Policy Problem

Tried Policy 

As our healthcare system is complex and deeply connected to our economy, it has proven difficult to instigate structural change to address its issues. Thus, attempts at meaningful change are often suggestions or campaigns by nonprofits and NGOs. 

A partnership between the CDC, the CDC foundation, the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (ODPHP), and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) has resulted in the Law and Policy Project. This project aims to increase the health of our nation’s communities by sharing information about law and policy interventions - and through this work hopes to show how law and policy can be useful tools to increase healthcare access. 

In addition, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) declared their 2021 policy priorities, which are aimed at providing quality care for the nation’s most vulnerable populations, and ensuring the well-being of their communities. These policy priorities include driving new discoveries and workforce training and education programs. 

Nonpartisan Reasoning

Opinions vary in the U.S. populace regarding the current mixed healthcare system. Two-thirds of Americans would prefer a Canadian-style, single-payer healthcare system with universal coverage, and three-fifths of doctors support the same. The Canadian healthcare system is a decentralized, universal, publicly funded system known as Canadian Medicare. Rather than delegating all logistics to the federal government, each Canadian province has its own insurance plan, and each province receives federal cash assistance depending on provincial population. Additionally, a majority (two-thirds) of Canadians still have private health insurance.

Under a primarily privatized healthcare system like the US, one advantage is that patients are able to choose their own doctor and preferred medical facility, providing more flexibility for patients. There are also often shorter wait times for patients because the medical facility is less busy, especially for surgeries that are not life-threatening. Additionally, the medical facilities are often of higher quality because private facilities are often better maintained and better funded.

On the other hand, privatized healthcare also has its fair share of drawbacks, especially in cost. American citizens pay much more money for private healthcare coverage than what would be required in a public healthcare system. In the U.S., most citizens pay around $200 monthly premiums on top of a copay and deductible, whereas the average monthly cost for citizens in a public healthcare system is $100 with no copay or deductibles. Another criticism of private healthcare is the inequity that it can create.

Power lies with the insurance companies to decide who insurance covers;whereas in a public system, all citizens are treated equally, regardless of their ability to pay. Finally, private health insurance rarely covers all medical services, as patients must choose the health insurance quote that best suits their needs. This can result in gaps in access that force patients into exorbitant treatment costs or to waive treatment.

Policy Options

While the United States implements a combination of public and private healthcare with no universal healthcare option, other countries like Norway, Japan, the United Kingdom, Kuwait, Sweden, Canada, Bahrain, Denmark, and others implement a single-payer healthcare system. Other countries like Israel, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands, and Switzerland have a universal private health insurance system, in which private insurance is mandatory for citizens.

There also exists a fair share of countries with a healthcare system similar to the US with non-universal insurance, in which some citizens have private health insurance, some are eligible for public insurance, and some are uninsured. These countries include Bangladesh, Burundi, Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Jordan, Kenya, Nigeria, and Paraguay.