whereby families and individuals are required to pay for their own health insurance up to a fixed percentage of disposable personal income before public payments kick in. Government's chief role is to establish a standard package of cost-effective benefits to be offered by all insurance carriers, the cost of which is approximately 40 percent less than conventional insurance coverage because of the elimination of reimbursement for clinically non-efficacious and cost-ineffective services. Public financing is relegated to a residual role in which subsidies are targeted on the needy. Much of the momentum for cost control is transferred to consumers and private insurers, both of whom acquire a vested interest in obtaining value for money. Uniform rules for underwriting, eligibility, and enrollment practices guard against socially harmful practices such as experience rating and exclusion of preexisting conditions. The household responsibility and equity plan described herein could free up as much as $90 billion or more for public investment in economic growth and national debt reduction while assuring access to health care regardless of ability to pay. Economic revitalization will be assisted by changes in household savings. With health care no longer a free good and government social programs concentrated on the truly needy, individual propensity to save will increase, thereby enlarging the pool of capital for financing investments in economic growth. Putting more responsibility for health care financing on households with an ability to pay also serves to reinforce and expand the work ethic. Privatizing responsibility by severing health insurance from the workplace connection improves the geographic and occupational mobility of labor, diminishes employer tendencies to discriminate against hiring the disabled and older employees, and eliminates a major source of labor unrest.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)</p>","PeriodicalId":79664,"journal":{"name":"Journal of health and human resources administration","volume":"16 1","pages":"6-34"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1993-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of health and human resources administration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Policy disconnected from economic reality is bad policy. Neither government financed health insurance nor an employer mandated health insurance approach are in the national interest. Higher national priorities compel a reallocation of resources from consumption to investment. This need not, however, cause an abandonment of efforts to deal with the problems of the uninsured and other health reforms. Successful health care reform is achievable provided it is responsive to higher priorities for economic growth. A strong economy and the production of wealth are indispensable to economic justice. Toward this end, a program of universal access is proposed whereby families and individuals are required to pay for their own health insurance up to a fixed percentage of disposable personal income before public payments kick in. Government's chief role is to establish a standard package of cost-effective benefits to be offered by all insurance carriers, the cost of which is approximately 40 percent less than conventional insurance coverage because of the elimination of reimbursement for clinically non-efficacious and cost-ineffective services. Public financing is relegated to a residual role in which subsidies are targeted on the needy. Much of the momentum for cost control is transferred to consumers and private insurers, both of whom acquire a vested interest in obtaining value for money. Uniform rules for underwriting, eligibility, and enrollment practices guard against socially harmful practices such as experience rating and exclusion of preexisting conditions. The household responsibility and equity plan described herein could free up as much as $90 billion or more for public investment in economic growth and national debt reduction while assuring access to health care regardless of ability to pay. Economic revitalization will be assisted by changes in household savings. With health care no longer a free good and government social programs concentrated on the truly needy, individual propensity to save will increase, thereby enlarging the pool of capital for financing investments in economic growth. Putting more responsibility for health care financing on households with an ability to pay also serves to reinforce and expand the work ethic. Privatizing responsibility by severing health insurance from the workplace connection improves the geographic and occupational mobility of labor, diminishes employer tendencies to discriminate against hiring the disabled and older employees, and eliminates a major source of labor unrest.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
普及卫生保健:一个实际的观点。
脱离经济现实的政策是糟糕的政策。政府资助的健康保险和雇主强制的健康保险都不符合国家利益。更高的国家优先事项迫使资源从消费重新分配到投资。然而,这不必导致放弃处理无保险问题和其他保健改革的努力。成功的医疗改革是可以实现的,只要它能响应经济增长的更高优先事项。强劲的经济和财富的产生对于经济公正是不可或缺的。为此,提出了一项全民医保计划,要求家庭和个人在公共支付开始之前,支付自己的医疗保险,最高可占个人可支配收入的固定百分比。政府的主要作用是建立由所有保险公司提供的具有成本效益的一揽子标准福利,由于取消了对临床无效和成本低的服务的报销,其成本比传统保险的承保范围低约40%。公共财政被降级为一种残余作用,其中补贴的目标是穷人。成本控制的动力很大程度上转移到了消费者和私营保险公司身上,这两者在获得物有所值方面都获得了既得利益。承保、资格和登记实践的统一规则防止对社会有害的做法,如经验评级和排除先前存在的条件。本文所述的家庭责任和公平计划可以腾出多达900亿美元或更多的资金,用于经济增长和减少国家债务的公共投资,同时确保无论支付能力如何都能获得医疗保健。家庭储蓄的变化将有助于经济复苏。随着医疗保健不再是免费商品,政府的社会计划集中在真正有需要的人身上,个人的储蓄倾向将会增加,从而扩大了为经济增长投资的资本池。让有支付能力的家庭承担更多的保健筹资责任,也有助于加强和扩大职业道德。通过切断与工作场所的联系的健康保险将责任私有化,改善了劳动力的地域和职业流动性,减少了雇主歧视雇用残疾人和老年雇员的倾向,并消除了劳工骚乱的一个主要来源。(摘要删节为400字)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Ethics and financing: overview of the U.S. health care system. Psychological burnout V (Part 1 continued). Performance and phases of burnout: a random pattern of associations? An OD comprehensive wellness strategy to identify, assess, and attenuate the causes and costs of employee stress. Physician enrollment in health administration programs. Perspectives on costs and cost effectiveness of ombudsman programs in four fields. Case 4: Hospital case (a client ombudsman) .
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1