Single-Payer Reform: The Only Way to Fulfill the President's Pledge of More Coverage, Better Benefits, and Lower Costs
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Ideas and Opinions18 April 2017Single-Payer Reform: The Only Way to Fulfill the President's Pledge of More Coverage, Better Benefits, and Lower CostsCorrection(s) for this article:CorrectionsJun 2019Correction: Single-Payer ReformFREESteffie Woolhandler, MD, MPH and David U. Himmelstein, MDSteffie Woolhandler, MD, MPHFrom The City University of New York at Hunter College, New York, New York. and David U. Himmelstein, MDFrom The City University of New York at Hunter College, New York, New York.Author, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/M17-0302 SectionsSupplemental MaterialAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail This article has been corrected. The original version (PDF) is appended to this article as a Supplement.President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans have vowed to repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). Repealing it is relatively easy. Replacing it with "something great" is much trickier. The president has promised universal coverage and reduced deductibles and copayments, all within tight budgetary constraints. That is a tall order and unlikely to be filled by proposals that Republicans have offered thus far.Speaker of the House Paul Ryan's blueprint (1) would rebrand the ACA's premium subsidies as "tax ...References1. A Better Way. A better way: our vision for a confident America. 22 June 2016. Accessed at https://abetterway.speaker.gov/_assets/pdf/ABetterWay-HealthCare-PolicyPaper.pdf on 1 February 2017. Google Scholar2. The Boards of Trustees, Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds. 2016 annual report of the Boards of Trustees, Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds. 22 June 2016. Accessed at www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/ReportsTrustFunds/Downloads/TR2016.pdf on 2 February 2017. Google Scholar3. Woolhandler S, Campbell T, Himmelstein DU. Costs of health care administration in the United States and Canada. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:768-75. [PMID: 12930930] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. Himmelstein DU, Jun M, Busse R, Chevreul K, Geissler A, Jeurissen P, et al. A comparison of hospital administrative costs in eight nations: US costs exceed all others by far. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014;33:1586-94. [PMID: 25201663] doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2013.1327 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5. Pozen A, Cutler DM. Medical spending differences in the United States and Canada: the role of prices, procedures, and administrative expenses. Inquiry. 2010;47:124-34. [PMID: 20812461] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6. Baicker K, Taubman SL, Allen HL, Bernstein M, Gruber JH, Newhouse JP, et al; Oregon Health Study Group. The Oregon experiment—effects of Medicaid on clinical outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:1713-22. [PMID: 23635051] doi:10.1056/NEJMsa1212321 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7. Enterline PE, Salter V, McDonald AD, McDonald JC. The distribution of medical services before and after "free" medical care—the Quebec experience. N Engl J Med. 1973;289:1174-8. [PMID: 4754965] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8. Wilder CS. Volume of physician visits. United States—July 1966-June 1967. Vital Health Stat 10. 1968;10:1-60. [PMID: 5303847] MedlineGoogle Scholar9. Physicians for a National Health Program. How much would a single payer cost? A summary of studies compiled by Ida Hellander, MD. 2016. Accessed at www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-system-cost on 2 February 2017. Google Scholar10. Newport F. Majority in U.S. support idea of fed-funded healthcare system. Gallup. 16 May 2016. Accessed at www.gallup.com/poll/191504/majority-support-idea-fed-funded-healthcare-system.aspx on 2 February 2017. Google Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: From The City University of New York at Hunter College, New York, New York.Disclaimer: Drs. Woolhandler and Himmelstein served as unpaid advisors to Senator Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign. They cofounded and remain active in Physicians for a National Health Program, an organization that advocates for single-payer national health insurance. They have received no financial compensation from that organization and have no financial conflicts of interest regarding this commentary.Disclosures: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M17-0302.Corresponding Author: Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPH, 255 West 90th Street, New York, NY 10024; e-mail, [email protected]cuny.edu.Current Author Addresses: Drs. Woolhandler and Himmelstein: 255 West 90th Street, New York, NY 10024.Author Contributions: Analysis and interpretation of the data: S. Woolhandler, D.U. Himmelstein.Drafting of the article: S. Woolhandler, D.U. Himmelstein.Final approval of the article: S. Woolhandler, D.U. Himmelstein.Collection and assembly of data: S. Woolhandler, D.U. Himmelstein.This article was published at Annals.org on 21 February 2017. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoSingle-Payer Reform Gilead I. Lancaster and Joseph P. Drozda Jr. Single-Payer Reform Steffie Woolhandler and David U. Himmelstein Correction: Single-Payer Reform Metrics Cited byCost of Medicare for All: Review of the EstimatesAI applications in the business and administration of health careThe effect of Medicare for All on rural hospitals – Authors' replyIt's the Politics, Stupid: Why More "Skin in the Game" Will Not Help Control US Healthcare SpendingImproving the prognosis of health care in the USAEnvisioning a Better U.S. Health Care System for All: Coverage and Cost of CareRyan Crowley, BSJ, Hilary Daniel, BS, Thomas G. Cooney, MD, and Lee S. Engel, MD, for the Health and Public Policy Committee of the American College of Physicians*"Formulating a New Healthcare System with Old Ideals: America's Next Step"Navigating the Shifting Terrain of US Health Care Reform—Medicare for All, Single Payer, and the Public OptionWaste in the US Health Care SystemThe many roads to universal health care in the USACorrection: Single-Payer ReformReduce Acute Care Costs, and All Other Healthcare Costs TooOvercoming Institutional Barriers Faced by Community-Based Healthcare InstitutionsIt's Still The Prices, Stupid: Why The US Spends So Much On Health Care, And A Tribute To Uwe ReinhardtWhy Internists Might Want Single-Payer Health CareBrian Yablon, MDWhy Internists Might Want Single-Payer Health CarePaul Sorum, MD, PhDHEALTH INSURANCE REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES-WHAT, HOW, AND WHY?Single-Payer ReformGilead I. Lancaster, MD and Joseph P. Drozda Jr., MDSingle-Payer ReformDavid Silverman, MDPopulation health and medicine: Policy and financial drivers 18 April 2017Volume 166, Issue 8Page: 587-588KeywordsDisclosureDrugsHealth careHealth economicsHealth insuranceMedicarePatient Protection and Affordable Care ActPhysiciansPublic policyTaxes ePublished: 21 February 2017 Issue Published: 18 April 2017 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2017 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».