Placing limits on what hospitals can collect for out-of-network care could yield savings similar to more-sweeping proposals such as Medicare for All or setting global health spending caps. Because such an approach has the possibility to sharply cut hospital revenues, any cap would need to be set carefully as to not overly disrupt hospital operations.
There is growing interest among U.S. policymakers to use out-of-network payment limits to curb surprise medical bills and as a tool to control rising health care costs. How might such limits affect negotiated in-network prices and total payments for hospital care?
What is the publicly preferred way to raise additional funds needed to meet growing demand for health and social care. Options are taxation, insurance, or user charges. We analyse the preferences of the UK general public using a choice experiment.
Ezekiel J. Emanuel is vice provost for global initiatives at the University of Pennsylvania and chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy. In 2018, he delivered the Albert P. Williams Lecture on Health Policy at RAND, where he offered a framework for thinking about drug pricing.
An assessment of how popular different funding approaches for the NHS and social care are among the general public, as part of a wider study on feasible options for the future funding of health and social care in the UK.
As part of a larger project identifying feasible options for the future funding of health & social care in the UK, this paper explores how 16 high-income countries have implemented changes to their funding systems to better meet the challenges ahead.
Paying for health care coverage is a challenge for Americans facing rising premiums, deductibles, and copayments. The ACA's tax credits that make marketplace insurance more affordable for lower-income individuals should be extended to middle-income adults aged 50–64.
The American Health Care Act passed by the U.S. House of Representatives to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act allows states to waive benefits that the ACA deemed “essential.” Dropping maternity care coverage, for example, would reduce premiums by 5 percent but increase out-of-pocket spending for new mothers.
Big proposals to rein in health care spending in the United States have encountered stiff political and organizational resistance. But adopting a combination of smaller ideas could save the U.S. health care system a total of up to $26 billion a year.
As policymakers consider alternatives to reduce the federal government's financial burden from providing subsidies under the ACA, they should consider the consequences for enrollees. Existing premium-support models yield considerable savings for the federal government but could create age and income disparities in coverage.
Economic reasoning took center stage in the Supreme Court's decision on Thursday to uphold the legality of the Affordable Care Act's subsidies in all states. The subsidies are critical to ensuring that healthy people, with lower health care costs, have adequate incentive to enroll.
Family members and friends spend 30 billion hours each year providing care for their elderly loved ones. These caregivers are giving up valuable time, either from their jobs or from other potentially productive activities. What is the annual price tag of this informal care—and how might it be offset?
If Vermont considers further health care reform proposals, legislators might look for opportunities to better align the degree of subsidization available for individuals with similar incomes, regardless of whether they are enrolled on the exchange or in employer coverage.
Most Vermont residents receive more in health benefits than they pay for directly or through taxes. Those with lower incomes pay less for health care than those with higher-incomes but there is much variation, something legislators may wish to review as they consider implementing universal health coverage.