"Leaving aside the very significant economic benefits--not just human health, but economic gains--that will come from improving the national health system," writes Weissman, with Medicare for All "we can eliminate upwards of $500 billion annually in spending wasted on bureaucracy, inefficiency and excessive corporate profits." (Photo: @RepAndyLevin/Twitter)
We Can't Afford to Keep Our Failing Healthcare System. But We Absolutely Can Afford Medicare for All
There are some silly arguments against Medicare-for-All, but one that gains a lot of traction: Can we afford it? The short answer is: Yes.
America's healthcare system is a national disgrace.
By almost every relevant metric, our system is the worst or nearly the worst among all rich countries. We are the only wealthy country to permit tens of millions to go uninsured. Far more people in the United States report skipping care because of cost issues than other rich countries. Our infant mortality rate is atrocious, and our life expectancy trails other wealthy nations and is actually dropping.
There's no excuse for any of this in such a rich nation. We can solve all of these problems--expanding coverage, eliminating underinsurance and co-pays, and improving health care and health outcomes--by improving Medicare and expanding it cover all Americans.
"By almost every relevant metric, our system is the worst or nearly the worst among all rich countries."
The Medicare for All Act of 2019, introduced today by U.S. Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), with more than 100 original co-sponsors, does exactly that. It would improve coverage for everyone, including those already on Medicare, by eliminating co-pays and deductibles, providing for dental care and covering long-term care, including care in homes and nursing home care.
There are some silly arguments against Medicare-for-All, but one that gains a lot of traction: Can we afford it?
The short answer is: Yes.
And not just because the nation is so rich. We can expand and improve Medicare at no additional cost compared to what we currently spend.
Leaving aside the very significant economic benefits--not just human health, but economic gains--that will come from improving the national health system, we can eliminate upwards of $500 billion annually in spending wasted on bureaucracy, inefficiency and excessive corporate profits.
Thanks to price gouging exploitation of patent monopolies and other government-granted market exclusivities, the U.S. spends outrageous sums on prescription drugs--almost $500 billion a year--and Medicare Part D spends roughly $100 billion a year (fast rising). Medicare Part D spends 40 percent more on drugs than the Veterans Health Administration, simply because it is prohibited from negotiating prices. With Medicare-for-All, Medicare would be empowered to negotiate prices. If a company refused to offer a reasonable price, Medicare could license generic competitors to enter the market, causing prices to drop steeply. Medicare-for-All also would eliminate the middlemen in the pharmaceutical supply chain who add extra to the price of drugs. Altogether, we could conservatively save $200 billion every year.
Even bigger savings would come from eliminating the wasteful spending by the health care sector on administrative costs. The key would be to move away from per-treatment billing and instead rely on global budgets. Hospitals and other medical providers would receive an overall payment based on the patients they serve and the treatments they provide, and then they could get on with the business of providing care. The arrangement would be no different than the ways police stations or public libraries are funded; libraries don't send a bill to the city treasurer each time a person checks out a book. The potential available savings are tremendous:
- Administrative costs consume an astounding 25 percent of U.S. hospital spending, far above most comparable countries, due largely to the costs of billing. If hospital administrative spending were brought in line with more efficient countries, the U.S. could save more than $150 billion each year on hospital spending alone.
- Researchers have found that American medical practices spent almost four times more money than Canadian doctors on dealing with payment issues - $82,000 per physician annually compared to $20,000. The same study found that U.S. nurses spend more than 10 times as much as their Canadian counterparts interacting with payers. Most of the discrepancy in hours spent was consumed in nurses spending time obtaining prior authorizations from insurance companies.
- Processing bills, coupled with expenses for collection of unpaid bills, accounts for half or more of medical practice's administrative costs - between 50 and 60 percent, according to a 2005 study published in Health Affairs.
A Medicare-for-All system also would be able to rationalize spending on expensive renovations and healthcare technology. With global budgeting, institutions would maintain a separate budget for capital expenditures, such as on medical equipment and expansions of facilities, apart from operating expenditures. Such purchases impose upfront costs on providers. Once purchased, they create incentives to provide unnecessary care to recoup their investments.
By requiring separate budgets for the purchases of expensive medical equipment and other expansions, Medicare-for-All would ensure that such purchases are warranted by a community's needs and would thus reduce unnecessary spending, both on the capital expenses themselves.
We absolutely can afford Medicare-for-All. What we can't afford is to continue with our current failed system. The time is now for Medicare-for-All.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just two days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
America's healthcare system is a national disgrace.
By almost every relevant metric, our system is the worst or nearly the worst among all rich countries. We are the only wealthy country to permit tens of millions to go uninsured. Far more people in the United States report skipping care because of cost issues than other rich countries. Our infant mortality rate is atrocious, and our life expectancy trails other wealthy nations and is actually dropping.
There's no excuse for any of this in such a rich nation. We can solve all of these problems--expanding coverage, eliminating underinsurance and co-pays, and improving health care and health outcomes--by improving Medicare and expanding it cover all Americans.
"By almost every relevant metric, our system is the worst or nearly the worst among all rich countries."
The Medicare for All Act of 2019, introduced today by U.S. Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), with more than 100 original co-sponsors, does exactly that. It would improve coverage for everyone, including those already on Medicare, by eliminating co-pays and deductibles, providing for dental care and covering long-term care, including care in homes and nursing home care.
There are some silly arguments against Medicare-for-All, but one that gains a lot of traction: Can we afford it?
The short answer is: Yes.
And not just because the nation is so rich. We can expand and improve Medicare at no additional cost compared to what we currently spend.
Leaving aside the very significant economic benefits--not just human health, but economic gains--that will come from improving the national health system, we can eliminate upwards of $500 billion annually in spending wasted on bureaucracy, inefficiency and excessive corporate profits.
Thanks to price gouging exploitation of patent monopolies and other government-granted market exclusivities, the U.S. spends outrageous sums on prescription drugs--almost $500 billion a year--and Medicare Part D spends roughly $100 billion a year (fast rising). Medicare Part D spends 40 percent more on drugs than the Veterans Health Administration, simply because it is prohibited from negotiating prices. With Medicare-for-All, Medicare would be empowered to negotiate prices. If a company refused to offer a reasonable price, Medicare could license generic competitors to enter the market, causing prices to drop steeply. Medicare-for-All also would eliminate the middlemen in the pharmaceutical supply chain who add extra to the price of drugs. Altogether, we could conservatively save $200 billion every year.
Even bigger savings would come from eliminating the wasteful spending by the health care sector on administrative costs. The key would be to move away from per-treatment billing and instead rely on global budgets. Hospitals and other medical providers would receive an overall payment based on the patients they serve and the treatments they provide, and then they could get on with the business of providing care. The arrangement would be no different than the ways police stations or public libraries are funded; libraries don't send a bill to the city treasurer each time a person checks out a book. The potential available savings are tremendous:
- Administrative costs consume an astounding 25 percent of U.S. hospital spending, far above most comparable countries, due largely to the costs of billing. If hospital administrative spending were brought in line with more efficient countries, the U.S. could save more than $150 billion each year on hospital spending alone.
- Researchers have found that American medical practices spent almost four times more money than Canadian doctors on dealing with payment issues - $82,000 per physician annually compared to $20,000. The same study found that U.S. nurses spend more than 10 times as much as their Canadian counterparts interacting with payers. Most of the discrepancy in hours spent was consumed in nurses spending time obtaining prior authorizations from insurance companies.
- Processing bills, coupled with expenses for collection of unpaid bills, accounts for half or more of medical practice's administrative costs - between 50 and 60 percent, according to a 2005 study published in Health Affairs.
A Medicare-for-All system also would be able to rationalize spending on expensive renovations and healthcare technology. With global budgeting, institutions would maintain a separate budget for capital expenditures, such as on medical equipment and expansions of facilities, apart from operating expenditures. Such purchases impose upfront costs on providers. Once purchased, they create incentives to provide unnecessary care to recoup their investments.
By requiring separate budgets for the purchases of expensive medical equipment and other expansions, Medicare-for-All would ensure that such purchases are warranted by a community's needs and would thus reduce unnecessary spending, both on the capital expenses themselves.
We absolutely can afford Medicare-for-All. What we can't afford is to continue with our current failed system. The time is now for Medicare-for-All.
America's healthcare system is a national disgrace.
By almost every relevant metric, our system is the worst or nearly the worst among all rich countries. We are the only wealthy country to permit tens of millions to go uninsured. Far more people in the United States report skipping care because of cost issues than other rich countries. Our infant mortality rate is atrocious, and our life expectancy trails other wealthy nations and is actually dropping.
There's no excuse for any of this in such a rich nation. We can solve all of these problems--expanding coverage, eliminating underinsurance and co-pays, and improving health care and health outcomes--by improving Medicare and expanding it cover all Americans.
"By almost every relevant metric, our system is the worst or nearly the worst among all rich countries."
The Medicare for All Act of 2019, introduced today by U.S. Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), with more than 100 original co-sponsors, does exactly that. It would improve coverage for everyone, including those already on Medicare, by eliminating co-pays and deductibles, providing for dental care and covering long-term care, including care in homes and nursing home care.
There are some silly arguments against Medicare-for-All, but one that gains a lot of traction: Can we afford it?
The short answer is: Yes.
And not just because the nation is so rich. We can expand and improve Medicare at no additional cost compared to what we currently spend.
Leaving aside the very significant economic benefits--not just human health, but economic gains--that will come from improving the national health system, we can eliminate upwards of $500 billion annually in spending wasted on bureaucracy, inefficiency and excessive corporate profits.
Thanks to price gouging exploitation of patent monopolies and other government-granted market exclusivities, the U.S. spends outrageous sums on prescription drugs--almost $500 billion a year--and Medicare Part D spends roughly $100 billion a year (fast rising). Medicare Part D spends 40 percent more on drugs than the Veterans Health Administration, simply because it is prohibited from negotiating prices. With Medicare-for-All, Medicare would be empowered to negotiate prices. If a company refused to offer a reasonable price, Medicare could license generic competitors to enter the market, causing prices to drop steeply. Medicare-for-All also would eliminate the middlemen in the pharmaceutical supply chain who add extra to the price of drugs. Altogether, we could conservatively save $200 billion every year.
Even bigger savings would come from eliminating the wasteful spending by the health care sector on administrative costs. The key would be to move away from per-treatment billing and instead rely on global budgets. Hospitals and other medical providers would receive an overall payment based on the patients they serve and the treatments they provide, and then they could get on with the business of providing care. The arrangement would be no different than the ways police stations or public libraries are funded; libraries don't send a bill to the city treasurer each time a person checks out a book. The potential available savings are tremendous:
- Administrative costs consume an astounding 25 percent of U.S. hospital spending, far above most comparable countries, due largely to the costs of billing. If hospital administrative spending were brought in line with more efficient countries, the U.S. could save more than $150 billion each year on hospital spending alone.
- Researchers have found that American medical practices spent almost four times more money than Canadian doctors on dealing with payment issues - $82,000 per physician annually compared to $20,000. The same study found that U.S. nurses spend more than 10 times as much as their Canadian counterparts interacting with payers. Most of the discrepancy in hours spent was consumed in nurses spending time obtaining prior authorizations from insurance companies.
- Processing bills, coupled with expenses for collection of unpaid bills, accounts for half or more of medical practice's administrative costs - between 50 and 60 percent, according to a 2005 study published in Health Affairs.
A Medicare-for-All system also would be able to rationalize spending on expensive renovations and healthcare technology. With global budgeting, institutions would maintain a separate budget for capital expenditures, such as on medical equipment and expansions of facilities, apart from operating expenditures. Such purchases impose upfront costs on providers. Once purchased, they create incentives to provide unnecessary care to recoup their investments.
By requiring separate budgets for the purchases of expensive medical equipment and other expansions, Medicare-for-All would ensure that such purchases are warranted by a community's needs and would thus reduce unnecessary spending, both on the capital expenses themselves.
We absolutely can afford Medicare-for-All. What we can't afford is to continue with our current failed system. The time is now for Medicare-for-All.