Discussion Forum Question What are two possible policy options for a national health care plan? What are the possible short- and long-term consequences of each plan?
Students Answer
1.What are two possible policy options for a national health care plan?
The purpose of a national healthcare plan is to make certain that everyone has access to needed health services. There are two different policy options possible for a national healthcare plan which are single-payer and multi-player (Tuohy, 2019). A single-payer plan provides comprehensive coverage that is covered by the government. It is usually financed through taxes or funding designated for healthcare. Currently, Medicaid would be an example of a single-payer plan. A multi-payer plan mandates comprehensive coverage which is offered by insurance companies that are regulated and the cost is subsidized by the government based on income, however, the insured still pays a premium for their own insurance. The healthcare marketplace programs would be an example of a multi-payer plan.
What are the possible short-term consequences of each plan?
I feel the short-term consequences, in general, would be the same for both plans. The immediate (short-term) negative consequences for both plans would be the initial cost of developing, implementing, and administrating the nation wide plan (Blumberg & Holahan, 2019). There would be resistance from many healthcare providers, insurers, and politicians to establishing a budget and forcing a change. Providing a universal plan for healthcare would also increase the patient load, causing longer wait times, medical staff shortages, and the need for more facilities. Private healthcare workers could be put out of work or make less income due to regulated charges for services which could impact the quality of care provided. The freedom of choice for care would also be eliminated in the single-payer plan, however, a multi-payer plan would still allow choices for coverage and insurance companies.
The positive short-term consequence for each plan would be better access for all to have their healthcare needs met (Blumberg & Holahan, 2019). There would be no loss in coverage due to change of employment. There wouldnt be the concern of being in or out of network or within an allowable jurisdiction.
What are the possible long-term consequences of each plan?
Again, in general, it seems the long-term consequences of each plan would be similar. It seems a negative consequence may be stricter regulations on the treatments patients can receive and the government would have control over the well-being of loved ones (Zieff et al., 2020). Administrative costs would remain high and, for multi-payer plans where people have more choice of where they go for care, there may still be unequal care for patients.
An obvious positive possibility is that, as everyone has access to healthcare, the health of all individuals improves over time which should lead to less health services needed. If this happened there would be a financial savings in the future.
SIDE NOTE: I must admit that, as I learn and experience more about diversity and equality among my clients, I can see where a universal approach to healthcare could have a positive impact on many. However, I still have reservations on the quality of care that could be provided based on government regulations and control of the program. I guess Im still on the fence on this idea and need to research it further.
Recent Comments