General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNew study reveals the US could save $600 billion in administrative costs by switching to a single
New study reveals the US could save $600 billion in administrative costs by switching to a single-payer, Medicare For All system
Zachary Hendrickson at Business Insider
Jan 8, 2020, 10:26 AM
https://www.businessinsider.com/single-payer-system-could-save-us-massive-administrative-costs-2020-1?utm_source=reddit.com
"SNIP......
The US spent $817 billion on healthcare administrative costs in 2017, $600 billion more than Canada, which has a smaller population than the US but also has much lower per capita healthcare costs: For example, the US spends an average of $2,479 per patient on admin costs, compared with $551 per capita under Canada's single-payer system, according to a new study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
Researchers conclude that this cost discrepancy is primarily the result of bureaucratic hoops US healthcare providers must jump through to fulfill complex billing arrangements a defining feature of the US' fractured private health insurance system: An increase in overhead from private insurers caused spending as a percentage of total US healthcare costs to surge from 31% in 1999 to over 34% in 2017, which equates to an added $100 billion burden each year over that same period.
The US' sky-high healthcare costs are driven in no small part by the oversized admin spending burden private insurance places on hospitals and other providers and these costs could have negative implications on patient health.
Nearly half of all US health spending is tied to admin management, per a 2018 JAMA report and the cost burdens associated with private insurance are being passed along to US consumers, making treatment an unmanageable expense. Patients are coughing up large portions of their budget on health, with the average nonelderly US family spending $8,200 per year on healthcare or 11% of their income.
.....SNIP"
This is from a month ago.
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,033 posts)Our current system is great for paying multiple, redundant layers of executives, advertising, skyscrapers and offices, while leaving millions without care.
C_U_L8R
(44,892 posts)That clown is a world wide waste of money.
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)Is that from what I understand, private insurers pay better rates to doctors and hospitals than Medicare and Medicaid. I like the idea of single payer in theory, but unless the rates come up to get close to what private insurance pays a lot of doctors and hospitals either won't be able to stay in business or will have to increase their volume and reduce the quality of care. Plus, I did a paper on Medicare a few years ago in law school and in it's current form it's not sustainable forever.
mjvpi
(1,384 posts)What changes needed to be made to make it sustainable?
applegrove
(118,017 posts)at the mall, or people dining out in a restaurant or getting a haircut costs an extra 6 or 7%. People with no money get money four times a year for the taxes that they do pay. There is no tax on food. People didn't like it at first but we like our healthcare. Nobody grumbles about it anymore.
emmaverybo
(8,144 posts)overwhelmed ERs, limited access to good specialists, doctor and nurse shortage, less time for appointments; these are problems we well may have for at least the first years.
Too rosy a picture is painted of systems in other countries. Some single payer proponents push the idea that consumers will have Carte Blanche, platinum caliber plans and services with government healthcare. No. Just as insurance plans, Medicaid, and Medicare will not pay all and everything, so
M4All or whatever socialized model we adopt will not approve all drugs, treatments, services.
Maybe we should have Medicaid for all. Medicaid can be a good system.
Really Id like a more realistic picture, pro and con, and the feeling more options have been explored by experts, not just enthused candidates, for universal healthcare.