.
This is the debate that the USA has never had, not least because the industry wants it that way. After all, with politicians debating multiple issues, any solution will fall through the cracks. That the problem has been solved elsewhere goes unmentioned.
Our Canadian system ensures a doctor sees you and likely bounces you up the service chain. That is actually good enough as at that point you tend to have enough knowledge to choose various options. Wait times are dependent on the doctor and even there new protocols can help that along. My point is that a knowledgeable consumer can navigate expeditiously without spending money.
The problem arises with optional repairs and that is true anywhere. This is the one place that money can help. Paying cash allowed a friend to have a detached retina operation the next day. The insurance industry could sell the same service for a fee. After all the doctors collect weeks later normally from the insurers.
The huge benefit that doctors experienced with a universal service is that they no longer had to provide credit to their patients. They even got real holidays and worked civilized hours. That means they have ample slots to provide service for cash payers. That us why we have clinics now instead of fully loaded private practices as we used to expect.
Private health insurance exists in Europe and Canada. Here’s how it works.
The debate over eliminating health insurance is actually offering a false choice.
Presidential hopefuls in the Democratic primary have in recent weeks found themselves facing a new litmus test: Do they want to eliminate private health insurance?
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) faced a straightforward version of this question and gave a straightforward response. “Let’s eliminate all that,” she said of private coverage.
Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) faced a slightly more confusing version of this question and gave a slightly more confusing answer that indicated support for keeping certain parts of the health care system private.
An international perspective is helpful here. When you look out at the rest of the world — at the dozens of countries that run universal health care systems — you find that every universal health plan relies, in some form or another, on private insurance.
“Basically, every single country with universal coverage
also has private insurance,” says Gerard Anderson, a professor at Johns
Hopkins University who studies international health systems. “I don’t
think there is a model in the world that allows you to go without it.”
Other developed countries routinely use private insurance
to fill in the gaps of their public plans or to offer patients a way to
get to see a doctor a bit faster. Some countries, like Australia, even
take aggressive steps like offering tax benefits to encourage citizens
to enroll in private coverage alongside their public plan.
“Each country has figured out its own role for private
insurance,” says Robin Osborn, a vice president at the nonprofit
Commonwealth Fund who studies international health systems. “In almost
every system, it tends to not be controversial because the commitment to
basic universal coverage is there.”
How other countries use private health insurance, it
turns out, can actually tell you a lot about what countries value in a
health care system — and how they think access to care ought to be
organized.
The three ways other countries use private health insurance
When you look out at our peer countries, you essentially see them using private health coverage in three distinctive ways.
First, there are some countries that require all citizens to enroll in health coverage run by private insurers. These
insurers typically compete in a market with strict rules about what
they must cover and how much different medical services cost.
The Netherlands and Israel are good examples of this type
of system. In both countries, citizens are required to purchase
coverage from a private plan. Somewhat coincidentally, the Netherlands
and Israel both have four dominant health plans in their private
markets.
In each case, the insurers are required to cover the same
set of benefits and cannot charge higher premiums for the sick. But
they can compete along other dimensions.
“They compete on what other benefits do they offer, and
the price of the premium too,” Osborn says. “Generally, though, people
don’t switch insurance very much. They tend to stick with their plans
for a long time, even though they have the option to switch each year.”
The benefit these systems offer is primarily about
choice: In Israel and the Netherlands, patients have multiple options
for where they want to seek health coverage.
Second, there are some countries where private insurance supplements public insurance. It’s quite common for Canadians and Europeans to purchase supplemental insurance that covers things that the public plan won’t.
Sometimes this takes the form of supplemental insurance
to pay for non-covered benefits. In Canada, for example, two-thirds of
the population takes out private plans to cover vision, dental, and
prescription drug benefits — none of which are included in the public
plan. Thirty-nine percent of Danish citizens carry private coverage for
non-covered benefits including physical therapy.
In other places, this takes the form of supplemental
insurance to cover the cost sharing included in the public plan. If you
look at France, you see that 95 percent of the population takes out (or
receives public subsidies for) private insurance to cover their
copayments and deductibles.
Third, there are some countries where private insurance complements public insurance. In these places, residents buy private coverage to gain better, faster access to benefits that are covered in the public system.
Osborn points to England as an especially good example of
this type of coverage. About 11 percent of the British population
purchases complementary coverage that can get them faster access to
specialty doctors or elective procedures.
“The UK is very committed to solidarity and equity in its
health system, but at the same time, they are still very comfortable
with this private insurance role,” she says. “I think it operates as a
safety valve. People use it for elective surgery, for something like a
hip replacement where there might be a long waitlist.”
Australia is another example of a country that has really embraced
complementary coverage, to the point that 47 percent of the country’s
residents carry private coverage alongside their public plans. The
government actually encourages citizens to buy a private plan, offering
tax rebates to those who enroll — and a lower lifetime premium for those
who sign up before they’re 30.
Many countries combine these different types of private
insurance too. In the Netherlands, for example, private plans run the
basic benefit package — and 84 percent of Dutch residents purchase a
supplementary plan to cover more benefits. Denmark has strong markets
for both supplementary and complementary coverage, as do New Zealand and
Australia.
Why we’re having a debate about eliminating private coverage in the United States
The debate we’re having around universal coverage in the
United States right now often centers on the health care plan offered by
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). His plan — which you can read a longer explainer of here
— envisions government-run health insurance that covers a wide array of
benefits including vision, dental, and prescription drugs. His plan has
no cost sharing for patients — meaning you don’t pay a copayment when
you go to the doctor, nor do you have a deductible to hit before your
benefits kick in.
The
Sanders plan permits supplemental private insurance, the type that
covers things that the public system doesn’t. But because the public
insurance plan pretty much covers everything, it’s difficult to see what
role it would play.
Here’s the thing: None of our peer countries have built a
health care system like this. Canada, France, England, Australia, and
the Netherlands all run health care systems that have gaps in coverage.
Not one of our peer countries has found a way to provide
health care that covers all benefits at no cost to patients — the price
is just prohibitive. Instead, most provide free or low-cost access to
core medical services while asking patients to kick in something for the
parts the government can’t afford..
When you look at America’s peers, the key question doesn’t seem to be whether there will be private health insurance. Instead, the key question seems to be what role private health insurance will play. The answer to that question can often reflect a health system’s core values.
Take Canada, for example. That country outlaws
complementary insurance. Any benefit covered in the public system —
things like doctor visits and hospital stays — cannot be covered by a
private provider there.
This reflects the Canadian system’s commitment to
equality and fairness. As one scholar there memorably told the
journalist T.R. Reid, “Canadians don’t mind waiting in lines, as long as
the rich Canadian and the poor Canadian have to wait about the same
amount of time.”
This is really different from the Australian system,
where the government expressly encourages citizens to enroll in private
coverage with various tax rebates and penalties. There, officials think
they can alleviate burdens on the public system by building a robust
private system in parallel.
It’s true that Australians like their health care system more than Canadians like theirs
— but it’s also true that wealthier Australians are more likely to
enroll in private insurance than lower-income Australians, introducing
an element of inequality that doesn’t exist in Canada. The health system
you prefer turns on the values you hold.
“I think there are some basic policy issues that
countries have to face,” says Anderson. “Should private insurance allow
you to jump the queue? Should it allow you to get a private room? These
are big policy debates in other countries.”
No comments:
Post a Comment