Deciding the future of healthcare policy will not be simple, even if we could ignore the politics. I think everyone agrees on high-level policy aims: a healthy population, access to high-quality care and preventative services, protection from financial loss for health events that are outside one’s control, and cost-effectiveness. (One exception is reproductive health, but let’s put that aside for this blog.) The debate is all in the “how” do we improve (or even replace) the system. The discussion pits Democrats against the GOP and candidates within each party against each other. Here are some critical areas of disagreement that will influence voter choices this election year: Do we create a single-payer system (e.g., Medicare-for-all)? Or, do we continue with our current hodgepodge of government, employer, association, and individual payers? Advantages of a single-payer system: Simplicity, lower administrative costs for the nation, and…
Why changing healthcare policy is so messy: Part One
The market mechanism is a remarkable process. Buyers and sellers exchange money in an open system that produces prices and production levels to equate supply and demand. (Also known as Keynes’ invisible hand, the market mechanism is an alternative to central planning.) Chinese leaders added the market mechanism to its communist political system, and economic growth skyrocketed. In theory, the market mechanism leads to an ideal allocation of goods, services and workers’ efforts for society. In practice, ideal output misses the mark when prices fail to reflect societal benefits and costs, consumers are not well-informed, or monopolistic-like power exists. One area where the market mechanism often fails is healthcare. A healthy population benefits everyone, from employers in need of a productive workforce to the government (and taxpayers) who cover the costs of the social safety net to each of us as individuals…