Delivery, finance, management and sustainability methods of the U.S. health care system

Answered by hengojeremiah on coursehero.com

um dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nam lacinia pulvinar tortor nec facilisis. Pellentesque dapibus efficitur laoreet. Nam risus ante, dapibus a molestie consequat, ultrices ac magna. Fusce dui lectus, congue vel laoreet ac, dictum vitae odio. Donec

Unlock access to this and over
10,000 step-by-step explanations

Unlock Explanation

Have an account? Log In

Step-by-step explanation

um dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nam lacinia pulvinar tortor nec facilisis. Pellentesque dapibus efficitur laoreet. Nam risus ante, dapibus a molestie consequat, ultrices ac magna. Fusce dui lectus, congue vel laoreet ac, dictum vitae odio. Donec aliquet. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nam lacinia pulvinar tortor nec facilisis. Pellentesque dapibus efficitur laoreet. Nam risus ante, dapibus a molestie consequat,

Research the delivery, finance, management, and sustainability methods of the U.S. health care

system. Evaluate the effectiveness of one or more of these areas on quality patient care and

health outcomes. Propose a potential health care reform solution to improve effectiveness in the

area you evaluated and predict the expected effect. Describe the effect of health care reform on

the U.S. health care system and its respective stakeholders. Support your post with a peer-

reviewed journal article.

Cost, administrate burden, and discriminatory cases are some of the fundamental factors

prohibiting quality patient care and health outcomes. On the one hand, these factors discourage

people from seeking or continuing care while on the upper hand limits healthcare providers from

delivering quality care. The United States healthcare delivery system aims to ensure all

Americans enjoy optimal health by providing quality, evidence-based, and affordable care

(Ruggles, Xiong & Kyle, 2019). The health care sector in the U.S. is composed of an array of

clinicians, health care facilities, pharmaceuticals, insurance plans and clients. Either based in the

public or private sectors, all health care practitioner, insurance agencies and purchasers of health

care services are expected to work together toward achieving quality patient care and health

outcomes.

The most effective reform to improve the effectiveness of healthcare delivery would be to

retain ACA market reforms. There I no doubt that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has

tremendously increased the number of insured Americans since its implementation in 2010. The

Medicaid extension is among the key reforms of the ACA that need to be retained. Medicaid

expansion helps promote the health of low-income people and people with disabilities in the U.S,

In this position paper, the American College of Physicians (ACP) proposes coverage and cost-of-care–related strategies to achieve a better U.S. health care system. The ACP's vision, outlined in an accompanying call to action (1), includes 10 vision statements, 5 of which are particularly relevant to the policies discussed in this paper (Figure). The companion papers address improving payment and delivery systems (2) and social determinants of health and reducing barriers to care (3). Together, these papers provide a policy framework to achieve ACP's vision for a better U.S. health care system.

• Download figure
• Download PowerPoint

Although the United States leads the world in health care spending, it fares far worse than its peers on coverage and most dimensions of value. Cost and coverage are intertwined. Many Americans cannot afford health insurance, and even those with insurance face substantial cost-related barriers to care. Employer-sponsored insurance is less prevalent and more expensive than in the past, and in response, deductibles have grown and benefits have been cut. The long-term solvency of U.S. public insurance programs is a perennial concern. The United States spends far more on health care administration than peer countries. Administrative barriers divert time from patient care and frustrate patients, clinicians, and policymakers. Major changes are needed to a system that costs too much, leaves too many behind, and delivers too little.

Part 1 of this paper discusses why the United States needs to do better in addressing coverage and cost. Part 2 presents 2 potential approaches to achieve universal coverage. Part 3 describes how an emphasis on value-based care can reduce costs.

Methods

The Health and Public Policy Committee of the ACP, which is charged with addressing issues that affect the health care of the U.S. public and the practice of internal medicine and its subspecialties, drafted this paper. The Committee reviewed available studies, reports, and surveys on health care coverage options and the cost of health care in the United States, identified by searching PubMed, Google Scholar, news articles, policy documents, proposals for coverage expansion, and other sources. Sources published before 2009 were largely excluded, with the exception of contextual resources and references to ACP policy papers. On the basis of this review, the Committee drafted recommendations with input from the ACP's Board of Governors, Board of Regents, Council of Early Career Physicians, Council of Resident/Fellow Members, Council of Student Members, and Council of Subspecialty Societies. The position paper and related recommendations were reviewed and approved by the Health and Public Policy Committee in July 2019 and the Board of Regents on 2 November 2019. The ACP operating budget was the sole source of funding for the development of this position paper.

Part 1: Why Does the United States Need to Do Better in Addressing Coverage and Cost?

Too Many Americans Are Uninsured or Underinsured

The United States is the only wealthy industrialized nation without universal health coverage, a crucial component to ensuring quality health care for all without financial burden that causes delay or avoidance of necessary medical care. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) led to historic reductions in the number of uninsured persons, yet nearly 30 million remain uninsured, millions more are underinsured, and the number of uninsured persons is expected to grow (4, 5). In part, this is the result of congressional policy decisions, including the prohibition on premium tax credits to undocumented immigrants and limiting eligibility for premium tax credits and cost-sharing reduction assistance to people with incomes under 400% of the federal poverty level (FPL), as well as some states' decisions not to broaden Medicaid eligibility after a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court decision that made expansion optional (6). The ACP has offered recommendations for improving the ACA's coverage provisions (7). Yet, the ACA remains politically contentious and has been subject to numerous repeal attempts, court challenges, and regulatory changes that may undermine its effectiveness and viability.

U.S. Health Care Spending Is High and Unsustainable

The United States spends far more per capita on health care than other wealthy countries, and spending is increasing at an unsustainable rate (8, 9). In 2018, nearly 18% of the nation's gross domestic product—$3.6 trillion—was directed to health care. Hospital services accounted for 33% of spending, physician and clinical services for 20%, prescription drugs for 9%, and other professional services for 3% (10). Japan, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) country most similar in population size to the United States (127.7 and 327.2 million, respectively), spends less than half per capita on health care as the United States, averaging $4717 per person annually (11, 12). The pricing of health care goods and services is substantially higher in the United States than in other developed nations. A 2003 analysis of OECD data showed that health care utilization in the United States did not exceed that of other countries, and price was the key driver of spending differences (13). More recent analyses support this argument and show that, except for imaging services, U.S. utilization rates are similar to those of peer countries (11). A systematic review found inconsistent associations, but generally low to moderate whether positive or negative, between cost and quality (14). Available evidence suggests that health care prices are an important driver of the high U.S. spending compared with other countries. However, it is important to recognize that utilization is growing and represents a larger share of spending, with more people being insured in the wake of the ACA and state Medicaid expansion (15).

The United States Pays More for Hospital Services

Inpatient hospital prices increased 42% between 2007 and 2014, and hospital-based outpatient care grew 25% over the same period (16). The Health Care Cost Institute reports that even though total inpatient utilization decreased 5% between 2013 and 2017, average per inpatient spending increased 16% during the same period, including price increases in all subcategories of inpatient admissions (17). Spending on outpatient services has also increased, including observation visits, which jumped from 6% between 2013 and 2016 to 13% in 2017, resulting in 20% spending growth between 2013 and 2017 (17). Comparatively, spending for physician and clinical services is expected to grow from $734 billion to $1.1 trillion over the same period (18). The Health Care Cost Institute reports that although total inpatient hospital utilization decreased 5% between 2013 and 2017, the average spending per hospitalization increased 16%, with price increases in all admission categories (17).

Although hospital services drive a large share of health care spending, many hospitals are operating with very close margins between revenue and cost. A 2019 report from the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) found that the most efficient hospitals still have a negative margin of –2% compared with other hospitals. The margin was –1% the previous year. Despite losing money on Medicare patients, most payment adequacy indicators, such as access to care or quality of care, are positive (19).

The United States Pays More for Prescription Drugs

Compared with peer countries, the United States spends about 200% more per capita on prescription drugs. In 2016, the United States spent approximately $329 billion on prescription drugs, a number likely to grow (20). Recent OECD data show that Americans spend about $1200 per capita on prescription drugs per year (21). Despite the higher rate of generic drug dispensing in the United States than in other countries (84% compared with 30% for Australia, the country with the lowest rate), overall per capita pharmaceutical spending is highest among OECD countries. Unlike most peer nations, the United States does not have a centralized government body that negotiates drug prices or determines which drugs government programs will cover. The U.S. regulatory environment enables pharmaceutical companies to raise prices by any amount without justification. Although some new drugs offer therapeutic innovation and improvement, price increases for established brand-name drugs contribute substantially to growing prescription drug spending (22).

The United States Spends More on Administration

In large part owing to its pluralistic financing system, the United States spends more on administration of health care than peer countries. One study estimated that in 2012, the United States spent $471 billion on billing and insurance-related costs—$375 billion (80%) more than in a “simplified financing system,” such as Canada's single-payer model (23). Another study concluded that administrative costs were 31% of total U.S. health care expenditures, nearly double those of Canada (24). In 2010–2012, administrative costs varied with type of insurance market: 20% in nongroup and 11% in large-group markets (25). Average administrative costs for private insurers are around 12.4%, substantially higher than Medicare administrative spending, which accounts for around 2% of total program costs (26, 27).

Physicians and hospitals in the United States spend much more than their counterparts elsewhere on administrative activities. Physician practices in the United States spend $61 000 more per physician per year dealing with insurers than their Canadian counterparts (28). Hospital administrative costs make up 25% of total U.S. hospital spending, compared with 20% in the Netherlands, 16% in England, and 12% in Canada (29). Insurance premiums reflect high administrative costs. Analysts project that administrative costs account for 30%, or roughly $5700, of the approximately $19 000 annual premium for an average employer-sponsored health family insurance plan (30), slightly less than the average annual amount that workers pay toward insurance ($6015) (31).

Health Care Outcomes in the United States Often Compare Unfavorably With Those in Other Countries

High U.S. health care spending has generally not yielded gains in health or productivity (9). Looking at health care expenditures in the absence of contextual factors, such as quality of care and social determinants of health, does not capture the complexity of the U.S. system and subsequent impact on costs to government payers and individuals (32). An estimated 80% of an individual's health is tied to socioeconomic factors, physical environment, and health behaviors (33). For example, living in a food swamp with greater access to fast-food establishments, convenience stores, or other stores lacking nutritious food increases an individual's risk for obesity (34). The cost of obesity in the United States rose from approximately $212 billion in 2005 to $315 billion in 2010 and is expected to rise (35). Without addressing the complex factors contributing to health care spending as part of broader reforms to health care coverage and financing, the United States will continue to spend substantial amounts of money on health care without seeing measurable improvements in health.

The United States excels in some health care process measures, such as prevention and patient preferences, and 30-day mortality rates for heart attacks and stroke are lower than those in peer countries (36, 37). However, despite higher spending, the United States generally has less favorable outcomes than other countries. In a Commonwealth Fund comparison of 2017 health system performance of 11 industrialized countries, the United States ranked last or near-last in access, administrative efficiency, equity, and health care outcomes (36). According to the OECD, the United States ranked second to last in the percentage of the population that had coverage for a core set of health care services in 2015 and performed poorly on consultations and medications skipped owing to cost (38). Life expectancy is lower and chronic disease rates are higher than those of peer countries (39). Infant mortality ranked 26 out of 29 in 2010, even after adjustment for reporting differences (40, 41). The United States has a higher mortality rate for medical conditions for which there are recognized health care interventions than Germany, the Netherlands, Japan, France, and Australia (37).

Health Care in the United States Is Unaffordable for Many

Affordability of coverage is a common reason for remaining uninsured (42). Factors that contribute to the affordability of health care include prices of goods and services, premiums, copayments, deductibles, coinsurance, type of health care coverage (employer-based, third party, or government), and benefits included with the plan. Premiums vary with enrollee mix, insurer administrative costs and profits, generosity of coverage, and prices of goods and services (25).

The share of workers with employer-sponsored insurance dropped from 67.3% in 1999 to 55.9% in 2014, with a slight increase to 58.4% in 2017, possibly due to the ACA and improved economy (43). Family premiums for employer-sponsored insurance have increased 54% since 2009, outpacing inflation (31). In 2019, the average annual premium for employer-sponsored coverage was $20 576 for a family and $7188 for an individual and had risen over the previous year (31, 44). The 2019 Milliman Medical Index found that total health care costs (including employer subsidy, employee contribution, and employee out-of-pocket cost at time of service) for a typical American family of 4 with an employer-sponsored preferred provider organization insurance plan exceeded $28 000 (45). The Congressional Budget Office predicts that over the next decade, premiums will continue to outpace wages, decreasing the prevalence of employee-based coverage (46). Evidence suggests that more low-income families, who generally spend a larger proportion of income on employer-based insurance than wealthier counterparts, enrolled their children in public insurance plans to relieve the burden of employer-sponsored insurance costs (47, 48).

As insurance costs rise, many employers offer insurance with high cost sharing (49). The Kaiser Family Foundation reports that 82% of workers have an annual deductible, and since 2009, the deductible burden has increased 162% (31). Since 2006, total cost sharing has grown at a higher rate than wages (50). Of employer-sponsored insurance enrollees who were continuously insured throughout the year, 28% were underinsured in 2018, compared with 10% in 2003 (51).

Market conditions affect affordability, with monopolies associated with higher premiums. The ACA marketplace–based insurance premiums were on average 50% higher in areas with a single insurer than in those with robust payer competition, and locally dominant health systems can demand higher payments from certain insurers, which are reflected in premiums (52–54). In competitive markets, insurers can select clinicians to include in a network and clinicians can choose whether to contract with an insurer, but it is unclear whether savings gleaned from insurers' negotiations with clinicians translate to lower premiums or more benefits for consumers. Consequently, the ACA requires spending 80% to 85% of premiums on care and quality improvement (55).

Part 2: Potential Approaches to Achieving Universal Coverage

There are several models for health insurance systems (56–58), and the U.S. system includes aspects of each of the models outlined in the Table. The Veterans Health Administration reflects the Beveridge model, Medicare reflects the national health insurance model, employer-based insurance the Bismarck and private insurance models, and the out-of-pocket model reflects direct patient contracting models (concierge, retainer fees) and being uninsured (56).

Table. Health Insurance System Models

The ACP believes that universal coverage is essential. Critics of universal coverage argue that it would lead to rationing; lower pay for physicians, hospitals, and other sources of care; and higher out-of-pocket costs for patients (59). Universal coverage alone does not ensure access to high-quality, affordable care—the goal should be both universal coverage and access—yet lack of health insurance coverage is associated with higher preventable mortality (60). Dimensions of universal access include physical accessibility; affordability; indirect costs, such as transportation; and acceptability of services to patients (61). Critics also assert that the price controls associated with universal coverage lead to long waits and delays in care. Yet, although the United States performs above average on certain measures, such as wait times for a specialist appointment, many countries with universal coverage outperform the United States on timely access to care (36).

Because many universal coverage proposals include a compulsory coverage element through taxes or mandates, some argue that universal coverage compromises individual freedom by forcing individuals to purchase something they may not want (62). The ACP believes that to achieve true universal coverage, coverage must be compulsory. A Beveridge- or Bismarck-style system would probably mandate participation, because financing relies on general or payroll taxes. Adverse selection and uninsured “free riders,” who access free or low-cost care despite being able to afford health insurance, are a concern in health care systems where private insurance coverage is voluntary (63, 64). Such mechanisms as automatic enrollment or premium penalties for delaying enrollment are alternative mechanisms to encourage enrollment and stabilize the risk pool in a voluntary system (65). According to the World Health Organization, “Because of adverse selection and the exclusion of the poor, no country in the world has managed to come close to [universal health coverage] by using voluntary insurance as its primary financing mechanism” (66).

ACP Policy Positions and Recommendations: Universal Coverage

The following section provides ACP's recommendations and policy positions for achieving universal coverage. The background and rationale follow each recommendation.

1. The American College of Physicians recommends that the United States transition to a system that achieves universal coverage with essential benefits and lower administrative costs.

a. Coverage should not be dependent on a person's place of residence, employment, health status, or income.

b. Coverage should ensure sufficient access to clinicians, hospitals, and other sources of care.

c. Two options could achieve these objectives: a single-payer financing approach, or a publicly financed coverage option to be offered along with regulated private insurance.

Single-Payer Model Option

Federal and state governments have taken an incremental approach to extending coverage, including Medicare for seniors, Medicaid for poor persons, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) for middle-income children, and the ACA for lower- and middle-income uninsured persons. Yet, support for a single-payer system has grown in in recent years (67).

“Single-payer” is often confused with other concepts or goals, such as universal coverage, administrative efficiency, and better affordability. Critics and proponents of single-payer health care often describe it as a Beveridge-style, socialized system where the government pays for services, operates hospitals, and employs physicians and other health care professionals (68, 69). However, according to Liu and Brook (70), the term “single-payer” originated to differentiate the Canadian system of government financing and private delivery from that of the United Kingdom, where, for the most part, the government is responsible for both, and now is often used to describe financing by a single public entity irrespective of delivery type. Single-payer systems do not necessarily prohibit private insurance. For example, many Canadians have private insurance to cover supplemental benefits not included among guaranteed benefits, such as prescription drugs (71). In Denmark's single-payer system, 39% of people have private supplemental insurance to finance such services as physical therapy (72). Other countries permit the sale of complementary coverage for faster access to covered benefits or acute care services from private sector professionals (73).

Liu and Brook (70) reviewed 25 U.S. federal and state single-payer proposals and found that most included provisions on comprehensive benefits, patient choice of “providers,” little or no cost sharing, guidelines and standards, electronic medical records, billing, formularies, and payment reform. (In this paper, ACP uses the word “provider” only when citing sources that use the term to describe health care facilities and clinicians that include physicians, in which case we put it in quotation marks. The ACP itself does not use “provider” to describe physicians because it is an economic term that devalues their skills, training, and contributions to patient care). Common physician payment scenarios include a fee-for-service model where reimbursement is negotiated by a rate-setting panel and “provider” representatives, salaries, or capitation arrangements (70). Global budgets for hospitals are also common.

Supporters see government-run, single-payer systems as models where insurance is more affordable, portable (not dependent on place of residence, employer or employment), administratively simple, and devoid of corporate interest. Compared with the existing multipayer system, a single-payer could achieve lower prices by using its bargaining monopsony power, reduce administrative costs and burdens, and ensure uniform benefits (74, 75).

Opponents see single-payer as government overreach, leading to long wait times for care, tax increases, and a damper on innovation (76, 77). They also worry that higher demand for services could lead states to broaden the scope of practice for nonphysician professionals (78). However, peer countries with single-payer, universal coverage struggle with some of the same issues that the United States confronts. Cost concerns have prevented Canada from including prescription drugs in the basic benefit package, and general practitioners in the United Kingdom's National Health Service complain of heavy workloads and paperwork (79, 80).

Transforming the current pluralistic U.S. system to one that is government-financed would probably cause major disruption in the health care industry and create winners and losers. For physicians, a single-payer system could lessen administrative burden and free time for direct patient care. Uncompensated care costs resulting from lack of insurance or unpaid cost sharing would no longer be a concern. However, these benefits may come at the expense of physician autonomy and increased demand for care (81). Many single-payer proposals would base payments to physicians on Medicare's flawed payment system, which encourages volume over value, undervalues cognitive services and primary care, overvalues procedures, and bases payments on the input costs of each billable service rather than on value to patients. As discussed in the companion ACP paper “Envisioning a Better U.S. Health Care System for All: Health Care Delivery and Payment System Reforms” (2), any system of universal coverage should not perpetuate the existing flawed Medicare payment system. Most primary care physicians in particular probably could not afford to accept current Medicare rates for all of their patients.

For patients, a single-payer system may affect choice. Taiwan's experience in adopting a single-payer system provides some context; as Cheng (82) wrote, “For Taiwan's citizens, freedom of choice among providers of health care trumped freedom of choice among insurance carriers and contracts. These citizens' high satisfaction with their health system suggests that they still endorse that choice.” Equitable single-payer coverage would help to eliminate racial, ethnic, and income-related health care disparities.

Transition to a single-payer model could be politically difficult and strain the federal budget, because taxes would probably replace premiums and private insurers would have a reduced role or be eliminated altogether. The U.S. public is generally skeptical of centralized government, particularly when it comes to health care (83). A U.S. single-payer system could be structured in a way that considers these factors. For example, the federal government could provide the bulk of funding and set minimum standards to guide state operations. States could administer coverage and perform oversight and regulation of supplemental plans offered by private insurers, which could provide such benefits as financial assistance for direct primary care practice costs. Such an approach could ensure access and equitable benefits (federal funding and standards), promote federalism (states operate and regulate), and patient choice (access to all participating physicians, clinicians, hospitals; private supplemental insurance, and administration). Private sector physicians, other clinicians, and hospitals would continue to deliver most care, alleviating concerns about government control. However, the experience of current federal–state programs, such as Medicaid, suggests a need for caution in recommending such an approach. Many states have imposed strict conditions on eligibility (including strict income limits and work requirements) on their Medicaid programs, pay very low fees to physicians, and contract with managed care plans that may divert financing from patient care to their own profitability. A single-payer system that gives states considerable flexibility in designing and implementing their programs could experience similar problems.

A single-payer financing approach could achieve ACP's vision of a system where everyone will have coverage for and access to the care they need, at a cost they and the country can afford. It also could achieve our vision of a system where spending will have been redirected from health care administration to funding coverage, research, public health, and interventions to address social determinants of health.

A single-payer financing approach could also achieve other key policy objectives, including portability, lower administrative costs and complexity, lower premiums and cost sharing, lower overall health care system costs, better access to care, and better health outcomes, depending on how it is designed and implemented.

Yet, adopting a single-payer system would be highly disruptive and could lead to price controls that would perpetuate flaws in the current Medicare payment system, including the undervaluation of primary care. If prices are set too low, it could lead to shortages and longer wait times for services. Without sufficient cost controls, however, the cost of a single-payer system could be too high to be feasible. Accordingly, in addition to a single-payer system, ACP believes that a public choice model should also be considered that can help achieve our vision of better health care for all.

Public Choice Model Option

Polls have found that most Americans are dissatisfied with health care costs and believe the U.S. health care system is in a “state of crisis” or “has major problems,” but are pleased with the coverage and quality of their health care (84, 85). Separate surveys suggest that Americans with employer-based health insurance are generally satisfied with their coverage (86, 87), but those with high-deductible plans are less satisfied than those with low-deductible plans and 4 in 10 reported difficulty paying for care before meeting the deductible (88). Yet, Americans' concerns over proposals to replace existing insurance with something new contributed to the demise of President Clinton's health care reform initiative (89) and inflamed opposition to the ACA (90).

Depending on its structure and implementation, a public choice (or public option) model available to all could help to achieve universal coverage, better access, and improved outcomes without the disruption of a single-payer approach. Under a public choice approach, those covered by employer-sponsored insurance can choose to enroll in the public insurance plan or remain in their existing plan. The public plan would be available nationwide, ensuring portability from state to state. Elements of this approach are reflected in the German and Swiss health insurance schemes, both of which use a social insurance/managed competition structure to extend coverage to all.

The ACP has offered recommendations for a public option that would be available alongside private insurance in the ACA marketplaces to inject competition into areas underserved by private insurers and reduce premiums. The ACP also supports a Medicare buy-in option for persons aged 55 through 64 years (91). Evidence shows that areas with a single insurer have faster premium growth than those with multiple insurance options (53). Although the number of ACA marketplace insurers grew overall in 2019 and insurers appear to be profiting, participation is less robust than in the program's early years in some areas (92, 93).

In 2019, 75% of employers offering coverage offered only 1 plan type, although nearly 64% of workers who had employer-based insurance had more than 1 plan available to them (31). Employers that offer a single plan generally provided a preferred provider organization plan, but 27% of workers only had an offer of a high-deductible health plan. People with affordable, comprehensive employer-sponsored insurance are ineligible for subsidized marketplace-based coverage under the ACA. This means most nonelderly Americans are restricted to the health insurance plan offered by their employer, or unsubsidized individual coverage inside or outside of the health insurance exchange. A public choice approach would provide choice to those with few or undesirable private options. A nationwide public plan would be portable and people would not need to remain in a job solely to maintain health insurance coverage (94). The public choice plan's benefits may be greatest for low-income uninsured and underinsured persons. Roughly 2.5 million people are eligible for expanded Medicaid but live in a nonexpansion state and earn too little to qualify for subsidized marketplace-based insurance (95). A public choice approach would ensure access to coverage for such individuals. Some public choice proposals include benefits not typically found in employer-sponsored or traditional Medicare plans, such as dental care and hearing and vision aids.

Safeguards would be necessary if the United States were to introduce a public choice model. Financial subsidies and regulations to make the public plan affordable would need to be made available to a wider array of people than in the ACA marketplace. Employer-sponsored insurance would need to be required to meet new benefit and regulatory standards to prevent adverse selection, ensure a level playing field, and promote equitable coverage. Robust risk adjustment mechanisms would need to be adopted. Employers would need to financially contribute to the public plan when employees choose it over the employer-sponsored plan. Alternatively, employers could choose to pay to enroll their employees in the public plan rather than offering a private plan.

Public option proposals also have noteworthy disadvantages. Continuing the multipayer system would require more complex regulatory structure and stricter oversight and result in fewer savings from lowering overall administrative costs than a single-payer model, and still would probably require substantial controls over prices to keep coverage affordable. If physician payments in the public plan were based on Medicare rates, physician practices could face financial difficulties that would undermine participation, especially in areas with workforce shortages. Such price controls could perpetuate undervaluation of primary care. Without sufficient controls, however, costs could make a public plan infeasible.

A public choice approach would be unlikely to achieve the same degree of reductions in prescription drug prices and wasteful spending expected with a single payer. The administrative burden associated with the existing multipayer system could remain unless most people and their employers migrated to the public plan. Access to physicians, hospitals, and other health professionals may be restricted if insurance plans formed limited “provider” networks. Folding ACA marketplace plans, Medicaid, and other forms of coverage into a new public plan could disrupt care continuity. Automatically enrolling certain populations, such as newborns, into the public choice plan would put it at a competitive advantage over private payers, reducing their ability to compete. Medicare Advantage provides a cautionary experience of what can happen in a system where private and public entities compete, underscoring the need for strong regulatory oversight and a level playing field. The U.S. Government Accountability Office and MedPAC have called for improvements in the program, where private insurers are contracted to provide Medicare benefits as an alternative to the Medicare fee-for-service program, after finding questionable risk coding practices (96, 97), narrowing “provider” networks and inaccurate directories (98), and evidence that beneficiaries in poor health were more likely than beneficiaries in better health to disenroll because of problems related to getting needed care and accessing their preferred doctor or hospital (99).

A public choice approach could potentially achieve ACP's vision of a system where everyone will have coverage for and access to the care they need, at a cost they and the country can afford, with less disruption than a single-payer system. A public choice approach also could partially address ACP's vision of a redirecting administrative spending to fund coverage, research, public health, and interventions to address social determinants of health.

Depending on how the program was designed and implemented, this approach could achieve other key policy objectives, including portability, lower premiums and cost sharing, lower overall health care system costs, better access to care, and better health outcomes. Expanding availability to all Americans of an enhanced Medicare-like program represents a promising path toward achieving universal coverage that could evolve to a single-payer system, should most Americans choose to enroll in public coverage over private insurance, or employers choose to spend their contribution to health insurance by subsidizing their employees' enrollment in a public plan.

Before deciding on a single-payer or public choice approach, ACP examined a variety of alternative approaches. We found that market-based approaches would not achieve key policy objectives, including reducing administrative costs and associated burdens on clinicians and patients, ensuring that coverage is portable, ensuring that essential benefits are included, guaranteeing that patients are not discriminated against or charged higher premiums because of health status or poor health, and ensuring that all Americans have coverage for the care they need—that is, they would not achieve universal coverage. Our review of other peer countries' health systems found none that have achieved universal coverage through a purely market-based approach, although some have elements of market competition and heavily regulated “insurance”-type plans. As noted earlier, the World Health Organization found that “no country in the world has managed to come close to [universal health coverage] by using voluntary insurance as its primary financing mechanism” (66). Although the social insurance/Bismarck model of regulated insurance-type programs (similar to public utility regulation) could achieve universal coverage, it would require that the federal government impose an entirely different regulatory structure on insurers, including converting them to nonprofit entities, setting or controlling the rates they can charge, and determining the rules under which they would administer health care benefits. We found little in the available literature on how such a model might specifically be developed for the United States.

The ACP concludes that of the currently available approaches that have been extensively modeled and researched, either a single-payer or public choice model offers the best opportunity to achieve our vision of universal coverage at a cost the patient and the country can afford, while recognizing that each has advantages and disadvantages. The ACP acknowledges concerns about giving government too much control over health care but notes that the current system gives insurers, many of whom act like or are for-profit companies, too much control, while the government already has a substantial role in regulating and financing health care. Implementation of any system, whether single-payer or a public choice approach along with regulated insurance, must be designed to protect and ensure that patients can get, and physicians are able to provide, the care they need consistent with evidence-based guidelines, essential guaranteed benefits determined with patient and physician input, and overall available resources.

The ACP remains open to considering other ideas to achieve our vision of making coverage and access available to all at a cost the patient and the country can afford. Finally, ACP also supports continued improvements in the current pluralistic system, including the ACA, even as the United States transitions to new approaches to achieve universal coverage.

2. The American College of Physicians recommends that under either a single-payer or public choice model, coverage must include an essential health care benefit package that emphasizes high-value care, preferably based on recommendations from an independent expert panel that includes the public, physicians, economists, health services researchers, and others with expertise.

Whether a single-payer or public choice model, the U.S. system must guarantee coverage of essential health care services for a diverse population. The ACP supports mandatory coverage of essential health services, including primary care and prescription drug benefits. The ACP supports maintaining the ACA's essential health benefit package, which requires certain insurance plans to cover 10 service categories, ranging from such foundational services as hospitalizations and ambulatory care to more specialized areas, such as rehabilitative or habilitative benefits. Before the ACA's requirements, many individual market plans did not cover vital services, such as maternity care, behavioral health treatment, or prescription drugs (100).

Prominent single-payer proposals base the benefit package on an existing program, such as Medicare, Medicaid, or the ACA's categories of essential health benefits, or require coverage for all medically necessary services. A single-payer or public choice program based on Medicare would have to be expanded to cover services for a wider range of populations with differing needs. This includes extending coverage of nonemergency transportation services and Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment benefits to those eligible for Medicaid in the current system.

Most long-term services and supports, such as nursing facility and home health services, currently are covered by public payers. Medicaid paid for 42% of long-term services and supports in 2016 (101). A single-payer system or a public choice model that replaces the Medicaid program would have to incorporate these services, which will drive up demand and government spending. In England, most long-term services and supports are paid for by local or private entities, whereas in Canada, provincial and territorial governments may provide this care (102). The ACP believes that a sustainable strategy for long-term services and supports should be developed, especially as the baby boomer generation matures and demand for services grows. In the interim, whether a single-payer or public choice approach is adopted, Medicaid should continue to cover the bulk of this care.

According to MedPAC, “[L]ow-value care has the potential to harm patients by exposing them to the risks of injury from inappropriate tests or procedures and may lead to a cascade of additional services that contain risks but provide little or no benefit” (103). The delivery of low-value care occurs in traditional fee-for-service Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial insurance plans; however, fee-for-service Medicare is statutorily prohibited from considering cost-effectiveness when determining whether a service or item should be covered. In designing an essential benefit package for a single-payer system or public choice program, high-value care should be emphasized.

In 2011, at the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) request, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) (now the National Academies of Medicine, Engineering, and Science) developed criteria and methods to determine benefits to include in the ACA's essential health care benefits package while balancing coverage and cost. The IOM encouraged the government to consider population health needs, be evidence-based, emphasize the judicious use of resources, and improve value and performance (104). To achieve this, IOM recommended that benefits be based on an annually updated premium target and be continuously updated by using a public process and considering costs to be fully evidence-based and promote value (105). A national benefits advisory council and the public would provide input. Ultimately, HHS took a different approach, basing essential health benefits on a private sector or government employee benchmark plan, which led to some variation among states.

In some health care systems, expert commissions develop evidence-based recommendations on what goods and services to include in the benefit package. For example, the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) considers the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of new diagnostic and therapeutic services to determine whether to make them available to patients. About 40% of NICE's published appraisals are for cancer-related technologies (106). The Oregon Health Evidence Review Commission evaluates treatment effectiveness and other factors to prioritize services for the state's Medicaid and CHIP programs (107). Categories are prioritized by rank. For example, maternity and newborn health are ranked first, and inconsequential care is ranked last. Treatments within each category are then ranked on the basis of a formula that includes the category rank and impact on such factors as healthy life-years, suffering, effectiveness, and the need for service. Oregon factors in cost only when needed to break a tie. The state legislature determines at what priority level services should be funded, but access to unfunded services may be granted via such processes as waivers. In a 2011 policy paper (108), ACP recommended that multiple criteria should be considered to prioritize health care resources. These criteria included patient need, preferences, and values; potential benefit; safety; societal priorities that include fiscal responsibility, public health, and equitable access; quality of life gained, consistent and compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act; and impact on families and caregivers, and achieving a balance between cost and clinical effectiveness to minimize adverse economic consequences on current and future generations.

As stated in the ACP Ethics Manual (109), physicians' ultimate duty is to their patients. The ACP believes that clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness should be incorporated into designing a patient-centered, high-value essential benefit package. However, nondiscrimination language, an appeals process, and other safeguards must be established to ensure that all can access the care they need. The development of a benefits package should include a formal process for patient and physician input and be free of conflicts of interest. According to the ACP Ethics Manual (109), “Stakeholders, including physicians, other health care professionals, patients, patient advocates, insurers, and payers, should participate together in decisions at the policy level; should emphasize the value of health to society; should promote justice and fairness in health care; and should base allocations on medical need, efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and proper distribution of benefits and burdens in society.”

Private Insurance in a Single-Payer System.

Most single-payer systems in other countries are administered by national or state/provincial government, but private insurers may play a role in administering coverage at the local level or offer special coverage. Canada, France, Australia, and other nations that have achieved universal coverage allow the sale of voluntary private coverage that covers services not included in the basic insurance package (supplemental); out-of-pocket costs (complementary); or the same services, but with different hospitals, clinicians, or service levels (duplicative) (110). A U.S. analogue would be the Medigap program, which provides Medicare beneficiaries coverage for cost sharing (111) and, before implementation of Part D in 2006, some prescription drug benefits (112).

If a single-payer approach is pursued, private insurers could offer regulated supplemental insurance for services outside the essential benefits package or complementary coverage for out-of-pocket costs, although the latter may enable use of limited-value care (113). States could choose to cover additional benefits at their expense. RAND estimates that out-of-pocket costs under a national Medicare-for-all proposal would exist for “elective services” outside of the basic benefit package, such as cosmetic surgeries, infertility treatment, adult orthodontics, and over-the-counter medications (114). Similar to Medigap, states and the federal government could regulate supplemental or complementary plans.

Allowing the sale of private insurance may raise concerns about equity and access, particularly if it duplicates government coverage. In Australia, private coverage pays for extra benefits and a broader choice of private hospitals and specialists than public insurance. However, concerns have been raised that private insurance is being used to pay for public hospital care, despite the hope that private insurance would relieve demand on the public hospital system (115). Those with private coverage may have far shorter wait times for certain services, such as knee replacement surgery, than those with public insurance (116).

The ACP opposes the sale of duplicative coverage, owing to concerns that it may create a “2-tiered” system that could exacerbate health care disparities. However, if it is marketed, it is imperative that private insurance be carefully regulated to balance choice with equity and prevent discrimination and exclusion of vulnerable patients. Relevant regulations, such as guaranteed issue and renewability, community rating, medical loss ratios, and prohibitions on preexisting condition exclusions, should be established.

Private Insurance in a Public Choice System.

A public choice model should be required to adhere to regulations that ensure access, equity, and affordability. Permanent risk adjustment and reinsurance programs should be established to prevent adverse selection.

The Role of Cost Sharing and Premiums

3. The American College of Physicians believes that, whether a single-payer or public choice model, cost sharing that creates barriers to evidence-based, high-value, and essential care should be eliminated, particularly for low-income patients and patients with certain defined chronic diseases and catastrophic illnesses. In general, when cost sharing is required for some services, it should be income-adjusted through a subsidy mechanism and subject to annual and lifetime out-of-pocket limits. In a public choice model, premiums should be income adjusted and capped at a percentage of annual income.

Cost sharing can temper utilization and reduce costs by steering enrollees to high-value services. Single-payer proposals typically feature limited or zero cost sharing, which could increase demand for care. For example, Canada does not apply cost sharing or other fees for primary care or hospital services, a difference from U.S. trends toward higher deductibles and cost sharing (117) and patient anxiety about surprise out-of-network bills (118).

Over the past decade, enrollment in low-deductible health plans has decreased while enrollment in high-deductible health plans has grown for adults in employer-based plans (119). In the RAND Health Insurance Experiment, cost sharing reduced utilization of both effective and ineffective services (120). Low-income, sick patients in plans with zero cost sharing had better hypertension and vision outcomes than those with cost sharing, but those with cost sharing had fewer restricted-activity days and worried less about their health (120). Despite the potential benefits of cost sharing, the RAND study suggests that cost sharing should be minimal or nonexistent for low-income individuals. Evidence shows that even very low Medicaid copayments are associated with decreased use of necessary care (121). High deductibles may serve as a barrier to receiving high-value, preventive care and treatment after diagnosis. One study found that switching from a low-deductible to a high-deductible employer-based plan was associated with delays in breast cancer diagnosis and chemotherapy initiation among women, regardless of income (122).

These observations lead ACP to recommend zero cost sharing for essential services, particularly for low-income individuals (at a minimum, 138% of the FPL) as well as those with special health care needs, serious illnesses, and chronic conditions. Taiwan, Germany, and Switzerland are examples of countries that cap or eliminate cost sharing on the basis of income, service category, or health condition (123). For higher-income enrollees, cost sharing should be structured to direct patients to effective, patient-centered, high-value care. Value-based insurance design proposals, supported in concept by ACP, reduce or eliminate cost sharing for high-value services and have been shown to increase use of mammography (124) and adherence to medications (125–127).

Most single-payer systems are financed with revenue from payroll, income, or other taxes and do not charge premiums. An exception is Taiwan, which applies a payroll-based premium. A public choice option would probably incorporate premiums and cost sharing. Under a single payer, household health care spending could change depending on how the program is structured and financed. A New York State single-payer proposal (Appendix) is estimated to reduce health care spending for most New Yorkers, with those with household income less than the 75th percentile (up to $185 200) paying on average $3000 less per person on health care and those with household income in the 90th to 100th percentile paying more owing to the progressive tax rate financing structure (128).

The ACP recommends that a public choice model include income-adjusted premium and cost-sharing subsidies. The ACP has recommended extending the ACA marketplace's premium tax credits to people with incomes over 400% of the FPL and enhancing their generosity to make insurance more affordable (7). Prominent public option proposals would cap annual premiums to a percentage of income and limit cost sharing.

Payments and Availability of Health Care Services

4. The American College of Physicians recommends that that in either a single-payer or public choice model, payment rates to physicians and other clinicians, as well as to hospitals and other facilities that offer health care services, must be sufficient to ensure access to needed care and should not perpetuate disparities in current payment methods.

a. Current Medicare payment rates generally are insufficient to achieve the objectives of universal coverage.

b. Physician payment policies must ensure robust participation and not undervalue primary care and cognitive services, including the primary, preventive, and comprehensive care provided by internal medicine physician specialists.

Some single-payer and public choice proposals rely on a fee schedule to determine physician reimbursement. For example, the Physicians for a National Health Plan single-payer proposal (Appendix) would negotiate a fee schedule between the plan and regional physician representatives, with salaries for facility-based physicians. In general, it is estimated that under most single-payer proposals, overall physician compensation would decrease, administrative burdens would be relieved, and demand for services would rise.

A prominent Medicare-for-all proposal would base payment on a fee schedule similar to Medicare's, and independent evaluations make different assumptions on physicians and other clinician payment. The Mercatus Center (129, 130) estimates that “provider” payment would be level with current Medicare rates (estimated to be 40% lower than private payer reimbursement rates), and Thorpe (131) assumes a blended payment rate of 105% of costs. The Urban Institute (132) assumes that physician reimbursement would be at Medicare rates, but notes that “payment rates may in fact have to be higher, at least initially and perhaps indefinitely, to be acceptable to providers,” which would also raise federal spending and could temper utilization owing to insufficient capacity. RAND (114) estimates that under national single-payer health plan payment changes, “providers' willingness and ability to provide health care services—including the additional care required by the newly insured and those benefiting from lower cost sharing—would most likely be limited.”

Berenson and colleagues (133) concluded that if physician compensation was based on the Medicare fee schedule instead of the multipayer mix, median annual compensation would decline by 12%, with large variations by category and specialty. Primary care internists would see their mean annual compensation drop by about 8%. The impact of uniform Medicare rates and increased billable hours would vary for different specialties. Some nonsurgical, nonprocedural practices (such as endocrinologists and nephrologists) may experience higher incomes, whereas surgeons and radiologists may see lower compensation. However, the immediate impact on compensation may depend on physicians' current patient mix: A physician who cares for a disproportionate number of Medicaid patients may see compensation rise, whereas those who care for mostly privately insured patients may see compensation drop (134). According to the American Medical Association 2016 benchmark survey, the average general internal medicine physician patient share was 38% Medicare, 11.9% Medicaid, 40.4% commercial health insurance, 5.7% uninsured, and 4.1% other payer (135).

The health systems in some countries allow physicians to charge certain patients an amount on top of the public fee, similar to the balance billing that U.S. Medicare allows for nonparticipating physicians. The ACP believes that, whether a single-payer or public choice option, the U.S. system should reimburse at rates sufficient to ensure robust participation that makes balance billing largely unnecessary. If permitted, balance billing should be limited so as not to discourage care, especially among low-income patients. The growth of balance billing in France has raised concerns about access to specialists for those unable to pay additional fees (136).

Other policies should be adopted to ensure physicians are available to meet the higher demand for medical care. In a set of recommendations for a state-based single-payer program, Hsiao and colleagues (137) recommended including medical malpractice reform (specifically the no-fault administrative compensation system that ACP supports pilot testing [138]), enhanced loan repayment programs, and community hospital improvements.

Primary Care and Payment Reform

The U.S. shortage of primary care physicians impedes access to high-quality care (139). Medicare beneficiaries are more likely to have trouble finding a primary care physician than a specialist (140). Racial and ethnic minority beneficiaries report longer wait times and higher rates of forgoing care than non-Hispanic white beneficiaries. The U.S. Medicare fee schedule undervalues primary care compared with specialty services (141). In 2017, according to MedPAC, median primary care compensation was much lower than specialty care, raising concerns about fee schedule mispricing primary care (140). The Center for American Progress' Medicare Extra for All proposal (Appendix) would provide a modest boost to primary care physicians, but it is unclear whether it would reverse the primary care shortage or balance the primary care–specialist pay disparity (142). Countries with universal coverage also experience primary care shortages. In the 2000s, Canada raised reimbursement and increasing hospital funding to reverse physician workforce shortages and long waits for surgery (143).

In a public choice system, the continued existence of commercial employer plans, which typically pay physicians more than Medicare, may help to offset lower public plan pay rates, but this is not guaranteed. Medicare Advantage rates closely track Medicare fee-for-service rates (144). Proponents of public choice proposals, including Medicare Part E developer Jacob Hacker, believe that adopting Medicare rates will cause commercial rates to drop. Likewise, the Medicare Extra for All proposal would extend Medicare-based payment rates to employer-sponsored plans. The public choice approach, in addition to not having the administrative efficiencies of a single-payer system, could reduce access if payments are reduced to an extent that makes practices unsustainable. As stated previously, any system that the United States implements should not adopt the imperfections of the existing Medicare fee-for-service model that rewards high-volume, procedure-oriented specialties over complex cognitive care delivered by primary care physicians. The ACP has long supported the patient-centered medical home, a primary care delivery model that promotes team-based, coordinated care. Early evidence on the Nuka System of Care, a patient-centered medical home model designed to provide integrated, multidisciplinary care for the Alaska Native and American Indian population, indicates that emergency care use (including for asthma) declined after implementation (145, 146). The value of primary care is discussed further under recommendation 8.

The ACP believes that, whether a single-payer or public choice model, physician participation should be voluntary and physicians should not be required to be employed by the government, as in the United Kingdom's National Health Service. The Medicare for America Act (Appendix) would allow enrollees to see any physician that participates in the Medicaid or Medicare programs. ACP policy supports a public option in which physicians' participation is voluntary, as it is in the current Medicare system. The ACP opposes clauses in insurer contracts that obligate the physician to participate in any plan offered by an insurer.

Mandatory Versus Voluntary Coverage

5. The American College of Physicians believes that an automatic and mandatory enrollment mechanism should be developed under either a single-payer or public choice option system. In a public choice system, employers should be required to offer comprehensive coverage to their employees (and families) that is at least as generous as the public insurance option or pay a portion of the cost of their employees' public insurance plan coverage (that is, “pay or play”).

To achieve universal coverage, enrollment in any new U.S. system must be mandatory or automatic as it is in most countries, including those with social insurance or managed competition structures (147). Most single-payer proposals involve governmental administration, are funded by taxes, prohibit the sale of substitutive or duplicative private insurance, and include an automatic enrollment mechanism. Automatic enrollment could also be a feature of a public choice system.

In a public choice system, employers could opt to subsidize their employees' public insurance or offer their own coverage. This may require new regulations for employer-sponsored insurance plans, including actuarial value requirements. For example, the Medicare for America legislation (Appendix) would mandate that large employers that offer insurance ensure that it has an actuarial value of 80%, equivalent to a gold-level marketplace-based plan, and has benefits resembling the new Medicare program. Without these important safeguards, the more generous public insurance plan would attract a disproportionate share of sicker people, which would increase claims and premiums. Employers should be required to provide information on the public choice insurance program to employees during open enrollment.

Currently in the United States, immigration status affects eligibility for government-subsidized health insurance. Undocumented immigrants are generally ineligible for federal insurance programs, such as Medicaid, and are barred from buying marketplace-based insurance. Many eligible noncitizen legal residents can enroll in Medicaid after a waiting period and may be eligible for subsidized marketplace-based insurance. United States immigration law has long sought to restrict lawful permanent residence for noncitizens who may become eligible for certain government services (public charges), and the Trump Administration has extended this policy to Medicaid and other health programs (148). Although immigration status barriers for public health insurance programs may help ensure that the country's resources are being spent on its citizens, they deny the public and personal health benefits of coverage (149, 150). For example, undocumented immigrants are unable to access Medicare coverage for standard dialysis (151). One study shows that undocumented immigrants with chronic kidney disease who receive emergency dialysis have higher mortality and spend more days as inpatients than patients who receive standard dialysis (152). Undocumented individuals living in the United States are nearly 5 times as likely as citizens to be uninsured, even though about 85% are working or have a family member who is employed (153).

In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that denying a child the right to attend public school on the basis of immigration status violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The court concluded that the societal harms of denying these children access to public education outweighed concerns about finances or impact on the quality of education for citizen children. It is unclear whether this precedent would apply to noncitizen eligibility for public health insurance, but ACP recognizes that there are public health and societal benefits of ensuring that all persons residing in the United States, regardless of immigration status, have access to health care services. In the 2011 position paper “National Immigration Policy and Access to Health Care” (154), ACP recommended that “[a]ccess to health care for immigrants is a national issue and needs to be addressed with a national policy.” Immigration policy should not interfere with health care professionals' obligation to care for sick persons and should not foster discrimination in the provision of health care. At a minimum, whether in a single-payer or public choice approach, undocumented immigrants and other ineligible populations should be permitted to buy unsubsidized public insurance. The ACP also recommends adequate funding of programs that serve the noncitizen uninsured population.

Administrative Requirements and Costs

6. The American College of Physicians believes that relief from health care system administrative requirements should be a priority under either a single-payer or public choice model. To the furthest extent possible, billing and quality measure reporting should be standardized and streamlined.

Physicians in the United States face a barrage of administrative tasks related to billing, electronic health records, and performance measurement. Administrative burdens contribute to physician burnout, which is costly (155) and may raise the risk for medical error (156). Physician practices in the United States spend much more than their Canadian counterparts on administrative activities (24).

Some U.S.-trained physicians choose to practice in Canada in part because of frustration in dealing with administrative burdens in the pluralistic U.S. system (157). A benefit of a single-payer system is a reduction in these burdens and associated costs could offset any reductions in pay. A survey of Massachusetts physicians found that a majority would trade a 10% reduction in income for a substantial reduction in paperwork (158). The Congressional Budget Office notes that administrative costs would be lower in a single-payer than in a multipayer system (102). Recommendation 9 also addresses administrative costs.

One analysis of a Medicare-for-all proposal estimates that physicians would have an average of 4 hours of freed time per week to direct to billable patient care (159). The same analysis estimates that average annual physician compensation would decline by 7% to 9%, but be somewhat offset by an 8% increase in billable hours. An evaluation of a different national Medicare for All proposal estimates that total clinician administrative spending would drop by 32.6% (114).

Financing of Coverage and Treatment of Special Populations

7. The American College of Physicians recommends that a single-payer or public choice model be financed through government spending, employer contributions, progressive taxes on income, tobacco and alcohol excise taxes, value-based cost sharing, reallocation of savings from reduced spending on administration, and system-wide savings and efficiencies described in this paper.

a. Health care programs that serve special populations, including the Veterans Health Administration, Medicaid long-term services and supports, and Indian Health Service, should continue to operate alongside the new program.

Estimates vary about whether a national single-payer system would save or cost more than current national health expenditures. The majority of national health expenditures would shift from a mix of public, employer, enrollee, and other spending sources to the federal government. RAND estimated that if a national single-payer system was implemented in 2019, total national health care spending would increase by 1.8%, but assumed that there would be unfulfilled demand owing to a constrained supply of physicians and hospitals and coverage of long-term care (114). The increase in federal spending results from its absorption of current spending by state and local governments, employers, and individual households (114). Single-payer proponents argue that savings will accrue from lower administrative costs, prescription drug spending, and reimbursement rates. However, these savings are likely to be offset by the expanded benefit package and higher demand.

The ACP believes that a single-payer system could garner savings with judicious cost sharing, prescription drug price negotiations, and a benefits package that focuses on high-value care. Furthermore, financing should be progressive with contributions dependent on income. Explicit means-testing of programs (denying high-income individuals access to the program) should be discouraged. Single-payer financing decisions may have broader economic ramifications. The Congressional Budget Office has noted, “The choice of tax structure would also have different implications for the labor supply and people's consumption of goods and services” (102).

The ACP recommends that public programs that cover special populations, including the Veterans Health Administration and the Indian Health Service, continue to operate alongside the new model. As mentioned elsewhere in this paper, Medicaid should continue to provide long-term services and supports. As a result, state Medicaid programs would still have a financial and administrative responsibility in the new system.

Transitioning to Universal Coverage

If the United States adopts a single-payer system, policymakers would need to develop and implement a transition process that minimizes confusion and disruption while ensuring stable coverage. Funding for public insurance programs, including traditional Medicare, a portion of Medicaid, and CHIP, would probably be consolidated into the new single-payer plan. The health insurance industry employed nearly 540 000 people as of January 2019 (160), and private insurers will see their roles diminished or eliminated. Although specific policies are outside the scope of this paper, transition plans should consider supporting those in the current insurance workforce with resources for career retraining, transition to similar employment in the new system, or other initiatives.

Roughly 160 million people would lose existing employer-based health coverage if the United States adopts a single-payer system, but major health care system transformation is not without precedent. Medicare benefits were available less than 1 year after the program was signed into law (161), despite the necessity of compromises with hospitals, physicians, and other stakeholders (162). Stop-gap coverage options, such as broadening eligibility to the Medicare, Medicaid, and ACA marketplace plans, should be established during the transition to the new system. The ACP supports establishing a public option in the ACA marketplace (163), and more generous financial subsidies for ACA marketplace plans (7). A Medicare buy-in option for persons aged 55 to 64 years should also be created. In addition, a major public education campaign will need to raise awareness about the new plan.

The ACP envisions that transition might occur as follows:

First, close gaps and stabilize the markets created by the ACA, including creating a public option in all individual insurance exchanges, expanding Medicaid to lower-income persons in all states, and ending the income eligibility cap for premium subsidies and creating a Medicare buy-in for persons aged 55 to 64 years, as ACP has previously recommended as a way to improve the ACA (7, 91).

Next, transition to a publicly financed option for all who want it while allowing individuals to keep private coverage that meets federal requirements, with mechanisms to ensure that everyone is enrolled in a qualified plan.

Over time, if most Americans choose the public choice plan, the United States could transition entirely to a single-payer system.

Part 3: Strategies for the United States to Lower Health Care Costs

ACP Policy Positions and Recommendations: Investing in Primary and Comprehensive Care

8. The American College of Physicians supports greater investment in primary care and preventive health services, including support for the unique role played by internal medicine specialists in providing high-value primary, preventive, and comprehensive care of adult patients.

Primary care is essential in the prevention and early detection and treatment of disease, which can help to avoid costlier future care. Only between 6% and 8% of health care dollars are spent on primary care (164), but greater use of primary care is associated with decreased health expenditures, higher patient satisfaction, fewer hospitalizations and emergency department visits, and lower mortality (165). Recent state-level analyses show an association between investment in primary care and reductions in emergency department visits, total hospitalizations, and hospitalizations for ambulatory care–sensitive conditions (166). United States markets with larger numbers of primary care physicians have lower costs and higher quality of care (164). Data suggest that investments in primary care physicians in Medicare would result in an overall drop in total Medicare costs (167). Small increases in the number of primary care physicians (1 primary care physician per 10 000 individuals) have been associated with lower all-cause, stroke-associated, and infant mortality (168). Furthermore, primary care is integral in caring for people with chronic disease, a demand that will become increasingly critical as the U.S. population ages (169).

Increased emphasis on primary care is also critical in addressing downstream costs. States that have invested in primary care have seen cost-savings, particularly those states that have adopted the patient-centered medical home. A study of Oregon's Patient-Centered Primary Care Home Program found that $1 invested yielded $13 in savings downstream (170). Rhode Island, assisted by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, made large investments in primary care resulting in 95% of practice sites certified as medical home sites, a shift that might reduce costs (171). A study that compared patient-centered medical home and traditional primary care sites suggested that the former saved 5% (172). Initiatives to increase investment in primary care should align with the Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative's recommendations, including standardized metrics, broad stakeholder participation, targeted strategies, aligning payment incentives, and evidence-based outcome evaluation (173).

The ACP believes that an effective approach to reducing or slowing the growth of health care costs should recognize, support, and sustain the role that internal medicine specialists play in delivering high-value, patient- and family-centered care, by virtue of their unique training and skills in primary, preventive, and comprehensive care, particularly in diagnosing and treating adult patients with complex medical conditions. This will require researching, distinguishing, and defining what aspects of the training and skills internal medicine specialists contribute to high-value care, and how those skills and training compare with those of other primary care clinicians. This approach will also require developing and implementing public policies, delivery and payment reforms, and workforce policies shown to be effective in supporting and sustaining ambulatory-based internal medicine as an essential component of a health care system oriented toward facilitating high-value care, and addressing existential threats to ambulatory-based internal medicine. Reaffirming the value of patients having an ongoing relationship with an internist or other primary care physician leading an integrated and multidisciplinary team of clinicians dedicated to achieving the best possible outcomes for patients, as part of developing and implementing a broader strategy of supporting the role of primary care physicians in achieving better outcomes at lower costs, is also necessary.

Reducing Excessive Pricing and Improving Efficiency

9. The American College of Physicians supports efforts to reduce excessive list prices for goods and services, reduce price variation not associated with differences in the cost of providing services, reduce administrative costs at the system level and at the point of care, and improve the efficiency of the health care system.

The ACP believes that there is an immediate need for policy changes to slow spending growth, primarily in health care administrative costs, prescription drug pricing, and low-value care. Highly variable pricing for public and private payers as well as patients also need to be addressed.

Administrative Costs. Health system reforms, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, have spurred exceptional growth in health care administrative costs. From 1975 to 2010, the number of health care administrators increased 3200% while physician numbers increased only 150% (174). The need for administrators increased in part to meet needs, such as those in health information technology, but also to complete increasingly complicated billing and insurance-related tasks. For example, in 2013, the Duke University hospital system employed 1600 billing clerks despite having only 957 hospital beds (175).

Many proposals to reduce administrative costs center on reducing complexity and relying on health information technology. In the current U.S. system, each payer sets their own rules with regard to claims submissions, claims reconciliation, and payment requirements, and the payers are subject to different regulations on the basis of the type of plan. For example, plans covered under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act are subject to less stringent federal regulations than plans that must adhere to state and federal regulation. Administrative costs account for 25% of overall U.S. hospital spending, twice that of Canada and Scotland (29). Reducing per capita hospital administrative spending to that of Canada would have saved the United States $158 billion in 2011.

In 2017, ACP called for research on administrative tasks, such as billing and insurance regulation (176). In particular, research is needed to address the variance in regulations across clinical settings. In a study, researchers examined bills throughout an academic medical center and found that 3% of surgical procedure revenue and 25% of emergency department visit revenue goes to administration (177). The ACP reaffirms the need for rigorous research on the effect of administrative tasks on the health care system.

Prescription Drug Costs. United States policy related to prescription drug pricing has garnered considerable attention from government officials, policymakers, and the general public. Patient responsibility for drug costs increased from $59.5 billion in 2012 to $65.8 billion in 2016, despite increased use of generic drugs and ACA-related out-of-pocket maximums (178). Discounts related to coupons and Medicare Part D may shield patients, but individual out-of-pocket costs vary (178). Spending on specialty drugs in the Medicare Part D program rose from $8.7 billion in 2010 to $32.8 billion in 2015, comprising 30% of prescription drug spending although only 1% of prescriptions dispensed (179).

Numerous proposals at the federal level aim to improve transparency and regulation to the prescription drug market and to introduce tools used by private insurance to the Medicare Part D program to reduce costs and reform the pharmacy benefit management industry. Although these proposals may transform the prescription drug market over the long term, ACP recognizes that short-term strategies are also needed to rein in out-of-pocket drug costs. The ACP has long-standing policy supporting government negotiation of prices in Medicare Part D, as well as other policies that support prescription drug price transparency and increasing competition in the prescription drug market and opposing anticompetitive behaviors that keep lower-cost drugs off the market (180).

Investments in Health Care Infrastructure. In 2014, Sheppard (181) argued that the practice of medicine has always had a business component. Currently, hospitals and health systems must compete to attract new consumers and drive revenue through the delivery of health care services. Health systems must grapple with new regulations, legal issues around absorbing or forming practice groups, and maintaining and updating technology and facility infrastructure, among other issues. Hospital administrative costs appear to be driven by the complexity of the reimbursement system and the mode of capital funding. In the United States, the main source of capital funds stems from surpluses of day-to-day operations, creating incentives to create profit opportunities facilitated by increasingly complex billing systems (29). Hospitals in France and Germany, which have diagnostic-related grouping billing similar to those in the United States, receive a substantial share of capital from the government and have relatively low per-patient administrative costs (29).

The American Hospital Association has identified 6 major federal capital financing programs that support hospitals (182) and additional, smaller opportunities may be available. The major programs are spread across federal agencies, including the U.S. departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, and Treasury and the U.S. Small Business Administration, with primary goals of economic development and job creation or retention in rural or underserved communities. Because most capital financing programs that assist hospitals limit those eligible to primarily rural or underserved communities, there is little research on how federal investment in larger health systems in more populous areas might impact administrative costs by relieving the pressure to produce revenue for capital expansion projects or modernization. Additional research could be conducted to determine whether additional capital financing grants for U.S. hospitals could result in cost savings in the current health care financing environment.

Overtreatment, Low-Value Care, and Preventable Diseases

10. The American College of Physicians supports greater efforts to reduce low-value care and reduce costs associated with preventable disease.

Overutilization of low-value care contributes to the high cost of U.S. health care. It is estimated that $760 to $935 billion is wasted annually in the health care system, with overutilization or low-value care accounting for $75.7 to $101.2 billion annually (183). Although the United States is not alone in overutilization, particularly overuse of antibiotics, it leads in overutilization of many services, including imaging services, repeated colonoscopy or chest computed tomography, and diagnostic allergy testing (184). In 2012, the ACP was one of the first 9 specialty partners in the American Board of Internal Medicine's Choosing Wisely campaign to promote high-value care, an effort that has generally been considered a success. However, additional efforts are needed to reduce the overuse of low-value services that are frequently performed and may represent a large share of revenue (185).

Medical liability, fee-for-service reimbursement, and other financial incentives are often cited as reasons for overutilization. However, local practice patterns can also affect the care patients receive (186, 187). Medical liability reform is often cited as necessary to address high health care costs in the United States. A National Bureau of Economic Research working paper examining the military health care system, in which physicians have medical liability immunity, showed that active-duty patients receiving care on a military base were treated less intensively than elsewhere, without adverse health consequences (188). The researchers concluded that providing medical liability immunity could reduce inpatient spending by 5%. The ACP has proposed medical liability reform with a focus on patient safety and reducing errors and including caps on noneconomic damages, piloting communication and resolution programs, and safe harbor protections for physicians who provide care consistent with evidence-based guidelines (189).

One quarter of Medicare dollars are spent during the last year of a beneficiary's life (190). Although there is a need to address these costs, the focus should be on providing high-value, patient-centered care at the end of life and recognizing the potential value palliative care when appropriate (191). Specialist palliative care “[focuses] on symptom management, quality of life, and delineating goals of care in patients with serious illness, whether the goal is cure, prolonging life, or maximizing function and quality of life” (190). Palliative care has been shown to reduce costs, particularly in the hospital setting, and increase patient and physician satisfaction (192). A study of early palliative care interventions in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer found both improved quality of life and survival with early palliative care compared with standard care (193).

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 90% of U.S. health care costs are associated with people with chronic medical or mental health conditions (194). Chronic conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and obesity, among others, are the leading cause of death and disability in the United States and accounted for $1.1 trillion in direct health care costs and $2.6 trillion in indirect costs (that is, lost economic productivity) in 2016 (195). Addressing risk factors (196) that contribute to these chronic conditions is important to reducing health care costs and improving population health. It is estimated that by 2030, a total of 83 million individuals in the United States will have 3 or more chronic conditions, up from 30.8 million in 2015 (197). Increased investment in public health interventions that target chronic health conditions leads to lower costs and high returns on investment. For example, for every $1 spent on tobacco cessation programs the average return is $1.26 and the economic impact of reducing youth smoking by the Truth campaign is estimated to have saved the United States $6.80 for every $1 invested (198). However, public funding for public health represents a relatively small share of health spending and continues to be underfunded (199). Additional investment is needed at the federal, state, and local levels to keep pace with Americans' health care needs.

Global Budgets and All-Payer Rate Setting

11. The American College of Physicians supports greater adoption of innovative all-payer models, a global budgeting model, or health care growth benchmarks, informed by the experiences of states that have implemented such approaches.

The use of rate setting or oversight of payments from public and private payers is not a new concept in the United States. Prospective hospital rate setting was once a popular policy option, with as many as 30 states implementing programs by 1980. However, deregulation—attributable to the rise of managed care and political, economic, or institutional factors—reduced the number of states participating in these types of programs to 2 by 1997 (200). However, policymakers are again considering whether all-payer models and global budgets can limit unsustainable spending growth.

Currently, although virtually all patients are charged the same list price, actual payments vary widely on the basis of negotiated discounts. For example, a hospital may receive reimbursements from more than a dozen different health insurers and health plans, each with its own payment schedule. In addition, Medicare and Medicaid have their own rules for paying hospitals. All-payer systems use the same payment rates for all patients who receive the service or treatment from the same clinician or hospital. Rate setting is used to determine per-service or per-case rates, and the reimbursement a clinician or hospital receives for a given service is the same regardless of who pays. Different payers do not pay different rates for the same service.

Maryland and Vermont All-Payer Models. Maryland currently operates the only all-payer hospital rate regulation system in the United States. Maryland hospitals operate on a waiver from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that allows the state to set rates that all third parties pay for inpatient and outpatient services. The system stemmed from a legislative edict around 4 principles: efficiency, access for all, equity among payers, and solvency for all efficient and effective hospitals (201). The model is on track to meet targets for both patient safety and savings and has successfully saved Medicare $586 million in hospital payments and $461 million in total health care costs between 2014 and 2016 (202). The model reduces these expenditures without shifting costs to other parts of the health care system outside of the global budgets; however, there was no statistically significant impact on total expenditures or total hospital expenditures among the commercially insured (202).

Maryland's all-payer system also includes a global budget. Global budgeting is “the process by which society chooses, directs, and enforces how much to spend on health care, what to spend it on, and where that spending will take place” and is mostly utilized in the hospital setting (203). Global budgets give hospitals clear incentives to manage provision of care within a defined budget. One of the clearest incentives is to reduce the number of admissions that the global budget must cover, an important approach to reducing hospitals' variable costs. Global budgets imply that all payers participate and thus is simpler to operationalize in a single-payer or all-payer environment. Global budgets may have either a “hard” or “soft” cap. In systems with a hard global budget, the hospital's payment is limited to the prospectively set global budget amount and clinicians are not reimbursed for all expenditures over the benchmark, creating an incentive to reduce unit costs (204). With a soft global budget, expenditures above the target benchmark may be partially reimbursed. Consensus among policy analysts is that hard global budgets are more effective than soft global budgets in reducing costs, because they rigorously enforce limits on spending and provide spending predictability for payers and health care policymakers. However, once a soft cap is reached, high physician penalties, such as a reduction in fees, may have a similar effect as a hard cap (205).

Evidence from the Maryland all-payer model suggests that acute care hospitals in the state transitioned to global budgets more quickly than projected. However, areas that may also produce cost saving outside of the hospital's control, such as aligning hospital and physician incentives, reducing patient demand, and improving population health, have been slower to take hold (206). Since the model's implementation, the state has identified promoting innovation, technology, and education as part of the program's progress plan and underscored the important role that academic health systems play in fostering the quality of patient care and patient outcomes (207). However, stakeholders need to develop additional policies to ensure that incentives are suitably aligned to balance costs and innovation, and that accountability is not inappropriately shifted to health systems.

In addition to the Maryland all-payer model, the Vermont All-Payer Accountable Care Organization (ACO) Model established state and ACO-level accountability for health outcomes for the state's population, aiming to incentivize the collaboration between the care delivery and public health systems. The Vermont All-Payer ACO Model is distinct from the state's prior consideration and eventual rejection of a single-payer financing system. There has been some early success with the Vermont All-Payer ACO Model. High-risk Medicaid beneficiaries in the program are using primary care, behavioral health, and pharmacy benefits at higher rates than other beneficiaries, and the percentage of beneficiaries with early to late-stage disease who did not have a primary care visit fell from 4% to 2%. Emergency department visits and hospitalizations also dropped during the first 9 months (208).

Massachusetts Health Care Growth Benchmark. In 2012, Massachusetts enacted a new law establishing a health care cost growth benchmark, a statewide target for the rate of growth of total health care expenditures (THCEs). The THCE includes all medical expenses paid to “providers” by public and private payers, all patient cost-sharing amounts, and the net cost of private insurance. The THCE is calculated on a per capita basis to account for population growth and includes both public and private payers to reduce the likelihood of cost shifting. The law also established the Health Policy Commission (HPC) responsible for regulating costs and setting annual limits on health care cost growth for providers and payers. The HPC does not set rates, instead relying on transparency to steer the market. The HPC monitors the health care market and develops policy to support a sustainable health care system. Since 2016, the HPC has had the authority to require health care entities, including physicians, hospitals, physician groups, and insurance carriers, with excessive cost growth that threatens the cost growth benchmark to implement performance improvement plans and submit to ongoing monitoring (209).

In 2014, statewide health care spending increased by 2.3%, which was 1.3% below the 2013 benchmark. In the second year, statewide health care expenditures increased 1.2% over the benchmark. The HPC found that over one half of this growth was due to prescription drug spending and higher Medicaid enrollment from the ACA's eligibility expansion. As a result, no health care entities have been required to implement performance improvement plans (210).

The ACP believes that all-payer models, global budgets, or health care cost benchmarks play a role in reducing health care cost expenditures. However, implementing these types of policies alone cannot address unsustainable cost trends. For these models to be successful, stakeholders, including physicians, policymakers, patients, and the public, must be supportive of the effort and work to assess, identify, and align the needs of all parties, and include appropriate funding levels and merits for success.

12. The American College of Physicians recommends ongoing study of implemented health system budget reforms that measure the potential effects of the policy changes and identify and mitigate unintended consequences.

The ACP believes that when developing or implementing strategies to reduce health care costs and promote high-value care, efforts should aim to mitigate potential negative downstream effects. Policymakers should be committed to continuously refining strategies implemented to reflect consumers' needs and the health system landscape.

Hospitals and physicians look to consolidate in order to increase market share or expand capabilities. One study showed that hospital consolidation improved integration and reduced duplicative practices and costs, leading to operating cost reductions of 15% to 30% (211). Other literature has shown that the merging of 2 hospitals results in substantial price increases, especially in concentrated markets (212). Since 2010, health care markets have become more concentrated, physicians have joined larger physician groups and organizations, and more physicians are employed by hospitals (213). Although consolidation in the health care market is not inherently negative, too much market concentration as the result of consolidation may result in increased costs. The same study that found cost reductions resulting from hospital consolidation also found that these lower operating costs did not translate to lower prices paid by patients. In fact, it found that hospital consolidation led to price increases of 6% to 18%. If implementation of a global budget or all-payer system is being attempted, special attention should be paid to whether the program is structured in such a way that it could result in consolidation of hospitals or health systems and that creates market concentration negatively affecting patient costs and access, particularly in rural communities. Such effects were seen in Taiwan after the introduction of global budgets (214).

There are many policies that do not prohibit consolidation but would add additional layers of transparency and regulation to mergers needed to evaluate and modify policies as needed. These include requiring data transparency, cost containment, and leveling of prices that align with other ACP recommendations on reducing the cost of care. For example, private and public insurers should make detailed claims data readily available to public agencies and private researchers, enabling researchers and government officials to assess how the latest types of consolidations affect both costs and quality (215). In addition, regulatory agencies that are tasked with enforcing antitrust law could focus explicitly on this trade-off when they examine health care and health insurance markets (216).

Special attention should be paid to underserved or disadvantaged communities and populations, such as those in rural areas, health professional shortage areas, or communities with a high prevalence of negative health outcomes associated with social determinants of health. Access to care is a social determinant, because areas negatively affected by social determinants can lack health care facilities or physicians. Hospitals and physicians are moving away from urban areas and areas with low-income populations into more affluent areas, affecting the ability of patients in these areas to access care. The number of hospitals in 52 major U.S. cities dropped by nearly one half, and more than one half of federally designated primary care shortage areas in those major metropolitan areas have high poverty rates (217). Underlying social and economic conditions are primary drivers of social determinants of health, and ensuring that all-payer models, global budgeting models, or other approaches consider the needs of the community at large will be critical to the success of these programs and population health.

Reference Pricing

13. The American College of Physicians supports the adoption of well-designed reference pricing programs for certain elective health care goods and services based on timely, accurate, and accessible local market pricing data supported by all-payer claims databases (APCDs).

The price of health care goods and services in the United States is highly variable. Reference pricing, a cost-containment tool where a payer or employer sets a maximum amount that it will contribute to a good or service and the enrollee pays the remainder, has been used by a number of European Union countries and tested in the United States. Reference pricing is most conducive to goods and services that consumers can shop for ahead of time, such as nonurgent prescription drugs, tests, and procedures. A reference pricing program for knee and hip replacement surgeries initiated by the California Public Employees' Retirement System led to $2.8 million in savings in 2011, with 84.6% of the savings resulting from hospitals lowering their prices (218). In 2013, a national association of 55 Catholic organizations that purchase health insurance for their employees implemented reference pricing for retail drugs. After implementing reference pricing, the average price paid by the association decreased by 14% and generated $1.3 million in employer savings (219).

Another study measured the association between implementation of reference pricing and patient choice of facility, test prices, out-of-pocket spending, and insurer spending on computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging procedures and concluded that reference pricing was associated with price reductions and lower out-of-pocket costs (220). In addition, reference pricing appears not to be associated with an increase in complications or reduction in quality compared with non–reference-based benefits (221, 222).

Although reference pricing has the potential to reduce spending, there are concerns about and limitations to the policy, including political opposition to government price controls, the effect on patients with low socioeconomic status, and complexity (223, 224). In addition, physicians may not be willing to lower prices for services unless they can count on gaining volume to compensate for lower prices, and low-cost physicians may raise their prices in response to reference pricing (225).

The ACP supports state-level legislation that would require public and private health plans to submit standardized data to APCDs and federal grants to support the development of APCDs (226) to gather price information and determine potential cost savings. An analysis using information from the Colorado All-Payer Claims Database found that better aligning prices paid by commercial insurers with those paid by Medicare could result in a $49 to $178 million reduction in annual spending by commercial health payers (227). The ACP strongly supports increased health care price transparency, the establishment of APCDs, and prohibitions on “gag clauses” or other contractual agreements that impede transparency (228).

14. The American College of Physicians supports the rational stewardship of health care resources through the incorporation of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) into coverage or pricing determinations made by public and private purchasers, as well as the incorporation of value statements into clinical guidelines.

Cost-effectiveness analyses can promote efficiency by assessing the value of health care interventions. In 1996, the U.S. Public Health Service made a series of recommendations to standardize methods of cost analysis. This led to an increase in the number of published health care CEAs from 34 annually per year between 1990 and 1999 to more than 500 annually per year between 2010 and 2014 (229). However, application of CEAs across health care interventions is highly inconsistent. Forty-six percent of recent CEAs evaluated drugs, whereas only 22% evaluated surgical or medical procedures, possibly contributing to less efficient use of high-cost health care interventions, such as surgeries that are not cost-effective (229).

Recommendations advocate that CEAs report findings as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) to provide a common measure that incorporates both morbidity and mortality across disease areas (230, 231). There is a lack of consistency and understanding about the role of CEAs and QALYs and their overall impact on patients and the health system that hinders their potential use in value-based decision making (232). As recently as 2016, the U.S. Second Panel on Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine recommended measuring health effects in QALYs as part of CEA and called for development of an “impact inventory,” to better understand the health and nonhealth consequences of interventions (233). The United Kingdom has incorporated QALYs into their guidance in Britain since the 1990s. A series of economic crises, social crises, and softening of the political climate led to the operationalization of QALYs for health care decision making (234). Many who are opposed to QALYs worry that the United States would take a rigid approach like the United Kingdom's (235). In an effort to gain bipartisan support and counter claims that use of QALYs would negatively affect access to care, Congress explicitly prohibited the use of CEA in Medicare as part of the ACA, and policymakers remain reluctant to adopt CEA because of concern that it would be considered rationing of care (236).

However, considering the cost-effectiveness or value of health care interventions in clinical practice guidelines can promote cost-conscious, high-value, patient-centered care. Recent clinical guidelines by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) on cardiovascular disease management include value statements about some high-cost treatment options, such as proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors, and found that the treatment price would need to be reduced to between $4250 and $6319 to make the drug cost effective to the health care system (237, 238). The ACC/AHA guidelines note whether there is known economic value to using the drug for certain patient populations or whether there is no known economic value compared with other therapies (239).

The ACP recommends that to distribute health care resources effectively, sufficient resources should be devoted to CEA in a transparent way; considers stakeholder input; and reflects societal value, patient needs, and other criteria (108). The ACP recognizes concerns that including CEA in coverage decision making might lead to claims of rationing of care and socioeconomic biases. However, ACP believes that choosing among clinically effective alternatives based on evidence of value is not the same as rationing (108). Current prohibitions on using CEA in determinations about price thresholds or coverage determinations should be eliminated to allow for additional flexibility in coverage determinations in a way that protects patients and abides by nondiscrimination language. Cost-effectiveness analysis should be used along with other metrics, including budgetary and economic impact, comparative effectiveness, impact on non–health care–related factors, and patient access to needed therapies.

Conclusion

The United States is the the only wealthy industrialized country without universal health coverage. It spends more on health care than its peers, and spending is growing at an unsustainable rate, care is unaffordable for many Americans (including insured persons), and health outcomes lag behind those of countries with universal coverage. The ACP believes that achieving universal coverage and access is an ethical obligation. The positions recommended in this paper will help achieve ACP's vision of a better health care system, as described in “Envisioning a Better U.S. Health Care System for All: A Call to Action from the American College of Physicians” (1), including a system where everyone will have coverage for and access to the care they need, at a cost they and the country can afford.

Appendix: Prominent “Transformational” Proposals to Achieve Universal Coverage in the United States

Among questions to consider in evaluating these and other proposals:

Does this proposal achieve universal health coverage?

Will this proposal allow Americans to keep the coverage they already have or enroll in a new insurance program? Is this coverage portable, or is it tied to an employer, state of residence, or other factor?

Is coverage more affordable than what is offered through Medicare or the typical large employer-sponsored insurance plan? Will low-income individuals be able to afford coverage?

Does this proposal make enrollment compulsory or voluntary?

Is coverage more or less generous than what is widely available now? Is an essential benefit package provided?

How are physicians and other health care providers affected? Would they be required to participate in the new proposal? How are they reimbursed?

How are private insurers treated under this proposal? How are Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veterans Administration system affected? Will enrollees have access to any participating physician, or will provider networks be used?

How are costs controlled? Through global budgets, price controls, cost sharing, comparative effectiveness programs, etc.? Is eligibility limited to United States citizens and/or legal residents? Are undocumented immigrants allowed to enroll?

The Appendix Table summarizes the proposals discussed below.

Appendix Table. Prominent “Transformational” Proposals to Achieve Universal Coverage in the United States

Prominent Single-Payer Proposals

Note: The following proposals are examples of how a single-payer model could be structured. Inclusion in this section does not mean that ACP endorses or does not endorse the proposal.

S. 1804, Medicare for All Act of 2017 (Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-VT): This paper considers the Medicare for All legislation sponsored by Sen. Bernie Sanders. A 2019 version (and a similar House version sponsored by Rep. Pramila Jayapal) is similar but includes important changes, such as a long-term service and supports benefit.

Hagopian and Goldman; Ed Dolan, Niskanen Center; others—universal catastrophic health coverage (UCC): This proposal would provide private-insured catastrophic coverage. This paper primarily considers a UCC program by Hagopian and Goldman (240). Another version was developed by Milton Friedman (241).

New York Health Act (NYHA): The NYHA is a proposal being considered in the New York state legislature, which would create a single-payer health plan called “New York Health” (NYH). The following information is from a RAND Corporation research report on the proposal authored by Liu and colleagues (128). This plan illustrates how a state-based, single-payer proposal could function.

Physicians for a National Health Plan: Physicians' Proposal for Single-Payer Health Care Reform (Gaffney, Woolhandler, and colleagues): The Physicians for a National Health Plan (PNHP) proposal would replace the current multipayer system with a single-payer, government-administered national health program (NHP) (242). The NHP would be similar to traditional Medicare, but without such components as private insurers, cost sharing, and restrictions on long-term care coverage. Physicians and other health care professionals would largely remain privately employed, although hospitals and other facilities would be nonprofit and subject to global budgets.

Eligibility

Sen. Sanders' bill: This would establish a universal Medicare program (UMP) to provide health care benefits to residents of the United States. Eligibility could be extended to nonresidents, including undocumented immigrants, although efforts would have to be taken to inhibit travel and immigration to the United States for the sole purpose of getting health insurance.

UCC proposal: Hagopian and Goldman's proposal (240) would be extended to all legal residents not enrolled in Medicare or Medicaid.

NYHA proposal: All residents of New York would be enrolled in NYH, including undocumented immigrants and persons older than 65 years, pending federal waivers.

Physicians for a National Health Plan NHP proposal: The NHP would cover “every American,” so it is unclear whether undocumented immigrants would be eligible.

Role of Public and Private Insurers

Sen. Sanders' bill: After a transitional period, the UMP would largely replace the current system of private and publicly financed insurance programs (243, 244). The Department of Veterans Affairs and Indian Health Service programs would remain. Medicaid coverage for certain long-term care benefits would continue. Private health insurance, employer-sponsored insurance, and retiree insurance would be prohibited except for supplemental insurance to cover benefits not provided under UMP.

UCC proposal: Private insurers would provide UCC coverage. One version would “render Medicaid unnecessary” by setting the UCC deductible to zero. Hagopian and Goldman's proposal (240) would be offered to any American not covered by public insurance; each eligible person would receive a high-deductible plan provided by a private insurer contracted by the federal government.

NYHA: Commercial health insurance would largely be replaced by NYH, although nonprofit entities may be contracted to provide coordination services. The proposal would not bar employers from offering health coverage, but since all employers would be subject to a payroll tax to help fund the NYH, Liu and colleagues (128) assume that employers will not sponsor coverage for their employees. The Veterans Health Administration may continue to serve New York veterans.

Physicians for a National Health Plan NHP proposal: Private insurance that overlaps with NHP coverage would be prohibited.

Benefits and Cost Sharing

Sen. Sanders' bill: Services will be covered “if medically necessary or appropriate for the maintenance of health or for the diagnosis, treatment, or rehabilitation of a health condition.” The benefit package is similar to the Affordable Care Act's essential health benefit package required of nongroup and small group plans, but also includes oral health, audiology, and vision services for adults. Benefits will be provided without cost sharing, including deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments. At the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) discretion, a cost-sharing schedule may be applied to certain prescription drugs and biologics. A new Medicaid long-term care program may also have cost sharing. The HHS would be authorized to negotiate prices for prescription drugs, medical devices, and medically necessary assistive equipment, and a prescription drug formulary that emphasizes generics would be established.

UCC proposal: This would protect enrollees from major medical expenses with a high-deductible insurance plan that covers most of medical costs after the deductible is met. Medical expenses for low-income people would be fully paid for. Under Hagopian and Goldman's policy (240), the deductible is income-based and pegged at 10% of a family's surplus income. A 5% coinsurance charge is applied until the out-of-pocket cap set at 10 times the deductible is reached. Employers or supplemental insurance could pay for the care subject to the deductible. Certain preventive care and “exceptionally high-value treatments” would be exempt from the deductible.

NYHA: The benefit package would include services covered by Medicare, Medicaid, and the ACA Essential Health Benefit Package. It is also assumed that dental and vision services would be covered and cosmetic surgery, infertility treatments, and adult orthodontics would not. Long-term care services are not offered initially, but a commission would be formed to create a plan to provide such benefits. Health plans could not offer benefits that overlap with NYH's coverage, but physicians would be permitted to directly contract with patients. Prescription drug coverage would be based on the Medicaid Preferred Drug Program, although “other existing programs could be applied.” Other elements include exclusion of brand-name drugs when an equivalent generic is available and use of preferred brand-name drugs when they are more affordable than generic equivalent.

Physicians for a National Health Plan NHP proposal: Cost sharing would be prohibited. All medically necessary services would be covered, “including mental health, rehabilitation and dental care.” The benefit package and formulary would be determined by panels of experts and patient advocates. Services deemed ineffective would not be covered. Long-term care services for the disabled would be covered. Local public agencies with consultation from physicians, social workers, and other health care professionals would evaluate eligibility and coordinate care for long-term care services.

Provider Role and Payment

Sen. Sanders' bill: Physicians and other health care professionals can only be prohibited from participating if they are unable to provide covered services. Providers may enter into private contracts with beneficiaries as long as no claims for the services provided will be submitted to the UMP. Balance billing is prohibited for services provided under the UMP benefit package. The HHS would establish a fee schedule for UMP benefit reimbursement in a way that is consistent with processes for determining payments for items and services under Medicare. Medicare payment reform activities or demonstrations planned or implemented as of the date of enactment (including the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act and Affordable Care Act) shall apply to benefits under the Act. The bill would also mandate more regular reviews of the relative value of physicians' services, direct HHS to consult with MedPAC, and other processes to ensure accurate valuation of services.

UCC: In Hagopian and Goldman's proposal (240), an online database with price and quality ratings for all health care providers and goods and services would be developed.

NYHA: At first, payment rates would be based on fee-for-service model and be set by the NYH Board of Trustees on the basis of collective negotiations with provider representatives. Per-enrollee care coordination payments would also be available. Rates must be “reasonable and reasonably related to the cost of efficiently providing the health care service and assuring an adequate and accessible supply of the health care service.” The NYHA may move to a non–fee-for-service system in the future, but the proposal is vague on details.

Physicians for a National Health Plan NHP proposal: Physicians and other outpatient health care professionals would be paid by using a fee schedule based on rates negotiated by the NHP and representatives of health professionals. The fee schedule would make adjustments “to attenuate discrepancies between cognitive and procedural care.” Those working in hospitals, clinics and other facilities, health maintenance organizations, and integrated health systems would be salaried. Hospitals would be funded by a global budget and for-profit hospitals would be converted to nonprofit structures with a refund to compensate for investments. Capital investments would be funded by appropriations and regional health planning boards would allocate funds.

Financing

Sen. Sanders' bill: Funding designated for Medicare, Medicaid, Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, and some other federal health programs would be shifted to the new UMP Trust Fund. Sen. Sanders has offered options for raising revenue to pay for the program, including an income-based premium paid by employers, 4% income based premium paid by households, raising the personal income tax (40% on income between $250 000 and $500 000 up to 52% on income above $10 million), taxes on financial institutions and offshore accounts, and other options.

UCC: Hagopian and Goldman (240) would establish a UCC benefit funded by a dedicated per capita tax. Low-income subsidies would be offset by changes in the health insurance tax exclusions.

NYHA: Existing state and federal spending for Medicaid, Medicare, and other health programs would be pooled to fund the NYH plan (assuming waivers are approved by federal government). Additional funding would be raised through state payroll and nonpayroll income taxes (on interest dividends, capital gains). Eighty percent of the payroll tax would be paid by employers and employees would furnish the remainder. These new taxes would be progressively graduated, so higher-income individuals would pay a larger proportion.

Physicians for a National Health Plan NHP proposal: Total expenditures would be capped at the “same proportion of [Gross Domestic Product] as the year prior to [NHP's] establishment.” The proposal lacks detail on how revenue for NHP would be raised but progressive taxes are mentioned as one option that would also reduce income inequality, which the PNHP says is a social determinant of poor health. All public funds currently spent on health care, including Medicare and Medicaid and tax subsidies for employer-based insurance, would be directed to the NHP budget. Long-term care services would be funded through a global budget for a designated area and provided by contracted caregivers and other professionals or through a capitated payment or global budget directed to integrated provider organizations.

Transition From Current to New System

Sen. Sanders' bill: The program would not be implemented immediately for adults, so the bill establishes transitional coverage options. These include a Medicare buy-in option with phased-in eligibility for those aged 35 to 55 years; a transitional public option on the ACA health insurance marketplace, with enhanced cost-sharing subsidies; and more generous benefits for traditional Medicare, such as zero deductibles for parts A and B.

Prominent Proposals for Public Choice or Medicare Choice

Note: The following proposals are examples of how a public choice model could be structured. ACP has not formally endorsed any of the following proposals.

Medicare Part E (for Everyone): This proposal was developed by Jacob Hacker, Yale University professor and director of the Institution for Social and Policy Studies (245).

Medicare Extra for All: This proposal was developed by the Center for American Progress, which describes itself as an independent nonpartisan policy institute (142).

Eligibility

Medicare Part E: All legal nonelderly U.S. residents are automatically enrolled in Medicare Part E unless they have comprehensive employer-sponsored coverage or Medicaid. Undocumented immigrants would not be eligible for Part E coverage. According to an analysis from the Century Foundation, 212 million Americans would be eligible for Medicare Part E (246).

Medicare Extra for All: Medicare Extra is structured to provide universal coverage for all lawfully residing Americans over a period of 8 years from enactment.

Role of Public and Private Insurers

Medicare Part E: Employers would have the option of either offering private insurance (with benefits that are at least as generous as those under Medicare Part E) or pay for a portion of their employees' (and their families') Part E coverage. In the latter scenario, employees would be automatically enrolled in Part E. Independent contractors and the self-employed would also be enrolled in the new program. Medicare Advantage plans would be required to offer coverage to the Part E population.

Medicare Extra for All: Those covered by existing public or private insurance would become eligible to enroll in Medicare Extra. Newborns and those turning 65 years of age would be automatically enrolled in Medicare Extra. Those without any sort of coverage would be automatically enrolled at the point of care. Medicaid and CHIP are integrated into Medicare Extra. Employers would be able to continue offering coverage to their employees, but would have to meet a minimum benefit standards comparable to the Medicare Extra benefit package. Employers could also contribute to the cost of Medicare Extra for their employees. Small employers are exempt. Medicare Advantage would be renamed “Medicare Choice” and be required to meet new standards.

Benefits and Cost Sharing

Medicare Part E: This would combine Parts A (hospital benefits), B (physician, outpatient, etc.), and D (prescription drugs) into a single package. The component and its risk pool would be separate from the existing Medicare program that mainly covers elderly persons. Premiums would be income adjusted, with lower-income individuals paying “a limited amount.” Hacker (245) estimates that the most a higher-income enrollee would pay is around $300 a month for family coverage. Hacker's article mentions that Medicare Part E would cover Medicare's hospital, physician, and prescription drug package, but a report from the Urban Institute (247) mentions that the proposal would cover the ACA essential health benefit package. Whether the Medicare Part E benefit package would be altered to include services from the ACA essential benefit package but omitted from Medicare is unclear. Out-of-pocket costs for current Medicare beneficiaries would be capped.

Medicare Extra for All: Medicare Extra guarantees a benefit package that covers the 10 essential health benefit categories, plus additional services including dental, vision, and hearing services and early and periodic screening and treatment services for children. Long-term services and supports are covered for elderly and people with disabilities. Provides universal coverage of home and community-based services. Families with incomes below 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL) would have premiums of zero; those between 150% and 500% of the FPL would have premiums ranging between 0% and 10% of income; those with incomes over 500% of the FPL would have premiums capped at 10% of income. Deductibles, copayments, and out-of-pocket limits would be determined on the basis of income. Further, copayments would be lower for care received by providers of high-quality care.

Provider Role and Payment

Medicare Part E: Medicare Part E would use Medicare provider payment rates (Hacker [245] does not indicate whether Medicare-participating physicians and hospitals would be required to also participate in Part E). Medicaid payment would be increased to parity with Medicare (Hacker references the ACA here, which required temporary Medicare–Medicaid pay parity for certain evaluation and management codes. It is unclear whether this proposal would be limited to those services or include all Medicaid services).

Medicare Extra for All: Provider payment rates under Medicare Extra would reference current Medicare rates and would reflect an average of Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial rates, minus a percentage. These payments would be site-neutral. Primary care average rates would be increased by 20% compared with certain specialty care rates on a budget-neutral basis. Employer-sponsored plans would be prohibited from reimbursing out-of-network providers more than the Medicare Extra rates. Hospitals would be reimbursed for a bundle of services received within 90 days of discharge. Providers who participate in Medicare would also participate in Medicare Extra. Providers would need to report only one set of quality measures and credentials to the Center for Medicare Extra. Claims and payment would be transmitted electronically, utilizing electronic health records.

Financing

Medicare Part E: Savings would be garnered by allowing Part E to use Medicare reimbursement rates, which are substantially lower than those of private insurance plans. Hacker (245) predicts this would drive down private insurer rates as commercial plans face competitive pressure from the new program. Medicare would be allowed to negotiate on prescription drug prices. Revenue would be needed to subsidize Part E premiums and cost sharing and fund Medicaid pay parity. The Medicare tax would be increased to help offset the cost of better benefits for current Medicare beneficiaries. Hacker also mentions the possibility of an income tax surcharge on “extremely high-income households” to help pay for the program.

Medicare Extra for All: Drug, medical devices, and durable medical equipment prices would be negotiated; savings would be garnered from lower payment rates to physicians and other health care professionals. High-income earners would pay surtax on adjusted gross income, Medicare payroll and net investment income taxes would be increased, and capital gains tax would be assessed upon assets at death. The employer-sponsored insurance tax deduction would be capped and alcohol and tobacco excise taxes would be raised. In addition, states that did not expand Medicaid would pay maintenance-of-effort payments to the federal government.

Transition From Current to New System

Medicare Extra for All: First year of enactment: A public option for bare counties will be offered by the Center for Medicare Extra.

Year 2: The public option will be expanded to other counties.

Year 4: Medicare Extra will be launched, with newborns and those turning 65 years of age being autoenrolled; employer-based insurance and Medicare enrollees can transition to Medicare Extra;

Year 6: Medicaid and CHIP will transition to Medicare Extra.

Year 8: Large employers can sponsor Medicare Extra for employees.

Other Approaches

Health Policy Consensus Group/Heritage Foundation Health Care Choices Proposal (HCCP): This proposal is focused on helping individuals purchase private health insurance, rather than achieving universal coverage. It was offered after ACA repeal attempts in 2017 failed (248).

Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity universal tax credit plan (UTCP): This proposal, developed by Avik Roy (249), would affect the ACA marketplaces, Medicaid expansion, the Veterans Health Administration, Medicare, and other areas of the U.S. health care system. The section below focuses on the ACA marketplace and Medicaid expansion aspects of the plan.

Urban Institute Healthy American Program (HAP): This proposal, developed by the Urban Institute (246), builds on the ACA. It shares elements with the public choice option model but would not achieve universal coverage, mainly because it does not include an individual mandate.

Eligibility

Health Policy Consensus Group/Heritage Foundation HCCP: ACA coverage programs would be repealed, and a state-based block grant would be established in their place. The state block grants would be used to “help the low-income and sick access the care they need.” The Medicaid population would have the option of using Medicaid dollars to purchase private insurance. States may provide incentives to insurers to give discounts to individuals who maintain continuous coverage; there would be no individual mandate.

Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity UTCP: The UTCP seeks to “expand coverage well above ACA levels” while reducing the federal deficit and health care costs. It would repeal the ACA's individual mandate and employer mandate and give regulatory authority to states. States could automatically enroll residents in a default insurance plan, providing the enrollee can opt-out. In addition, the proposal would increase the eligibility age for Medicare. The acute care Medicaid population (that is, not the long-term care population) would be transferred to the premium assistance program. Those receiving care through the Veterans Health Administration could opt to receive premium assistance to purchase private care instead.

Urban Institute HAP: This would affect all lawfully present people younger than 65 years. The authors concede that “most of the remaining uninsured would be undocumented immigrants” and the proposal “approaches” universal coverage. The Veterans Affairs health program, TRICARE, Indian Health Service, and Federal Employees Health Benefits Program would be maintained. The authors estimate that the number of people with coverage would grow by nearly 16 million.

Role of Public and Private Insurers

Health Policy Consensus Group/Heritage Foundation HCCP: The ACA's premium tax credits, cost-sharing reduction payments, and Medicaid expansion funding would be redirected to fund a block grant for each state. Initially, the block grant amount would be based on ACA spending, but after a certain period, the amount would be based on the number of low-income residents in the state. Block grant, Medicaid expansion, and CHIP populations would have the option to use premium assistance to buy private insurance. Subsidies could be used to buy direct primary care plans and health sharing ministry plans. The ACA medical loss ratio would be repealed.

Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity UCTP: The role of private insurers would grow under the proposal because the Medicaid acute care population would be transitioned to private insurance plans that are federally financed with state-based oversight. Regulatory responsibility would be shifted to the states. States could set up an alternative means of distributing tax credits, such as an Internet-based insurance marketplace operated by a private company, instead of the ACA's marketplaces. Medical loss ratio rules are repealed.

Urban Institute HAP: This would replace the ACA marketplaces with a new program where the Medicaid acute care population, individual health insurance market enrollees, and CHIP enrollees would be combined in a “Medicare-style marketplace” with a single risk pool and a new government-administered public option. The employer-sponsored health insurance market and ACA individual insurance market regulations like guarantee issue would be maintained (250). Enrollees in this new market would choose from public plan coverage or private insurance. Nondiscrimination laws would be established to prevent employers from dropping coverage for sicker workers. The employer mandate would be eliminated. Low-income individuals would be autoenrolled into the Healthy America market, and those who remain uninsured would lose a portion of their standard tax deduction. Permanent reinsurance and risk adjustment mechanisms would prevent adverse selection in the HAP.

Benefits and Cost Sharing

Health Policy Consensus Group/Heritage Foundation HCCP: The proposal would repeal the ACA's essential health benefit requirement. Individual and small group benefits would be based on state benefit mandates. The 3-to-1 age rating band would be repealed. It is unclear whether preexisting condition protections (or premium rating rules, out-of-pocket limits, and more) would be repealed, although the proposal would “leverage sensible approaches to protect people with pre-existing conditions without making coverage so costly for the young and healthy” and describes a high-risk pool–like mechanism for covering patients with preexisting conditions. The block grant funding could not be used to fund abortions. Health savings account (HSA) contribution limits would be doubled and the types of HSA-compatible plans would be expanded to include any plan with an actuarial value of less than a certain number (for example, 70%).

Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity UCTP: The proposal would create a means-tested refundable tax credit. People with incomes up to 317% of the FPL would be eligible for a means-tested tax credit. The income-based eligibility threshold would be adjusted annually in line with an inflation-based index. It would maintain the ACA's metal-tier system for rating insurance plan generosity (with amended actuarial values where bronze is 40%, silver is 55%, and so on), guaranteed issue requirements, and lifetime and annual dollar limit prohibitions. Premiums could not be adjusted on the basis of gender or health status, but age-based adjustments of 6-to-1 rather than the current 3-to-1 would be allowed. The plan would reduce the “overall prescriptiveness” of the essential health benefit package to ensure that they would not “limit the value” of high-deductible insurance with HSAs.

The benchmark plan on which tax credits would be based will have an average deductible of $7000 per individual per year and $14 000 per family. Those eligible for premium support would receive an HSA contribution of $1800 per year for an individual and $3600 for a family; people with incomes under 250% of the FPL would receive a larger HSA credit. Subsidies could be used to purchase care through a direct primary care arrangement.

Urban Institute HAP: This plan would bolster the premium tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments to make coverage more affordable. Premium tax credits would be based on gold-level plans and comparable to average employer-based plans, instead of the second-lowest cost silver plan as under the ACA. Premiums are tied to income, like under the ACA, and range from 0% (for Medicaid acute care population) to 8.5% of annual income. The ACA's 400% FPL premium tax credit eligibility cap is eliminated. Cost-sharing subsidies are enhanced. A system for withholding and transferring HAP premium tax credits among employers and federal government would be created.

The HAP plans would cover the ACA's essential health benefit package, with additional benefits for low-income children, the current Medicaid-covered populations, and people with disabilities.

Provider Role and Reimbursement

Health Policy Consensus Group/Heritage Foundation HCCP: Not specified, although presumably reimbursement could change for some claims, such as if an individual currently enrolled in Medicaid uses the subsidy to purchase private insurance which typically pays physicians at a higher rate.

Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity UTCP: The proposal estimates that average provider access for the nonelderly adult population will improve by 4% and increase by 98% for Medicaid acute-care enrollees who transfer to the universal tax credit/private insurance program. Hospitals in very concentrated markets would be paid Medicare rates for treating the privately insured and the uninsured. The proposal would increase graduate medical assistance funding by $6 billion a year starting in 2016, move graduate medical education funding from public insurance to congressional appropriation, broaden the number of foreign visa for U.S. licensed immigrant physicians. The proposal would eliminate restrictions on physician-owned hospital construction. It would also allow reference pricing so insurers could give a cash-out benefit to enrollees to travel to other (cheaper) areas for care. It would also encourage the Federal Trade Commission to investigate hospital mergers to prevent consolidation.

Urban Institute HAP: “Provider” reimbursement rates for nongroup plans would be tied to Medicare levels. According to the authors, rate caps would increase insurer participation and address health system monopoly power in certain areas.

References

• 1. Doherty R, Cooney TG, Mire RD, et al; Health and Public Policy Committee and Medical Practice and Quality Committee of the American College of Physicians. Envisioning a better U.S. health care system for all: a call to action by the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2020;172:S3-S6. doi:10.7326/M19-2411 LinkGoogle Scholar
• 2. Erickson SM, Outland B, Joy S, et al; Medical Practice and Quality Committee of the American College of Physicians. Envisioning a better U.S. health care system for all: health care delivery and payment system reforms. Ann Intern Med. 2020;172:S33-S49. doi:10.7326/M19-2407 LinkGoogle Scholar
• 3. Butkus R, Rapp K, Cooney TG, et al; Health and Public Policy Committee of the American College of Physicians. Envisioning a better U.S. health care system for all: reducing barriers to care and addressing social determinants of health. Ann Intern Med. 2020;172:S50-S59. doi:10.7326/M19-2410 LinkGoogle Scholar
• 4. Collins SR, Gunja MZ, Doty MM. How well does insurance coverage protect consumers from health care costs? Findings from the Commonwealth Fund Biennial Health Insurance Survey, 2016. The Commonwealth Fund, 18 October 2017. Accessed at www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2017/oct/how-well-does-insurance-coverage-protect-consumers-health-care on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 5. Congressional Budget Office. Federal subsidies for health insurance coverage for people under age 65: 2019 to 2029. May 2019. Accessed at www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-05/55085-HealthCoverageSubsidies_0.pdf on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 6. Kaiser Family Foundation. Status of state action on the Medicaid expansion decision. Kaiser Family Foundation. 27 July 2018. Accessed at www.kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/state-activity-around-expanding-medicaid-under-the-affordable-care- on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 7. Crowley RA, Bornstein SS; Health and Public Policy Committee of the American College of Physicians. Improving the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's insurance coverage provisions: a position paper from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2019;170:651-3. [PMID: 30986852]. doi:10.7326/M18-3401 LinkGoogle Scholar
• 8. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Spending on health: latest trends. June 2018. Accessed at www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/Health-Spending-Latest-Trends-Brief.pdf on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 9. PwC Health Research Institute. Medical cost trend: behind the numbers. 2019. Accessed at www.pwc.com/us/en/health-industries/health-research-institute/assets/pdf/hri-behind-the-numbers-2019.pdf on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 10. Hartman M, Martin AB, Benson J, et al; The National Health Expenditure Accounts Team. National health care spending in 2018: growth driven by accelerations in Medicare and private insurance spending. Health Aff (Millwood). 2020;39. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2019.01451 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 11. Papanicolas I, Woskie LR, Jha AK. Health care spending in the United States and other high-income countries. JAMA. 2018;319:1024-39. [PMID: 29536101] doi:10.1001/jama.2018.1150 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 12. Sawyer B, Cox C. How does health spending in the U.S. compare to other countries? Peterson-Kaiser Health System Tracker. 7 December 2018. Accessed at www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/{POUND}item-average-wealthy-countries-spend-half-much-per-person-health-u-s-spends on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 13. Anderson GF, Reinhardt UE, Hussey PS, et al. It's the prices, stupid: why the United States is so different from other countries. Health Aff (Millwood). 2003;22:89-105. [PMID: 12757275] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 14. Hussey PS, Wertheimer S, Mehrotra A. The association between health care quality and cost: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:27-34. [PMID: 23277898]. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-158-1-201301010-00006 LinkGoogle Scholar
• 15. Kamal R, Cox C. How has U.S. spending on healthcare changed over time? Peterson-Kaiser Health System Tracker. 10 December 2018. Accessed at www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spending-healthcare-changed-time/{POUND}item-prices-have-historically-driven-health-services-spending-growth-but-use-is-now-the-primary-driver_2017 on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 16. Cooper Z, Craig S, Gaynor M, et al. Hospital prices grew substantially faster than physician prices for hospital-based care in 2007–14. Health Aff (Millwood). 2019;38:184-9. [PMID: 30715987] doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05424 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 17. Health Care Cost Institute. 2017 health care cost and utilization report. February 2019. Accessed at www.healthcostinstitute.org/images/pdfs/HCCI_2017_%20Health_%20Care_Cost_and_Utilization_Report_02.12.19.pdf on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 18. Cuckler GA, Sisko AM,  Poisal JA, et al. National health expenditure projections, 2017–26: despite uncertainty, fundamentals primarily drive spending growth. Health Aff (Millwood). 2018;37:482-92. [PMID: 29443634] doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1655 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 19. Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. Hospital inpatient and outpatient services. In: Report to the Congress: Medicare Payment Policy. March 2019. Accessed at www.medpac.gov/docs/default-source/reports/mar19_medpac_ch3_sec.pdf?sfvrsn=0 on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 20. American Academy of Actuaries. Prescription drug spending in the U.S. health care system. An actuarial perspective. March 2018. Accessed at www.actuary.org/sites/default/files/files/publications/PrescriptionDrugs.030718.pdf on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 21. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Pharmaceutical spending. Health at a Glance. 2017. Accessed at https://data.oecd.org/healthres/pharmaceutical-spending.htm on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 22. Hernandez I, Good CB, Cutler DM, et al. The contribution of new product entry versus existing product inflation in the rising costs of drugs. Health Aff (Millwood). 2019;38:76-83. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2018.0514 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 23. Jiwani A, Himmelstein D, Woolhandler S, et al. Billing and insurance-related administrative costs in United States' health care: synthesis of micro-costing evidence. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:556. [PMID: 25540104] doi:10.1186/s12913-014-0556-7 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 24. Woolhandler S , Campbell T, Himmelstein DU. Costs of health care administration in the United States and Canada. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:768-75. [PMID: 12930930] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 25. Congressional Budget Office. Private health insurance premiums and federal policy. February 2016. Accessed at www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/51130-Health_Insurance_Premiums.pdf on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 26. Woolhandler S, Himmelstein DU. Single-payer reform: the only way to fulfill the president's pledge of more coverage, better benefits, and lower costs. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166:587-8. [PMID: 28241256]. doi:10.7326/M17-0302 LinkGoogle Scholar
• 27. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 2015 annual report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds. July 2015. Accessed at www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/statistics-trends-and-reports/reportstrustfunds/downloads/tr2015.pdf on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 28. Morra D, Nicholson S, Levinson W, et al. US physician practices versus Canadians: spending nearly four times as much money interacting with payers. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30:1443-50. [PMID: 21813866] doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0893 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 29. Himmelstein DU, Jun M, Busse R, et al. A comparison of hospital administrative costs in eight nations: US costs exceed all others by far. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014;33:1586-94. [PMID: 25201663] doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2013.1327 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 30. Frakt A. The astonishingly high administrative costs of U.S. health care. New York Times. 16 July 2018. Accessed at www.nytimes.com/2018/07/16/upshot/costs-health-care-us.html on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 31. Kaiser Family Foundation. 2019 employer benefits survey. September 2019. Accessed at http://files.kff.org/attachment/Report-Employer-Health-Benefits-Annual-Survey-2019 on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 32. Kincaid E. Healthcare: it's the prices, stupid. Isn't it? Forbes. 13 March 2018. Accessed at www.forbes.com/sites/elliekincaid/2018/03/13/healthcare-its-the-prices-stupid-isnt-it/{POUND}9c6193f198a3 on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 33. Cockerham WC. Social Causes of Health and Disease. 2d ed. Cambridge, UK: Polity; 2013. Google Scholar
• 34. Cooksey-Stowers K, Schwartz MB, Brownell KD. Food swamps predict obesity rates better than food deserts in the United States. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14. [PMID: 29135909] doi:10.3390/ijerph24111366 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 35. Biener A, Cawley J, Meyerhoefer C. The high and rising costs of obesity to the US health care system [Editorial]. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;32:6-8. [PMID: 28271429] doi:10.1007/s11606-016-3968-8 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 36. Schneider EC, Sarnak DO, Squires D, et al. Mirror, mirror 2017: international comparison reflects flaws and opportunities for better U.S. health care. The Commonwealth Fund. 14 July 2017. Accessed at https://interactives.commonwealthfund.org/2017/july/mirror-mirror/ on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 37. Sawyer B, McDermott D. How does the quality of the U.S. healthcare system compare to other countries? Kaiser Family Foundation Health System Tracker. 22 May 2017. Accessed at www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/quality-u-s-healthcare-system-compare-countries/{POUND}item-30-day-mortality-heart-attacks-ischemic-stroke-lower-u-s-comparable-countries on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 38. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Health at a glance 2017. Accessed at https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/health-at-a-glance-2017_health_glance-2017-en{POUND}page91 on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 39. Woolf SH, Aron L, eds. U.S. Health in International Perspective. Washington: National Academies Press; 2013. Accessed at www.nap.edu/read/13497/chapter/1 on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 40. MacDorman MF, Matthews TJ, Mohangoo AD, et al. International comparisons of infant mortality and related factors: United States and Europe, 2010. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2014;63:1-6. [PMID: 25252091] MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 41. Chen A, Oster E, Williams H. Why is infant mortality higher in the United States than in Europe? Am Econ J Econ Policy. 2016;8:89-124. [PMID: 27158418] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 42. Foutz J, Squires E, Garfield R, et al. The uninsured: a primer. Kaiser Family Foundation. December 2017. Accessed at http://files.kff.org/attachment/Report-The-Uninsured-A-Primer-Key-Facts-about-Health-Insurance-and-the-Uninsured-Under-the-Affordable-Care-Act on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 43. Rae M, Claxton G, Levitt L, et al. Long-term trends in employer-based coverage. Peterson-Kaiser Health System Tracker. 30 January 2019. Accessed at www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/long-term-trends-in-employer-based-coverage/{POUND}item-start on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 44. Claxton G, Rae M, Damico A, et al. Health benefits in 2019: premiums inch higher, employers respond to federal policy. Health Aff (Millwood). 2019;38:1752-61. [PMID: 31553631] doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2019.01026 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 45. Girod C, Hart S, Liner D, et al. 2019 Milliman Medical Index. July 2019. Accessed at http://assets.milliman.com/ektron/2019-milliman-medical-index.pdf on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 46. Congressional Budget Office. Federal subsidies for health insurance coverage for people under age 65: 2019 to 2029. May 2019. Accessed at www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-05/55085-HealthCoverageSubsidies_0.pdf on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 47. Claxton G, Sawyer B, Cox C. How affordability of health care varies by income among people with employer coverage. Peterson-Kaiser Health System Tracker. 14 April 2019. Accessed at www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/how-affordability-of-health-care-varies-by-income-among-people-with-employer-coverage/{POUND}item-start on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 48. Strane D, French B, Eder J, et al. Low-income working families with employer-sponsored insurance turn to public insurance for their children. Health Aff (Millwood). 2016;35:2302-9. [PMID: 27920320] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 49. Miller GE, Vistnes JP, Rohde F, et al. High-deductible health plan enrollment increased from 2006 to 2016, employer-funded accounts grew in largest firms. Health Aff (Millwood). 2018;37:1231-7. [PMID: 30080451] doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2018.0188 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 50. Claxton G, Levitt L, Rae M, et al. Increases in cost-sharing payments continue to outpace wage growth. Peterson-Kaiser Health System Tracker. 15 June 2018. Accessed at www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/increases-in-cost-sharing-payments-have-far-outpaced-wage-growth/?_sft_category=access-affordability on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 51. Collins SR, Bhupal HK, Doty MM. Health insurance coverage eight years after the ACA: fewer uninsured Americans and shorter coverage gaps, but more underinsured. The Commonwealth Fund. February 2019. Accessed at www.commonwealthfund.org/sites/default/files/2019-02/Collins_hlt_ins_coverage_8_years_after_ACA_2018_biennial_survey_sb.pdf on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 52. Ginsburg PB. Health care market consolidations: impacts on costs, quality and access. Brookings. March 16, 2016. Accessed at www.brookings.edu/testimonies/health-care-market-consolidations-impacts-on-costs-quality-and-access/ on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 53. Parys JV. ACA marketplace premiums grew more rapidly in areas with monopoly insurers than in areas with more competition. Health Aff (Millwood). 2018;37:1243-51. [PMID: 30080465] doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2018.0054 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 54. Scheffler RM, Arnold DR, Whaley CM. Consolidation trends in California's health care system: impacts on ACA premiums and outpatient visit prices. Health Aff (Millwood). 2018;37:1409-16. [PMID: 30179552] doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2018.0472 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 55. Roberts ET, Chernew ME, McWilliams JM. Market share matters: evidence of insurer and provider bargaining over prices. Health Aff (Millwood). 2017;36:141-8. [PMID: 28069857] doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2016.0479 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 56. Liu JL. Exploring Single-Payer Alternatives for Health Care Reform. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation; 2016. Accessed at www.rand.org/pubs/rgs_dissertations/RGSD375.html on 16 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 57. Kulesher R, Forrestal E. International models of health systems financing. J Hosp Admin. 2014;3:127-139. Accessed at https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e7dc/e866df6e9af08d8bca79d55d2d3c6c8abd0c.pdf on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 58. Fincham JE. The healing of America: a global quest for better, cheaper, and fairer health care. Am J Pharm Educ. 2009;73:127. Accessed at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2779642 on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 59. Tanner MD. Universal health care not best option. Cato Institute. 23 February 2009. Accessed at www.cato.org/publications/commentary/universal-health-care-not-best-option on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 60. Institute of Medicine. Care Without Coverage: Too Little, Too Late. Washington, DC: National Academies Pr; 2002. Accessed at www.nap.edu/read/10367/chapter/1 on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 61. Evans DB , Hsu J, Boerma T. Universal health coverage and universal access [Editorial]. Bull World Health Organ. 2013;91:546-546A. [PMID: 23940398] doi:10.2471/BLT.13.125450 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 62. Somin I. A mandate for mandates: is the individual health insurance case a slippery slope?. Law and Contemporary Problems. 2012:75-106. Google Scholar
• 63. Moffit RE. Personal freedom, responsibility, and mandates. Health Aff (Millwood). 1994 Spring (II);13:101-4. [PMID: 8056365] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 64. He AJ. Introducing voluntary private health insurance in a mixed medical economy: are Hong Kong citizens willing to subscribe? BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17:603. [PMID: 28841880] doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2559-7 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 65. Capretta JC, Chen L, Dorn S. Making health insurance enrollment as automatic as possible. American Enterprise Institute. 3 May 2018. Accessed at www.aei.org/articles/making-health-insurance-enrollment-as-automatic-as-possible/ on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 66. World Health Organization. Arguing for universal health coverage. 2013. Accessed at www.who.int/health_financing/UHC_ENvs_BD.PDF on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 67. Healthcare-Now! History of single-payer legislation. Accessed at www.healthcare-now.org/legislation/national-timeline/ on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 68. Geyman J. Is national health insurance (Medicare for all) socialized medicine? Huffington Post. 9 August 2017. Accessed at www.huffingtonpost.com/john-geyman/is-national-health-insura_b_11392488.html on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 69. Pham K, Moffit RE. U.S. must avoid a single-payer health care system that stresses doctors to the breaking point. Heritage Foundation. 25 July 2018. Accessed at www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/commentary/us-must-avoid-single-payer-health-care-system-stresses-doctors-the on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 70. Liu JL,  Brook RH. What is single-payer health care? A review of definitions and proposals in the U.S. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;32:822-31. [PMID: 28493177] doi:10.1007/s11606-017-4063-5 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 71. Flieger SP. What we talk about when we talk about single payer. Health Affairs Blog. 19 September 2017. Accessed at www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20170919.062040/full/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Defining+Value+In+Health+Care%3B+Past+Frequent+Emergency+Department+Use+Predicts+Mortality&utm_campaign=HAT on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 72. Kliff S. Private health insurance exists in Europe and Canada. Here's how it works. Vox. 12 February 2019. Accessed at www.vox.com/health-care/2019/2/12/18215430/single-payer-private-health-insurance-harris-sanders on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 73. Boyle S. United Kingdom (England): health system review. Health Syst Transit. 2011;13:1-483, xix-xx. Accessed at www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/135148/e94836.pdf?ua=1 on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 74. Sorum P. Why internists might want single-payer health care. Ann Intern Med. 2018;168:438-9. [PMID: 29435572]. doi:10.7326/M17-2678 LinkGoogle Scholar
• 75. Woolhandler S , Himmelstein DU. Single-payer reform: the only way to fulfill the president's pledge of more coverage, better benefits, and lower costs. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166:587-8. [PMID: 28241256]. doi:10.7326/M17-0302 LinkGoogle Scholar
• 76. Paulton MM, Moffit RE. Why single-payer would make health care worse for Americans. Heritage Foundation. 26 September 2018. Accessed at www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/commentary/why-single-payer-would-make-health-care-worse-americans on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 77. Roy A. Socialized medicine is bad for your health. National Review. 3 June 2019. Accessed at www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2019/06/03/socialized-medicine-is-bad-for-your-health/ on 26 November 2019. Google Scholar
• 78. Seegert L. What single-payer healthcare would mean to doctors. Med Econ. 2016;93:54-8. Accessed at www.medicaleconomics.com/medical-economics-blog/what-single-payer-healthcare-would-mean-doctors on 26 November 2019. Google Scholar
• 79. Morgan SG, Boothe K. Universal prescription drug coverage in Canada: long-promised yet undelivered. Healthc Manage Forum. 2016;29:247-54. [PMID: 27744279] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 80. Baird B, Charles A, Honeyman M, et al. Understanding pressures in general practice. The King's Fund. May 2016. Accessed at www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/default/files/field/field_publication_file/Understanding-GP-pressures-Kings-Fund-May-2016.pdf on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 81. Tyssen R,  Palmer KS, Solberg IB, et al. Physicians' perceptions of quality of care, professional autonomy, and job satisfaction in Canada, Norway, and the United States. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:516. [PMID: 24330820] doi:10.1186/1472-6963-13-516 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 82. Cheng TM. Reflections on the 20th anniversary of Taiwan's single-payer national health insurance system. Health Aff (Millwood). 2015;34:502-10. [PMID: 25732502] doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2014.1332 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 83. Haeder SF. Would state-based single-payer health insurance cure what ails? Milken Institute Review. 28 October 2018. Accessed at www.milkenreview.org/articles/would-state-based-single-payer-health-insurance-cure-what-ails on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 84. Reinhart RJ. In the news: Americans' satisfaction with their healthcare. Gallup. 2 February 2018. Accessed at https://news.gallup.com/poll/226607/news-americans-satisfaction-healthcare.aspx on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 85. McCarthy J. Most Americans still rate their healthcare quite positively. Gallup. 7 December 2018. Accessed at https://news.gallup.com/poll/245195/americans-rate-healthcare-quite-positively.aspx on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 86. Fronstin P, Greenwald L. The state of employee benefits: findings from the 2017 Health and Workplace Benefits Survey. 10 April 2018. Accessed at www.ebri.org/health/publications/issue-briefs/content/the-state-of-employee-benefits-findings-from-the-2017-health-and-workplace-benefits-survey on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 87. Scott D. Is employer-sponsored insurance really a good deal for workers? Vox. 7 February 2019. Accessed at www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/12/14/18117917/medicare-for-all-single-payer-pros-cons-work-health-insurance?silverid=MzEwMTkxNDgwOTU0S0 on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 88. Hamel L, Muñana C, Brodie M. Kaiser Family Foundation/LA Times survey of adults with employer-sponsored insurance. Kaiser Family Foundation. 2 May 2019. Accessed at www.kff.org/report-section/kaiser-family-foundation-la-times-survey-of-adults-with-employer-sponsored-insurance-executive-summary/ on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 89. Skocpol T. The rise and resounding demise of the Clinton plan. Health Aff (Millwood). 1995;14:66-85. [PMID: 7657229] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 90. Jacobson L. Barack Obama says that what he'd said was you could keep your plan ‘if it hasn't changed since the law passed.' Politifact. 6 November 2013. Accessed at www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/nov/06/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-what-hed-said-was-you-could-keep/ on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 91. American College of Physicians. Developing a Medicare buy-in program. A position paper. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians; 2005. Accessed at www.acponline.org/system/files/documents/advocacy/current_policy_papers/assets/medicare_buyin.pdf on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 92. Fehr R, Cox C, Levitt L. Individual insurance market performance in early 2019. Kaiser Family Foundation. 27 June 2019. Accessed at www.kff.org/private-insurance/issue-brief/individual-insurance-market-performance-in-early-2019/ on 14 November 2019. Google Scholar
• 93. Fehr R, Cox C, Levitt L. Insurer participation on ACA marketplaces, 2014-2019. Kaiser Family Foundation. 14 November 2018. Accessed at www.kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/insurer-participation-on-aca-marketplaces-2014-2019/ on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 94. Gruber J, Madrian BC . Health insurance and job mobility: the effects of public policy on job-lock. Industrial and Labor Relations Review. 1994;48:86-102. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 95. Garfield R, Orgera K, Damico A. The coverage gap: uninsured poor adults in states that do not expand Medicaid. Kaiser Family Foundation. 21 March 2019. Accessed at www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/the-coverage-gap-uninsured-poor-adults-in-states-that-do-not-expand-medicaid/ on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 96. U.S. Government Accountability Office. Medicare Advantage: CMS should improve the accuracy of risk score adjustments for diagnostic coding practices. January 2012. Accessed at www.gao.gov/assets/590/587637.pdf on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 97. Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. Report to Congress: Medicare payment policy. March 2018. Accessed at www.medpac.gov/docs/default-source/reports/mar18_medpac_entirereport_sec.pdf on 26 November 2019. Google Scholar
• 98. U.S. Government Accountability Office. Medicare Advantage: actions needed to enhance CMS oversight of provider network adequacy. August 2015. Accessed at www.gao.gov/assets/680/672236.pdf on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 99. U.S. Government Accountability Office. CMS should use data on disenrollment and beneficiary health status to strengthen oversight. April 2017. Accessed at www.gao.gov/assets/690/684386.pdf on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 100. Claxton G, Politz K, Semanskee A, et al. Would states eliminate key benefits if AHCA waivers are enacted? Kaiser Family Foundation. 14 June 2017. Accessed at www.kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/would-states-eliminate-key-benefits-if-ahca-waivers-are-enacted/ on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 101. Colello KJ. Who pays for long-term services and supports? Congressional Research Service. 22 August 2018. Accessed at https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IF10343.pdf on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 102. Congressional Budget Office. Key components and considerations for establishing a single-payer health care system. May 2019. Accessed at www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-05/55150-singlepayer.pdf on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 103. Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. Medicare coverage policy and use of low-value care. In: Report to the Congress: Medicare and the Health Care Delivery System. June 2018. Accessed at www.medpac.gov/docs/default-source/reports/jun18_ch20_medpacreport_sec.pdf?sfvrsn=0 on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 104. Institute of Medicine. Essential health benefits: balancing coverage and cost. Report Brief. October 2011. Accessed at http://nationalacademies.org/hmd/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/2011/Essential-Health-Benefits-Balancing-Coverage-and-Cost/Essential%20Health%20Benefits%20RB_FINAL.pdf on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 105. Institute of Medicine. Essential Health Benefits: Balancing Coverage and Cost. Washington, DC: National Academies Pr; 2011. Accessed at www.nap.edu/catalog/13234/essential-health-benefits-balancing-coverage-and-cost on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 106. Dillon A, Landells LJ. NICE, the NHS, and cancer drugs. JAMA. 2018;319:767-8. [PMID: 29387883] doi:10.1001/jama.2017.20552 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 107. DiPrete B, Coffman D. A brief history of health services prioritization in Oregon. Oregon Health Authority. March 2007. Accessed at www.oregon.gov/oha/HPA/DSI-HERC/Documents/Brief-History-Health-Services-Prioritization-Oregon.pdf on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 108. American College of Physicians. How can our nation conserve and distribute health care resources effectively and efficiently? Policy paper. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians; 2011. Accessed at www.acponline.org/system/files/documents/advocacy/current_policy_papers/assets/health_care_resources.pdf on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 109. Sulmasy LS, Bledsoe TA; ACP Ethics, Professionalism and Human Rights Committee. American College of Physicians ethics manual: seventh edition. Ann Intern Med. 2019;170:S1-S32. [PMID: 30641552]. doi:10.7326/M18-2160 LinkGoogle Scholar
• 110. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD health statistics 2018: definitions, sources and methods. Private health insurance. June 2018. Accessed at www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/Table-of-Content-Metadata-OECD-Health-Statistics-2018.pdf on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 111. Rapaport C. Medigap: a primer. Congressional Research Service. 19 September 2012. Accessed at https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42745.pdf on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 112. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Do you have a Medigap policy with prescription drug coverage? CMS publication no. 1113. June 2005. Accessed at www.cms.gov/Medicare/Prescription-Drug-Coverage/CreditableCoverage/Downloads/11113.pdf on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 113. Institute of Medicine. Prototypes to extend coverage: descriptions and assessments. In: Insuring America's Health: Principles and Recommendations. Washington, DC: National Academies Pr; 2004. Accessed at www.nap.edu/read/10874/chapter/7 on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 114. Liu JL, Eibner C. National Health Spending Estimates Under Medicare for All. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2019. Accessed at www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3106.html on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 115. Consumers Health Forum of Australia. Growth of private care in public hospitals raises equity questions. 6 December 2017. Accessed at https://chf.org.au/media-releases/growth-private-care-public-hospitals-raises-equity-questions on 15 October 2019 Google Scholar
• 116. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Private health insurance use in Australian hospitals 2006-07 to 2015-16. Health Services Series Number 81. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2017. Accessed at www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/f95e7fc9-db3f-4e7e-a5f5-38f2f69cd539/aihw-hse-196.pdf.aspx?inline=true on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 117. Zhang X, Trish E, Sood N. Financial burden of healthcare utilization in consumer-directed health plans. Am J Manag Care. 2018;24:e115-e121. [PMID: 29668214] MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 118. Rau J. Surprise medical bills are what Americans fear most in paying for health care. California Healthline. 5 September 2018. Accessed at https://californiahealthline.org/news/surprise-medical-bills-are-what-americans-fear-most-in-paying-for-health-care/ on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 119. Cohen RA, Zammitti EP. High-deductible health plan enrollment among adults aged 18-64 with employment-based insurance coverage. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. NCHS Data Brief no. 317. August 2018. Accessed at www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db317.htm on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 120. Brook RH, Keeler EB, Lohr KN, et al. The Health Insurance Experiment: a classic RAND study speaks to the current health care reform debate. RAND Corporation. 2006. Accessed at www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9174.html on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 121. Artiga S, Ubri P, Zur J. The effects of premiums and cost sharing on low-income populations: updated review of research findings. Kaiser Family Foundation. 1 June 2017. Accessed at www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/the-effects-of-premiums-and-cost-sharing-on-low-income-populations-updated-review-of-research-findings/ on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 122. Wharam JF, Zhang F, Wallace J, et al. Vulnerable and less vulnerable women in high-deductible health plans experienced delayed breast cancer care. Health Aff (Millwood). 2019;38:408-15. [PMID: 30830830] doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05026 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 123. Cheng TM. The Taiwan health care system. International health care system profiles. The Commonwealth Fund. Accessed at https://international.commonwealthfund.org/countries/taiwan/ on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 124. Trivedi AN, Leyva B, Lee Y,  et al. Elimination of cost sharing for screening mammography in Medicare Advantage plans. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:262-9. [PMID: 29342379] doi:10.1056/NEJMsa1706808 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 125. Agarwal R, Gupta A, Fendrick AM. Value-based insurance design improves medication adherence without an increase in total health care spending. Health Aff (Millwood). 2018;37:1057-64. [PMID: 29985690] doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1633 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 126. Stecker EC, Ayanian JZ, Fendrick AM. Value-based insurance design: aligning incentives to improve cardiovascular care. Circulation. 2015;132:1580-5. [PMID: 26481563] doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.012584 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 127. American College of Physicians. Addressing the increasing burden of health insurance cost sharing. Position paper. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians; 2016. Accessed at www.acponline.org/acp_policy/policies/insurance_cost_sharing_2016.pdf 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 128. Liu JL, White C, Nowak SA, et al. An assessment of the New York Health Act: a single-payer option for New York State. Research report. RAND Corporation. 2018. Accessed at www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2424.html on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 129. Blahous C. The costs of a national single-payer healthcare system. Working paper. Mercatus Center at George Mason University. July 2018. Accessed at www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare-mercatus-working-paper-v1_1.pdf on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 130. Kessler G. Democrats seize on cherry-picked claim that ‘Medicare-for-all' would save $2 trillion. Washington Post. 7 August 2018. Accessed at www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/08/07/democrats-seize-on-cherry-picked-claim-that-medicare-for-all-will-save-2-trillion/?utm_term=.bfb4843a85ff on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 131. Thorpe KE. An analysis of Senator Sanders single payer plan. 27 January 2016. Accessed at www.healthcare-now.org/296831690-Kenneth-Thorpe-s-analysis-of-Bernie-Sanders-s-single-payer-proposal.pdf on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 132. Holahan J, Buettgens M, Clemans-Cope L, et al. The Sanders single-payer health care plan: the effect on national health expenditures and federal and private spending. Urban Institute. 9 May 2016. Accessed at www.urban.org/research/publication/sanders-single-payer-health-care-plan-effect-national-health-expenditures-and-federal-and-private-spending/view/full_report on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 133. Berenson R, Zuckerman S, Stockley K, et al. What if all physician services were paid under the Medicare fee schedule? An analysis using Medical Group Management Association data. Washington, DC: Medicare Payment Advisory Commission; March 2010. www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/28451/412051-What-if-All-Physician-Services-Were-Paid-Under-the-Medicare-Fee-Schedule-.PDF on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 134. Uccello CE. Expanding access to public insurance plans. American Academy of Actuaries. March 2019. Accessed at www.actuary.org/content/expanding-access-public-insurance-plans-0 on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 135. Gillis KD. Physicians' patient mix—a snapshot from the 2016 benchmark survey and changes associated with the ACA. American Medical Association. 2017. Accessed at www.ama-assn.org/sites/default/files/media-browser/public/health-policy/PRP-2017-physician-benchmark-survey-patient-mix.pdf on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 136. Dormont B, Péron M. Does health insurance encourage the rise in medical prices? A test on balance billing in France. In: French Economic Association (Association Française de Science Economique/AFSE) 64th Congress; Rennes, France; 22-24 June 2015. Paris; AFSE; 2015:24. Accessed at https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01518404/document on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 137. Hsiao WC, Knight AG, Kappel S, et al. What other states can learn from Vermont's bold experiment: embracing a single-payer health care financing system. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30:1232-41. [PMID: 21734195] doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0515 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 138. American College of Physicians. Medical liability reform: innovative solutions for a new health care system. Policy paper. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians; 2014. Accessed at www.acponline.org/acp_policy/policies/medical_liability_reform_2014.pdf on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 139. American College of Physicians. How is a shortage of primary care physicians affecting the quality and cost of medical care? White paper. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians; 2008. Accessed at www.acponline.org/acp_policy/policies/primary_care_shortage_affecting_hc_2008.pdf on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 140. Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. Report to the Congress: Medicare payment policy. March 2019. Accessed at http://medpac.gov/docs/default-source/reports/mar19_medpac_entirereport_sec.pdf?sfvrsn=0 on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 141. Zuckerman S, Shartzer A, Berenson R, et al. Analysis of disparities in physician compensation. A report by the Urban Institute and SullivanCotter for the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. January 2019. Accessed at www.medpac.gov/docs/default-source/contractor-reports/jan19_medpac_disparities_physiciancompensationreport_cvr_contractor_sec.pdf?sfvrsn=0 on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 142. CAP Health Policy Team. Medicare Extra for all: a plan to guarantee universal health coverage in the United States. Center for American Progress. 22 February 2018. Accessed at www.americanprogress.org/issues/healthcare/reports/2018/02/22/447095/medicare-extra-for-all/ on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 143. Freeman TR , Petterson S, Finnegan S, et al. Shifting tides in the emigration patterns of Canadian physicians to the United States: a cross-sectional secondary data analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16:678. [PMID: 27903252] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 144. Trish E, Ginsburg P, Gascue L, et al. Physician reimbursement in Medicare Advantage compared with traditional Medicare and commercial health insurance. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177:1287-95. [PMID: 28692718] doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.2679 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 145. Driscoll DL, Hiratsuka V, Johnston JM, et al. Process and outcomes of patient-centered medical care with Alaska Native people at Southcentral Foundation. Ann Fam Med. 2013;11 Suppl 1:S41-S49. [PMID: 23690385] doi:10.1370/afm.1474 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 146. Johnston JM, Smith JJ, Hiratsuka VY, et al. Tribal implementation of a patient-centred medical home model in Alaska accompanied by decreased hospital use. Int J Circumpolar Health. 2013;72. [PMID: 23984283] doi:10.3402/ijch.v72i0.20960 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 147. Mossiallos EE, Djordjevic A, Osborn R, et al, eds. International profiles of health care systems. The Commonwealth Fund. May 2017. Accessed at www.commonwealthfund.org/sites/default/files/documents/___media_files_publications_fund_report_2017_may_mossialos_intl_profiles_v5.pdf on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 148. Congressional Research Service. Immigration: frequently asked questions about “public charge.” EveryCRSReport.org. 19 September 2018. Accessed at www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R45313.html on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 149. Ku L, Matani S. Left out: immigrants' access to health care and insurance. Health Aff (Millwood). 2001;20:247-56. [PMID: 11194848] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 150. Perreira KM, Pedroza JM . Policies of exclusion: implications for the health of immigrants and their children. Annu Rev Public Health. 2019;40:147-66. [PMID: 30601722] doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040218-044115 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 151. Suarez JJ. Strategies for responding to undocumented immigrants with kidney disease. AMA J Ethics. 2019;21:E86-92. [PMID: 30672424] doi:10.1001/amajethics.2019.86 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 152. Cervantes L, Tuot D, Raghavan R,  et al. Association of emergency-only vs standard hemodialysis with mortality and health care use among undocumented immigrants with end-stage renal disease. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178:188-95. [PMID: 29255898] doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.7039 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 153. Kaiser Family Foundation. Health coverage of immigrants. 15 February 2019. Accessed at www.kff.org/disparities-policy/fact-sheet/health-coverage-of-immigrants/?wpisrc=nl_health202&wpmm=1 on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 154. American College of Physicians. National immigration policy and access to health care. Policy paper. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians; 2011. Accessed at www.acponline.org/acp_policy/policies/natl_immigration_policy_access_healthcare_2011.pdf on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 155. Han S, Shanafelt TD, Sinsky CA, et al. Estimating the attributable cost of physician burnout in the United States. Ann Intern Med. 2019;170:784-90. [PMID: 31132791]. doi:10.7326/M18-1422 LinkGoogle Scholar
• 156. American College of Physicians. Patient safety in the office-based practice setting. Position paper. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians; 2017. Accessed at www.acponline.org/acp_policy/policies/patient_safety_in_the_office_based_practice_setting_2017.pdf on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 157. Glauser W. US doctors migrating north. CMAJ. 2014;186:E407-8. [PMID: 24958842] doi:10.1503/cmaj.109-4805 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 158. McCormick D, Himmelstein DU, Woolhandler S, et al. Single-payer national health insurance. Physicians' views. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:300-4. [PMID: 14769625] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 159. Pollin R, Heinz J, Arno P, et al. Economic analysis of Medicare for All. Political Economy Research Institute. 30 November 2018. Accessed at www.peri.umass.edu/publication/item/1127-economic-analysis-of-medicare-for-all on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 160. Insurance Information Institute. Insurance industry employment trends: 1990-2018 (January 2019). 11 March 2019. Accessed at www.iii.org/presentation/insurance-industry-employment-trends-1990-2018-january-2019-031119 on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 161. Social Security Administration. History of SSA during the Johnson Administration 1963-1968. Accessed at www.ssa.gov/history/ssa/lbjmedicare1.html on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 162. Rice T, Rosenau P, Unruh LY, et al. United States of America: health system review. Health Syst Transit. 2013;15:1-431. [PMID: 24025796] MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 163. American College of Physicians. A public plan option in a health insurance connector. Policy monograph. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians; 2009. Accessed at www.acponline.org/acp_policy/policies/health_insurance_connector_public_plan_2009.pdf on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 164. Koller CF,  Khullar D. Primary care spending rate - a lever for encouraging investment in primary care. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:1709-11. [PMID: 29091564] doi:10.1056/NEJMp1709538 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 165. Koller CF. Measuring primary care health care spending. Milbank Memorial Fund. 31 July 2017. Accessed at www.milbank.org/2017/07/getting-primary-care-oriented-measuring-primary-care-spending on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 166. Jabbarpour Y, Greiner A, Jetty A, et al. Investing in primary care: a state-level analysis. Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative. July 2019. Accessed at www.pcpcc.org/sites/default/files/resources/pcmh_evidence_report_2019.pdf on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 167. Reschovsky JD, Ghosh A, Stewart K, et al. Paying more for primary care: can it help bend the Medicare cost curve? Issue brief. The Commonwealth Fund. March 2012. Accessed at www.commonwealthfund.org/sites/default/files/documents/___media_files_publications_issue_brief_2012_mar_1585_reschovsky_paying_more_for_primary_care_finalv2.pdf on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 168. Starfield B, Shi L, Grover A, et al. The effects of specialist supply on populations' health: assessing the evidence. Health Aff (Millwood). 2005;Suppl Web Exclusives:W5-97-107. Accessed at www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-primary-care-policy-center/Publications_PDFs/2005%20HA%202.pdf on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 169. Kahana E, Kahana B. Baby boomers' expectations of health and medicine. Virtual Mentor. 2014;16:380-4. [PMID: 24847709] doi:10.1001/virtualmentor.2014.16.05.msoc2-1405 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 170. Gelmon S, Wallace N, Sandberg B, et al. Implementation of Oregon's PCPCH program: exemplary practice and program findings. Final report. Oregon Health Authority. September 2016. Accessed at www.oregon.gov/oha/HPA/dsi-pcpch/Documents/PCPCH-Program-Implementation-Report-Final-Sept-2016.pdf on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 171. Care Transformation Collaborative Rhode Island. A bridge to better health. Annual report 2014. Accessed at www.ctc-ri.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/annual-reports/CTC%202014%20Annual%20Report%20FINAL.pdf on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 172. Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative. The patient-centered medical home's impact on cost and quality. Annual review of evidence 2014-2015. Executive summary. February 2016. Accessed at www.pcpcc.org/sites/default/files/resources/Executive%20Summary.pdf on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 173. Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative. Consensus recommendations on increasing primary care investment. Accessed at www.pcpcc.org/sites/default/files/resources/PCPCC%20Consensus%20Recommendations%20on%20Primary%20Care%20Investment%20Aug%202018.pdf on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 174. Cantilupe J. The rise (and rise) of the healthcare administrator. Athena Health. 7 November 2017. Accessed at www.athenahealth.com/insight/expert-forum-rise-and-rise-healthcare-administrator on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 175. Reinhardt U. Where does the health insurance premium dollar go? JAMA. 2017;317:2269-70. [PMID: 28609523] doi:10.1001/jama.2017.6200 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 176. Erickson SM, Rockwern B,  Koltov M, et al; Medical Practice and Quality Committee of the American College of Physicians. Putting patients first by reducing administrative tasks in health care: a position paper of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166:659-61. [PMID: 28346948]. doi:10.7326/M16-2697 LinkGoogle Scholar
• 177. Tseng P, Kaplan RS, Richman BD, et al. Administrative costs associated with physician billing and insurance-related activities at an academic health care system. JAMA. 2018;319:691-7. [PMID: 29466590] doi:10.1001/jama.2017.19148 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 178. The Pew Charitable Trusts. The prescription drug landscape, explored. March 2019. Accessed at www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2019/03/the_prescription_drug_landscape-explored.pdf on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 179. Anderson-Cook A, Maeda J, Nelson L. Prices for and spending on specialty drugs in Medicare Part D and Medicaid. Congressional Budget Office. 19 March 2019. Accessed at www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-03/55041-presentation.pdf on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 180. Daniel H; Health and Public Policy Committee of the American College of Physicians. Stemming the escalating cost of prescription drugs: a position paper of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2016. [PMID: 27018758]. doi:10.7326/M15-2768 LinkGoogle Scholar
• 181. Sheppard RD. Is medicine a profession or a business? [Editorial]. Pol Arch Med Wewn. 2014;124:285-9. [PMID: 24931641] MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 182. American Hospital Association. Federal capital financing. Accessed at www.aha.org/federal-capital-financing/home on 1 July 2019. Google Scholar
• 183. Shrank WH, Rogstad TL, Parekh N. Waste in the US health care system: estimated costs and potential for savings. JAMA. 2019. [PMID: 31589283] doi:10.1001/jama.2019.13978 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 184. Brownlee S, Chalkidou K, Doust J, et al. Evidence for overuse of medical services around the world. Lancet. 2017;390:156-68. [PMID: 28077234] doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32585-5 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 185. Carter EA , Morin PE, Lind KD. Costs and trends in utilization of low-value services among older adults with commercial insurance or Medicare Advantage. Med Care. 2017;55:931-9. [PMID: 28930892] doi:10.1097/MLR.0000000000000809 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 186. Hendee WR, Becker GJ, Borgstede JP, et al. Addressing overutilization in medical imaging. Radiology. 2010;257:240-5. [PMID: 20736333] doi:10.1148/radiol.10100063 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 187. Charlesworth CJ, Meath TH, Schwartz AL, et al. Comparison of low-value care in Medicaid vs commercially insured populations. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176:998-1004. [PMID: 27244044] doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.2086 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 188. Frakes MD, Gruber J. Defensive medicine: evidence from military immunity. NBER working paper 24846. National Bureau of Economic Research. July 2018. Accessed at www.nber.org/papers/w24846.pdf on 1 July 2019. Google Scholar
• 189. American College of Physicians. Medical liability reform: innovative solutions for a new health care system. Policy paper. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians; 2014. Accessed at www.acponline.org/acp_policy/policies/medical_liability_reform_2014.pdf on 26 November 2019. Google Scholar
• 190. Riley GF,  Lubitz JD. Long-term trends in Medicare payments in the last year of life. Health Serv Res. 2010;45:565-76. [PMID: 20148984] doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2010.01082.x CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 191. Swetz KM, Kamal AH. Palliative care. Ann Intern Med. 2018;168:ITC33-ITC48. [PMID: 29507970]. doi:10.7326/AITC201803060 LinkGoogle Scholar
• 192. Hughes MT, Smith TJ. The growth of palliative care in the United States. Annu Rev Public Health. 2014;35:459-75. [PMID: 24641562] doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182406 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 193. Temel JS, Greer JA , Muzikansky A, et al. Early palliative care for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:733-42. [PMID: 20818875] doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1000678 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 194. Buttorff C, Ruder T, Bauman M. Multiple chronic conditions in the United States. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corp; 2017. Accessed at www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/tools/TL200/TL221/RAND_TL221.pdf on 26 November 2019. Google Scholar
• 195. Waters H, Graf M. The costs of chronic disease in the U.S. Milken Institute. August 2018. Accessed at www.milkeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/reports-pdf/ChronicDiseases-HighRes-FINAL.pdf on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 196. Xu X, Bishop EE, Kennedy SM , et al. Annual healthcare spending attributable to cigarette smoking: an update. Am J Prev Med. 2015;48:326-33. [PMID: 25498551] doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2014.10.012 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 197. Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease. What is the impact of chronic disease on America? Accessed at www.fightchronicdisease.org/sites/default/files/pfcd_blocks/PFCD_US.FactSheet_FINAL1%20%282%29.pdf on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 198. American Public Health Association. Public health and chronic disease: cost savings and return on investment. Accessed at www.apha.org/~/media/files/pdf/factsheets/chronicdiseasefact_final.ashx on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 199. Trust for America's Health. The impact of chronic underfunding of America's public health system: trends, risks, and recommendations, 2019. April 2019. Accessed at www.tfah.org/report-details/2019-funding-report/ on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 200. McDonough JE. Tracking the demise of state hospital rate setting. Health Aff (Millwood). 1997;16:142-9. [PMID: 9018951] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 201. Cohen HA. Maryland's all-payor hospital payment system. Accessed at www.hscrc.state.md.us/Documents/pdr/GeneralInformation/MarylandAll-PayorHospitalSystem.pdf on 26 November 2019. Google Scholar
• 202. Haber S, Bell H, Amico P, et al. Evaluation of the Maryland all-payer model: third annual report. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. March 2018. Accessed at https://downloads.cms.gov/files/cmmi/md-all-payer-thirdannrpt.pdf on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 203. Long SH, Marquis S. Toward a global budget for the U.S. health system. Implementation issues and information needs. RAND Corporation. 1994. Accessed at www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP143.html on 26 November 2019. Google Scholar
• 204. Berenson RA, Upahhyay DK, Delblanco SF, et al. Payment models and benefit designs: how they work and how they work together to improve health care—global budgets for hospitals. Research report. Urban Institute. April 2016. Accessed at www.urban.org/research/publication/payment-methods-how-they-work/view/full_report on 27 November 2019. Google Scholar
• 205. Chen B, Fan VY. Global budget payment: proposing the CAP framework. Inquiry. 2016;53. pii: 0046958016669016. doi:10.1177/0046958016669016 Google Scholar
• 206. Haber S, Beil H, Adamache W, et al. Evaluation of the Maryland all-payer model: First annual report. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. October 2016. Accessed at https://downloads.cms.gov/files/cmmi/marylandallpayer-firstannualrpt.pdf on 27 November 2019. Google Scholar
• 207. The Maryland All-Payer Progression Plan. Maryland Department of Health. May 2018. Accessed at https://hscrc.maryland.gov/Documents/Modernization/05-30-18%20Maryland%20All-Payer%20Model%20Progression%20Plan%27.pdf on 13 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 208. Hostetter M, Klein S, McCarthy D. Vermont's bold experiment in community driven health care reform. Case study. Commonwealth Fund. May 2018. Accessed at www.commonwealthfund.org/sites/default/files/documents/___media_files_publications_case_study_2018_may_hostetter_onecare_vermont_cs.pdf on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 209. Massachusetts Session Law, Chapter 224 Section 10. 2012. Google Scholar
• 210. Zemel S, Riley T. Addressing and reducing health care costs in states: global budgeting initiatives in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Vermont. National Academy for State Health Policy. Accessed at https://nashp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Global-Budgets1.pdf on 27 November 2019. Google Scholar
• 211. NCCI Insights. The impact of hospital consolidation on medical costs. National Council on Compensation Insurance. 11 July 2018. Accessed at www.ncci.com/Articles/Pages/II_Insights_QEB_Impact-of-Hospital-Consolidation-on-Medical-Costs.aspx on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 212. Gaynor M, Ho K, Town RJ. The industrial organization of health care markets. NBER working paper no. 19800. National Bureau of Economic Research. January 2014. Accessed at www.nber.org/papers/w19800.pdf on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 213. Fulton BD. Health care market concentration trends in the United States: evidence and policy responses. Health Aff (Millwood). 2017;36:1530-8. [PMID: 28874478] doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2017.0556 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 214. Chen B, Fan VY. Strategic provider behavior under global budget payment with price adjustment in Taiwan. Health Econ. 2015;24:1422-36. [PMID: 25132007] doi:10.1002/hec.3095 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 215. Dafny L. Hospital industry consolidation—still more to come? N Engl J Med. 2014;370:198-9. [PMID: 24328443] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 216. Baicker K, Levy H. Coordination versus competition in health care reform. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:789-91. [PMID: 23944255] doi:10.1056/NEJMp1306268 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 217. Thomas L. Hospitals, doctors moving out of poor city neighborhoods to more affluent areas. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 14 June 2014. Accessed at http://archive.jsonline.com/news/health/hospitals-doctors-moving-out-of-poor-city-neighborhoods-to-more-affluent-areas-b99284882z1-262899701.html on 15 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 218. Robinson JC, Brown TT. Increases in consumer cost sharing redirect patient volumes and reduce hospital prices for orthopedic surgery. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32:1392-7. [PMID: 23918483] doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2013.0188 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 219. Robinson JC. Pharmaceutical reference pricing: does it have a future in the U.S.? Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2018;2018:1-6. [PMID: 30199167] MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 220. Robinson JC, Whaley C, Brown TT. Reference pricing, consumer cost-sharing, and insurer spending for advanced imaging tests. Med Care. 2016;54:1050-5. [PMID: 27479594] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 221. Robinson JC, Brown TT, Whaley C, et al. Consumer choice between hospital-based and freestanding facilities for arthroscopy: impact on prices, spending, and surgical complications. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97:1473-81. [PMID: 26378263] doi:10.2106/JBJS.O.00240 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 222. Robinson JC, Brown TT, Whaley C, et al. Association of reference payment for colonoscopy with consumer choices, insurer spending, and procedural complications. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175:1783-9. [PMID: 26348851] doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.4588 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 223. Kanavos P, Reinhardt U. Reference pricing for drugs: is it compatible with U.S. health care? Health Aff (Millwood). 2003;22:16-30. [PMID: 12757268] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 224. Families USA. How to make reference pricing work for consumers. Issue brief. June 2014. Accessed at https://familiesusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/HSI-Consumer-Reference-Pricing_Brief_web.pdf on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 225. Fronstin P, Roebuck MC. Reference pricing for health care services: a new twist on the defined contribution concept in employment-based health benefits. EBRI Issue Brief no. 398. April 2014. Accessed at www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/hr-topics/benefits/Documents/EBRI_IB_398_Apr14.RefPrcng.pdf on 27 November 2019. Google Scholar
• 226. American College of Physicians. Improving health care efficacy and efficiency through increased transparency. Position paper. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians; 2017. Google Scholar
• 227. Center for Improving Value in Health Care. Reference-based inpatient and outpatient payment analysis: reducing paying variation as a potential cost-savings mechanism. Accessed at www.civhc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Reference-Based-Price-Report-November-2018.pdf on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 228. American College of Physicians. Improving health care efficacy and efficiency through increased transparency. Position paper. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians; 2017. Accessed at www.acponline.org/acp_policy/policies/improving_health_care_efficacy_and_efficiency_through_increased_transparency_2017.pdf on 27 November 2019. Google Scholar
• 229. Neumann PJ, Thorat T, Shi J, et al. The changing face of the cost-utility literature, 1990–2012. Value Health. 2015;18:271-7. [PMID: 25773562] doi:10.1016/j.jval.2014.12.002 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 230. Whitehead SJ, Ali S. Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. Br Med Bull. 2010;96:5-21. [PMID: 21037243] doi:10.1093/bmb/ldq033 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 231. Wichmann AB, Adang EM, Stalmeier PF, et al;  PACE. The use of quality-adjusted life years in cost-effectiveness analyses in palliative care: mapping the debate through an integrative review. Palliat Med. 2017;31:306-22. [PMID: 28190374] doi:10.1177/0269216316689652 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 232. Neumann PJ, Cohen JT, Weinstein MC. Updating cost-effectiveness—the curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:796-7. [PMID: 25162885] doi:10.1056/NEJMp1405158 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 233. Sanders GD, Neumann PJ, Basu A, et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA. 2016;316:1093-103. [PMID: 27623463] doi:10.1001/jama.2016.12195 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 234. MacKillop E, Sheard S. Quantifying life: understanding the history of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Soc Sci Med. 2018;211:359-66. [PMID: 30015244] doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.07.004 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 235. Weinstein M. Cost-per-QALY in the US and Britain: damned if you do and damned if you don't. 18th Annual Lecture. 2011. Google Scholar
• 236. Neumann PJ,  Cohen JT, Weinstein MC. Updating cost-effectiveness—the curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:796-7. [PMID: 25162885] doi:10.1056/NEJMp1405158 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 237. Arrieta A, Page TF, Veledar E, et al. Economic evaluation of PCSK9 inhibitors in reducing cardiovascular risk from health system and private payer perspectives. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0169761. [PMID: 28081164] doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0169761 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 238. Kumbhani DJ. Evaluation of cardiovascular outcomes after an acute coronary syndrome during treatment with alirocumab—ODYSSEY OUTCOMES. American College of Cardiology. 15 April 2019. Accessed at www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/clinical-trials/2018/03/09/08/02/odyssey-outcomes on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 239. Grundy SM, Stone NJ, Bailey AL, et al. 2018 AHA/ACC/AACVPR/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/NLA/PCNA guideline on the management of blood cholesterol: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73:3168-209. [PMID: 30423391] doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2018.11.002 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
• 240. Hagopian K, Goldman D. The health-insurance solution. National Affairs. Fall 2012. Accessed at www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-health-insurance-solution on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 241. Friedman M. How to cure health care. Hoover Digest. 30 July 2001. Accessed at www.hoover.org/research/how-cure-health-care-0 on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 242. Physicians for a National Health Program. Beyond the Affordable Care Act: a physicians' proposal for single-payer health care reform. Accessed at http://pnhp.org/beyond_aca/Physicians_Proposal.pdf on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 243. Medicare for All Act of 2017. To establish a Medicare-for-all national health insurance program. Accessed at www.sanders.senate.gov/download/medicare-for-all-act?id=6CA2351C-6EAE-4A11-BBE4-CE07984813C8&download=1&inline=file on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 244. Keith K, Jost T. Unpacking the Sanders Medicare-for-all bill. Health Affairs Blog. 14 September 2017. Accessed at www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20170914.061996/full/ on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 245. Hacker JS. The road to Medicare for everyone. American Prospect. 3 January 2018. Accessed at https://prospect.org/article/road-medicare-everyone on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 246. Montz E, Lambrew J. Who's in? Eligibility under different health reform proposals. The Century Foundation. 26 February 2018. Accessed at https://tcf.org/content/commentary/whos-eligibility-different-health-reform-proposals/ on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 247. Blumberg LJ, Holahan J, Zuckerman S. The Healthy America program. Urban Institute. May 2018. Accessed at www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/98432/2001826_2018.05.11_healthy_america_final_9.pdf on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 248. Health Policy Consensus Group. The Health Care Choices Proposal: policy recommendations to Congress. Medium. 19 June 2018. Accessed at https://medium.com/@consensusgroup2018/the-health-care-choices-proposal-policy-recommendations-to-congress-a4660182d830 on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 249. Roy AS. Transcending Obamacare. A patient-centered plan for near universal coverage and permanent fiscal solvency. 2nd ed. The Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity. 2016. Accessed at https://freopp.docsend.com/view/utmr2i6 on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar
• 250. Hoppe O. The Urban Institute's new proposal to get us closer to universal coverage. Center on Health Insurance Reforms, Georgetown University Health Policy Institute. 18 May 2018. Accessed at http://chirblog.org/urban-institutes-new-proposal-universal-coverage/ on 18 October 2019. Google Scholar

What is the main way of financing health services in USA?

What are the 4 main healthcare systems in the US?

How health care is delivered in the United States?

What is sustainability in health care?