Cost control that fixes our system
USA TODAY
3/6/2003
Editorial/Opinion
USA TODAY's view:
Affordable remedies ignored as nation's health woes soar
Perhaps the best measure of the depth of the nation's health care troubles is this: Amid terror warnings, possible war with Iraq, a faltering stock market and a sluggish economy, a new poll says the public's top worry is rising health care costs.
Some achievable steps:
* Lowering drug costs. * Cutting hospital bills. * Providing affordable insurance. * Helping consumers cut costs.
None of these cost-saving ideas alone will solve the nation's health care problems. But bipartisan cooperation to enact them could prime the pump for more comprehensive reforms, improve the competitiveness of the health care marketplace and make consumers more aware of medical costs.
The country's rising concerns about a broken health care system can't be ignored indefinitely. Small repairs today can pave a path for bigger solutions tomorrow.
For the full USA TODAY editorial: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-03-05-our-view_x.htm
Opposing view:
Nationalize health care By Don McCanne
The continuing rise in health care costs is proof that our existing system of competing health plans has been incapable of controlling costs. Decades of attempts to improve coverage through a hodgepodge of private plans and public programs have resulted only in higher costs and greater numbers of uninsured. Current proposals that build on our existing system promise only higher costs and the perpetuation of the profound administrative waste that is unique in the world. We spend more on paperwork in our health care system than we do for our entire military budget - almost $400 billion.
Single-payer national health insurance, by contrast, would slow the growth of health-care costs well into the future. And it would ensure that everyone has access to comprehensive health care services.
What do we really want out of our health care system?
* We want affordability. Placing our health care system on a single budget would provide a mechanism to finally corral health care costs for all of us.
* We want our health-insurance dollars to be spent on patients, rather than private-health-plan bureaucracies. By eliminating administrative waste caused by the health plans and the costly burden they place on the system, we would free up more than enough to pay for coverage of the uninsured and truly comprehensive benefits for all.
* We want our health insurance always to be there. With a universal insurance program, we would never lose coverage because of a change in employment, early retirement or a financial setback that makes premiums unaffordable.
* We want to be free to choose our physicians and hospitals instead of being penalized for failing to use the provider chosen by the insurance company.
* We want to have access to care whenever we need it rather than when and where the insurance company dictates.
The marketplace will not serve us well in health care if we depend on health plans. They would continue to compete based on the price of their premiums. But with rising costs, plans can keep their premiums competitive only by shifting costs to patients in the form of fewer benefits and greater out-of-pocket payments. This would threaten the financial security of those with the greatest health care needs.
On the other hand, competition based on quality would be beneficial. Since we would have free choice of doctors and hospitals, the providers themselves would be motivated to compete for patients based on the quality of their services.
A single-payer system, funded at our current level of spending, would provide high-quality, comprehensive, affordable health care for everyone. But we can achieve this only if we throw out the wasteful, ineffective middlemen - the health plans - and spend the money on patients instead.
Don McCanne, M.D., is president of Physicians for a National Health Program.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-03-05-oppose_x.htm