Despite claims that there is a health insurance crisis in the United States, the number of U.S. residents without health insurance actually fell in 2007, according to new Census Bureau numbers. The Census says the number of uninsured fell from 47.0 million to 45.7 million. Furthermore, the proportion of uninsured fell half a percentage-point, from 15.8 percent to 15.3 percent.
The use of information technology in diagnosing, treating and monitoring patients — known as telemedicine — is adding a new dimension to modern health care. Entrepreneurs are using the telephone, the Internet and personal computers for innovative solutions to traditional problems of health care delivery. These advances are not only making care more accessible and convenient, they are also raising quality and containing medical costs.
Global competition in health care is allowing more patients from developed countries to travel for medical reasons to regions once characterized as “third world.” Many of these “medical tourists” are not wealthy, but are seeking high quality medical care at affordable prices. To meet the growing demand, entrepreneurs are building technologically advanced facilities in India, Thailand, Latin America and elsewhere, and are hiring physicians, technicians and nurses trained to American and European standards to run them.
The most significant economic and sociological change of the past half-century has been the entry of women into the labor market. Public policies that govern the workplace have not kept pace with this demographic shift, however. For the most part, tax law, labor law and employee benefits law were designed decades ago on the assumption that the typical household would have a full-time working husband and a homemaker wife.
Individual health insurance policies in New Jersey are among the most costly in the United States due to over-regulation and expensive mandates. Two radically different bills have been proposed recently to reduce the number of uninsured in the state by making health coverage more affordable. One proposal would mandate that individuals purchase insurance.
One of the biggest problems in health care reform is that parties with different viewpoints do not agree on basic facts. Some view the private sector as the source of U.S. health care woes and an expansion of government control as the solution. Others believe that ill-considered government interference is the main source of the problem.
It is increasingly clear that economic freedom, good governance and rule of law are key drivers in promoting economic growth and reducing poverty. In Sub-Saharan Africa, unfortunately, economic freedom and growth have trailed the rest of the world. One result is that the health of Sub-Saharan Africans is among the worst in the world. According to the World Economic Forum, a child born in Niger is 40 times more likely to die before her fifth birthday than a child born in the United Kingdom.
During this presidential election season, candidates are urging Americans to radically overhaul our “broken” health care system. Before accepting the premise that the system is broken, consider the impressive evidence from the largest ever international study of cancer survival rates. The data show that cancer patients live longer in the United States than anywhere else on the globe.
Despite claims that there is a health insurance crisis in the United States, the proportion of Americans without health coverage has changed little in the past decade. The increase in the number of uninsured is largely due to immigration and population growth — and to individual choice.
Reforming health care is one of the great challenges facing our country today. Based on our experience, true transformational reform must begin in state capitols, not in the halls of Congress.
The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which covers 6.7 million children and adults, will expire in September. SCHIP consists of 50 different federal-state health plans for children (and in some states adults) in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid. Typically, families with incomes above the poverty level, but no more than 200 percent of poverty, are eligible.
Policymakers are debating changes to the state's Medicaid program – the joint federal-state health care program for the poor – and discussing ways to provide coverage to the state's large uninsured population through the private insurance market. Medicaid now takes 26 percent of the state budget, double the portion it consumed a little more than a decade ago.
Since 1975, total spending on health care in the United States has doubled, and it now comprises one-sixth of the U.S. economy, or about $2.2 trillion. By 2016, some projections show total health spending almost doubling to $4.1 trillion and consuming one-fifth of the nation's gross domestic product.
Massachusetts enacted an ambitious plan for near-universal health insurance coverage in 2006, the product of a compromise between then-Gov. Mitt Romney and the state Legislature. The cornerstone of the plan is mandatory health insurance. Individuals must purchase insurance directly or get it through an employer or Medicaid.
President Bush made bold health policy proposals in his State of the Union message.
President Bush made two bold health policy proposals in his State of the Union message.
Leaders of the new Democrat-controlled Congress have expressed concern about the out-of-pocket costs to seniors under many of the new Medicare drug plans. Some are calling for expanded coverage, which would lead to higher premiums, higher taxes or both. Others want the federal government to negotiate prices directly with drug companies. But this approach threatens to limit seniors' access to many drugs. Fortunately, there is a better way: The Internet.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi has promised that within its first 100 hours the Democrat-controlled House will repeal the ban preventing Medicare from negotiating directly with pharmaceutical companies. She must expect this legislation to bring down drug prices dramatically. However, it is not obvious that allowing the government to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies will lead to lower prices than those achieved by private drug plans. There are several good reasons why not.
Patients are increasingly being given the opportunity and responsibility to manage their own health care dollars.
Medicaid, the joint federal-state health care program for the poor and near poor, is the largest single expenditure by state governments today. At the rate the program is growing, it is on a course to consume the entire budgets of state governments in just a few decades.
The United States has very meager spending controls. If current trends continue, U.S. government health care spending will consume an ever growing portion of national income — far more so than any other developed country.
Consumer-driven health care (CDHC) is leading to new models for the delivery of medical services. Consumer-driven health plans generally include personal accounts — such as Health Reimbursement Arrangements or Health Savings Accounts — that allow patients to directly control some of their health care dollars. Because they have a financial stake in their own spending, patients have incentives to shop for the best price and to make tradeoffs between convenience and cost.
Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) has introduced the Health Care Choice Act (H.R. 2355), which would increase access to individual health coverage by allowing insurers licensed to sell policies in one state to offer them to residents of any other state. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) has introduced a companion bill in the Senate (S. 1015). If enacted, the law would create a more competitive, nationwide health insurance market.
Consumers may soon be able to shop for health care the way they shop for groceries. But in order for patients to become savvy shoppers in the medical marketplace, they must be able to discover what things cost and to compare prices as well as value. Today, that's not easy.
Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) allow patients to manage some of the dollars spent on their health care. Critics say that giving health care consumers the ability to control their own spending will have dire consequences. The evidence shows otherwise.