[rad-green] 22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money

*https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/484301-22-studies-agree-medicare-for-all-saves-money
<https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/484301-22-studies-agree-medicare-for-all-saves-money>*

*The Hill          02/24/20*

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money
*By Diane Archer*
[image: image.png]


The evidence abounds: A "Medicare for All" single-payer system would
guarantee comprehensive coverage to everyone in America and save money.

Christopher Cai and colleagues at three University of California campuses
examined 22 studies on the projected cost impact for single-payer health
insurance in the United States and reported their findings in a recent
paper in PLOS Medicine
<https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003013>.
Every single study predicted that it would yield net savings over several
years. In fact, it’s the only way to rein in health care spending
significantly in the U.S.

All of the studies, regardless of ideological orientation, showed that
long-term cost savings were likely. Even the Mercatus Center
<https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare-mercatus-working-paper-v1_1.pdf>,
a right-wing think tank, recently found about $2 trillion in net savings
over 10 years from a single-payer Medicare for All system. Most
importantly, everyone in America would have high-quality health care
coverage.

Medicare for All is far less costly than our current system largely because
it reduces administrative costs. With one public plan negotiating rates
with health care providers, billing becomes quite simple. We do away with
three-quarters of the estimated $812 billion the U.S. now spends on health
care administration.

Administrative costs are so high because thousands of insurance companies
individually negotiate benefit rules and rates with thousands of hospitals
and doctors. On top of that, they rely on different billing procedures —
and this puts a costly burden on providers.

Administrative savings from Medicare for All would be about $600 billion
<https://justcareusa.org/medicare-for-all-would-save-600-billion-a-year-in-administrative-costs/>
a
year. Savings on prescription drugs
<https://www.peri.umass.edu/publication/item/1127-economic-analysis-of-medicare-for-all>
would
be between $200 billion and $300 billion a year, if we paid about the same
price as other wealthy countries pay for their drugs. A Medicare for All
system would save still more with implementation of global health care
spending budgets
<https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20191205.239679/full/>.

Even more savings are possible in a Medicare for All system because, like
every other wealthy country, we would have a uniform electronic health
records system. Such a system generates additional savings because system
problems would be easier to detect and correct. A uniform claims data
system helps reduce health care spending for fraudulent services. In
2018, total
U.S. health care costs were $3.6 trillion
<https://morningconsult.com/2019/12/05/u-s-health-spending-rose-to-3-6-trillion-in-2018-propelled-by-health-insurance-tax/>,
representing 17.7 percent of GDP.

Savings are in part a function of the benefits Medicare for All covers. The
Mercatus report and others
<https://www.peri.umass.edu/publication/item/1127-economic-analysis-of-medicare-for-all>
projected
savings, even with the elimination of deductibles and out-of-pocket costs.
Under both Sen. Bernie Sanders <https://thehill.com/people/bernie-sanders>’s
(I-Vt.) Medicare for All bill
<https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/medicare-for-all-2019-summary> and
Rep. Pramila Jayapal <https://thehill.com/people/pramila-jayapal>’s
(D-Wash.) Medicare for All bill
<https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1384>, patients
would not pay deductibles or coinsurance when they receive medical care.
Their bills also provide for vision, hearing and dental care, as well as
long-term services and supports, such as home care and nursing home care.

No matter how you design a single-payer public health insurance system, it
would have lower overall health care costs, so long as for-profit private
health insurers no longer exist to drive up health care costs. Yes, it’s
true that some other wealthy countries rely on “private insurers” to
provide benefits and spend far less than we do on care. But, these insurers
do not operate in any way like health insurers in the U.S.

Other wealthy countries dictate virtually every element of the health
insurance people receive, including what’s covered, what’s paid, and
people’s out-of-pocket costs — all identical for everyone. The insurers
operate like claims processors or bill payers. They follow the coverage and
payment rules set by the government, nothing like the private health
insurers in the U.S. which revel in product diversity (read: complexity and
confusion).

And, if you’re thinking that having the federal government guarantee
coverage to all Americans is a big deal, it’s actually not. The government
already pays for about two-thirds of health care costs. Among other things,
it pays for Medicare, Medicaid, VA, TriCare and a wide range of state and
local health care programs, along with private insurance for government
employees and tax subsidies for private insurance.

Whether you call it single-payer or Medicare for All, it isn’t some
socialist pipe dream. It’s a sensible, efficient, and effective way to
guarantee excellent health insurance to everyone.

*Diane Archer is a senior adviser at Social Security Works.*

-- 

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sid-l" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sid-l/CACKppcwMZoyRg6kfDSi%3DJv8TTobJVDjRck5DUUw0aWE3SicnWA%40mail.gmail.com.

---
To unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>