Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
Inequality in medical care services and health outcomes concerns both developed and developing countries. The core issue that hinders the development of an accessible healthcare system in the U.S. is the cost of insurance. These costs accounted for 5% of the national income in 1960 compared to 18% in 2017 (Case and Deaton 2020). Rising expenditures lead to the inflation of the earning of insurance providers, which contributes to the uncontrolled growth of the industry. Consequently, less-skilled workers do not have access to jobs due to the high costs of employer-sponsored coverage plans. One solution to the problem is to enhance private insurance, whereas another is prioritizing the gradual spread and extension of the public one. The second solution is preferable as it will allow reducing administrative costs and ensure universal access to healthcare for all U.S. citizens.
Private Insurance
Neither the federal nor the state government offer private coverage plans. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2017, private insurance constituted 67.2 % of all programs (Berchik, Hood, and Barnett 2018). The majority of Americans who use this plan have an employer-based option (Berchik, Hood, and Barnett 2018). Insurance companies and hospitals have high administrative spending that can be eliminated. Furthermore, there is almost no competition between medical entities, which pushes the price up, making insurers pay more for patients care.
Federal and state authorities have the right to supervise the field of private insurance and set up a regulatory framework. The goal of the United States executive branch that including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is to safeguard public well-being. For example, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act helps employees sustain a coverage plan when changing the workplace (Regis College n.d.). Therefore, the legislative division of the government prohibits insurance companies from violating workers rights. The judicial branch protects the rule of law and resolves disputes regarding public welfare. At the state and local levels, there are standards applied to health insurance companies and their products. It implies that state authorities need to invest in creating tools or mechanisms that control corporate insurers.
Public Insurance
Public health insurance is financed by the government and has three options. The federal government is responsible for providing adults over 65 years old with Medicare, regardless of their income. State and local authorities are in charge of Medicaid that covers low-income individuals of every age. The Childrens Health Insurance Program is included in Medicaid and provides subsidized insurance for children. In 2017, Medicaid covered 19.3 % of the population while Medicare 17.2 % (Berchik, Hood and Barnett 2018). Legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the government execute the same roles as in the case of private insurance programs.
First of all, the broader dissemination of public healthcare options will reduce associated costs as the government as an institution does not seek to generate profit. Secondly, a clear-cut national medical care program will relieve the administrative burden. Eventually, it will be possible to create a universal medical care system accessible to people across the country. However, there is a critical opinion about the strengthening of public insurance. Private health insurance is a flexible option that can cover services not listed in government-run programs (Motaze et al. 2015). Moreover, providers are concerned about the decreased inpatient costs that will affect them. Consequently, medical professionals will receive lower reimbursement payments, leading to the rejection of individuals who are enrolled in Medicare or Medicaid.
Private insurers flexibility makes it harder for national authorities to control the market as they need to intervene to protect consumers. Instead of putting private players out of business, the public insurance system will foster healthy competition that will benefit the systems users. Hence, prices will remain under control when monopolistic or oligopolistic providers are eliminated (Goodman 2019). Public coverage is the most appropriate solution because it serves as a benchmark for higher standards of quality, cost management, and affordability. Finally, it will allow employers to save money and increase wages or hire more workers.
Conclusion
Public health and welfare have always been controversial topics in the United States. Healthcare is a crucial element of the countrys prosperity that requires enormous public and private investment. Private coverage plans sponsored by employers currently dominate the existing system. Even though public programs are easier to manage, they cover approximately one-third of the population. Broader employment and enforcement of public insurance will make healthcare more inclusive for employers with different income levels. Stronger competition in the market will bring more effective rates for both consumers and providers. People will feel confident to change jobs or move around the country without the fear of losing an insurance plan.
References
Berchik, Edward, Hood, Emily, and Jessica Barnett. 2018. Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2017. U.S. Census Bureau.
Case, Anne, and Angus Deaton. 2020. How Healthcare Costs Hurt American Workers and Benefit the Wealthy. Time.
Goodman, John. 2019. Whats Wrong with Private Health Insurance? Forbes.
Motaze, Nkengafac, Chi, Che, Ongolo-Zogo, Pierre, Ndongo, Jean Serge, and Charles Shey Wiysonge. 2015. Government Regulation of Private Health Insurance. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 4.
Regis College. n.d. 8 Important Regulations in United States Health Care. Blog. Web.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.