Difference Between Universal Healthcare and Socialized Medicine? Peer Review

• Loading metrics

Open Admission

Peer-reviewed

Inquiry Commodity

Projected costs of single-payer healthcare financing in the United States: A systematic review of economical analyses

• Christopher Cai,
• Jackson Runte,
• Isabel Ostrer,
• Kacey Berry,
• Ninez Ponce,
• Michael Rodriguez,
• Stefano Bertozzi,
• Justin Due south. White,
• James Thou. Kahn

x

• Published: January 15, 2020
• https://doi.org/10.1371/periodical.pmed.1003013

Figures

Abstruse

Background

The United States is the but high-income nation without universal, government-funded or -mandated health insurance employing a unified payment organization. The United states multi-payer system leaves residents uninsured or underinsured, despite overall healthcare costs far above other nations. Single-payer (often referred to as Medicare for All), a proposed policy solution since 1990, is receiving renewed printing attending and popular back up. Our review seeks to assess the projected cost impact of a unmarried-payer approach.

Methods and findings

We conducted our literature search betwixt June 1 and December 31, 2018, without start appointment restriction for included studies. Nosotros surveyed an proficient panel and searched PubMed, Google, Google Scholar, and preexisting lists for formal economic studies of the projected costs of single-payer plans for the US or for individual states. Reviewer pairs extracted data on methods and findings using a template. We quantified changes in full costs standardized to percentage of contemporaneous healthcare spending. Additionally, nosotros quantified cost changes by subtype, such as costs due to increased healthcare utilization and savings due to simplified payment assistants, lower drug costs, and other factors. Nosotros further examined how modeling assumptions affected results. Our search yielded economic analyses of the cost of 22 single-payer plans over the by 30 years. Exclusions were due to inadequate technical information or assuming a substantial ongoing part for private insurers. We found that 19 (86%) of the analyses predicted net savings (median net effect was a savings of iii.46% of total costs) in the first year of program operation and 20 (91%) predicted savings over several years; anticipated growth rates would result in long-term net savings for all plans. The largest source of savings was simplified payment administration (median 8.8%), and the all-time predictors of net savings were the magnitude of utilization increment, and savings on administration and drug costs (R ^two of 0.035, 0.43, and 0.62, respectively). Merely drug toll savings remained meaning in multivariate analysis. Included studies were heterogeneous in methods, which precluded us from conducting a formal meta-analysis.

Conclusions

In this systematic review, nosotros found a high degree of analytic consensus for the fiscal feasibility of a unmarried-payer approach in the US. Bodily costs will depend on plan features and implementation. Time to come inquiry should refine estimates of the effects of coverage expansion on utilization, evaluate provider administrative costs in varied existing unmarried-payer systems, analyze implementation options, and evaluate U.s.-based single-payer programs, every bit available.

Author summary

Why was this study washed?

• Equally the US healthcare debate continues, there is growing interest in "single-payer" also known as "Medicare for All." Single-payer uses a simplified public funding approach to provide everyone with loftier-quality health insurance.
• Public support for provision of universal wellness coverage through a plan similar Medicare for All is every bit high as 70%, but falls when costs are emphasized.
• Economic models aid appraise the financial viability of single-payer. Yet, models vary widely in their assumptions and methods, and can be hard to compare.

What did the researchers exercise and detect?

• We found and compared cost analyses of 22 unmarried-payer plans for the US or individual states.
• Nineteen (86%) of the analyses estimated that health expenditures would fall in the first year, and all suggested the potential for long-term cost savings.
• The largest savings were predicted to come up from simplified billing and lower drug costs.
• Studies funded by organizations across the political spectrum estimated savings for unmarried-payer.

What do these findings mean?

• There is about-consensus in these analyses that single-payer would reduce health expenditures while providing high-quality insurance to all United states residents.
• To attain net savings, unmarried-payer plans rely on simplified billing and negotiated drug cost reductions, as well as global budgets to command spending growth over time.
• Replacing individual insurers with a public system is expected to achieve lower net healthcare costs.

Citation: Cai C, Runte J, Ostrer I, Berry Yard, Ponce North, Rodriguez M, et al. (2020) Projected costs of unmarried-payer healthcare financing in the United States: A systematic review of economic analyses. PLoS Med 17(1): e1003013. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003013

Bookish Editor: Zirui Song, Massachusetts General Hospital, UNITED STATES

Received: May half-dozen, 2019; Accepted: Dec 17, 2019; Published: January 15, 2020

Copyright: © 2020 Cai et al. This is an open admission article distributed under the terms of the Artistic Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All included articles are publicly available and can be found using our search methodology.

Funding: CC, JR, IO and KB each received a educatee summertime research grant of $750 each from Physicians for a National Health Program (http://pnhp.org/nigh/) to back up this study. No other back up. The funders had no office in the study blueprint, data collection, analysis, conclusion to publish or manuscript grooming.

Competing interests: I accept read the periodical'due south policy and the authors of this manuscript have the post-obit competing interests: CC is an executive board member of Students for a National Health Plan (SNaHP). SNaHP had no function in report design, information drove, analysis, decision to publish or manuscript preparation.

Abbreviations: ACO, answerable care organization; OECD, Organisation for Economic Co-performance and Development; VA, US Veterans Administration

Introduction

Nine years after passage of the Affordable Care Act, 10.iv% (27.9 1000000) of the nonelderly United states population remains uninsured [one]. Lack of insurance is associated with worse health outcomes, including death [2], due to decreased access to healthcare and preventive services [3–five]. Underinsurance, divers as price sharing that represents meaning financial barriers to intendance or adventure of catastrophic medical expenditures, is rising and is associated with a 25% or greater likelihood of omitted or delayed intendance [6,7]. Depression-income adults with public insurance have improved access and quality of care compared to uninsured adults [viii].

Meanwhile, healthcare costs continue to rise, approaching one-fifth of the economy. In 2018, national health expenditures reached $3.half dozen trillion, equivalent to 17.7% of Gdp [nine]. Government funding, including public programs, private insurance for government employees, and tax subsidies for individual insurance, represented 64% of national health expenditures in 2013, or eleven% of Gross domestic product, more than total health expenditures in almost any other nation [10]. Higher costs in the US are due primarily to higher prices and administrative inefficiency, not higher utilization [11–xiii].

An oftentimes-proposed alternative to the contemporary multi-payer system is single-payer, as well referred to as Medicare for All. Key elements of single-payer include unified government or quasi-regime financing, universal coverage with a unmarried comprehensive benefit bundle, elimination of private insurers, and universal negotiation of provider reimbursement and drug prices. Single-payer every bit it has been proposed in the United states of america has no or minimal cost sharing. Polled support for single-payer is nigh an all-time high, equally high equally two-thirds of Americans [14] and 55% of physicians [15]. Two-thirds of Americans support providing universal health coverage through a national plan similar Medicare for All as an extremely high priority for the incoming Congress [16]. Notwithstanding, support varies substantially according to how unmarried-payer is described [17]. As of November 2019, there are ii "Medicare for All Human action of 2019" legislative proposals in the US Congress: Senate Bill 1129 and Business firm of Representatives Bill 1384.

Economical analyses are crucial for formally estimating the internet price of unmarried-payer proposals. These models estimate how potential added costs of single-payer, due to increased utilization of services, compare with the savings induced by simplified payment assistants, lower drug prices, and other factors. Such economic projections tin can shape plan design, contribute to policy soapbox, and affect the viability of legislation. As single-payer proposals proceeds legislative traction, the importance of economic models rises.

Even so, these analyses are complex and heterogeneous, making generalizations difficult. Findings vary across studies, from large "net savings" to "net costs," as exercise modeling assumptions, such equally the extent of authoritative savings and presence or absence of drug cost negotiations. The variety of findings contributes to political spin and fuels popular dubiety over the anticipated costs of a single-payer healthcare organization. For instance, a 2018 study past Pollin et al. (Political Economy Enquiry Institute) estimated that a national Medicare for All organization would save $313 million in the commencement twelvemonth of implementation, while a 2018 written report by Blahous (Mercatus Center) found that the same organisation would save $93 million in the kickoff year, and a 2016 report from Holahan et al. (Urban Institute) suggested that a modified form of this proposal, e.g., relying on private insurers, would increment costs [18–20]. Variation in unmarried-payer proposals and analytic approaches likely explains many of the differences in outcomes beyond studies, but no comparative review has been undertaken, to our knowledge.

The goal of this study is to systematically review economic analyses of the price of single-payer proposals in the U.s.a. (both national and state level), summarize results in a logical but accessible manner, examine the association of findings with plan features and with analytic methods, and, finally, examine the empirical evidence regarding central study assumptions.

Methods

Overview

We specified in accelerate that nosotros would extract and quantitatively compare increased costs due to utilization rises and savings due to authoritative simplification, drug savings, and other factors. We searched for studies by examining existing lists, querying experts, and searching online. Ethics approval was non deemed to be necessary since all data were publicly available. All data are available in the original studies, which are listed in S1 Appendix. We included studies that examined insurance plans with essential single-payer features and that provided adequate technical detail on inputs and results. For these studies, we extracted data about plan features, analytic assumptions, and findings (costs due to higher utilization, savings of all types, and net costs; come across Table A in S1 Appendix for definitions of terms). Nosotros expressed all estimates equally a pct of contemporaneous healthcare spending, to facilitate comparison across settings and time periods. We summarized study methods and findings graphically and analyzed associations betwixt studies and spending estimates.

Search

We adopted a broad search strategy, reflecting our initial assessment (subsequently confirmed) that economical models of the cost of single-payer plans are non published in academic journals. Nosotros conducted all components of our search from June 1 to December 31 of 2018.

We searched in PubMed, Google Scholar, and Google, using combinations of ("Unmarried-payer" OR "single-payer") AND ("cost" OR "model" OR "economical" OR "cost-benefit"). We express our Google search to 10 pages of results. Nosotros consulted existing lists maintained by Physicians for a National Health Program and Healthcare-Now [21,22]. We asked a convenience sample of 10 unmarried-payer experts. We also searched the websites of leading advancement and manufacture-sponsored groups in favor of single-payer reform (Physicians for a National Health Programme and Healthcare-At present) and in opposition to single-payer reform (Partnership for America'south Wellness Care Future). Additional search details are provided in Table B in S1 Appendix. A PRISMA flow diagram is provided in Fig ane. A PRISMA checklist can be institute in Table G in S1 Appendix.

Inclusion and exclusion

"Single-payer" has a wide range of definitions, both in the US and internationally. We chose inclusion and exclusion criteria that were virtually consistent with single-payer plans that take been proposed in the Us. For example, while some single-payer plans internationally have included private intermediaries inside a unified payment system, US proposals have omitted a role for individual insurers. Thus, we use private intermediaries every bit an exclusion benchmark. Notably, contempo healthcare proposals such as "Medicare Extra for All" would non meet our inclusion criteria [23].

Report inclusion required ceremoniousness of both the plan and the analysis. Specific inclusion criteria for the plan were that (ane) all legal residents are permanently covered for a standard comprehensive ready of medically appropriate outpatient and inpatient medical services under one payer and (2) the payer is a not-for-profit government or quasi-authorities agency. Other primal unmarried-payer features, such as providers being entirely in or out, compatible payments with no residual billing, and use of a drug formulary, are often unspecified and thus were assumed present (and thus not a basis for exclusion) unless explicitly omitted. Some plans include undocumented immigrants, and some exclude them. Exclusion criteria were (1) utilise of large price-sharing measures such as deductibles (some United states of america single-payer plans include pocket-sized copays, e.g., $5–$10 for an outpatient visit, which was not considered grounds for exclusion) and (2) an explicit role for non-uniform payment levels (i.e., payments differing by patient), residual billing, multiple payment systems, multiple drug formularies, or private insurers or intermediaries. Importantly, nosotros applied these criteria to the modeled plan, so models incorporating whatever of these features when analyzing an otherwise qualifying single-payer plan would be excluded. These excluded studies are listed in Table C in S1 Appendix. Finally, we excluded 12 plans from 11 studies that met inclusion criteria merely were redundant to newer studies of similar single-payer plans by the aforementioned analysis teams already included (Table D in S1 Appendix). Net savings from these excluded studies were similar to those from the included studies (Table E in S1 Appendix).

For the analysis, all studies were required (i) to specify input assumptions and values based on transparent review of empirical show and (2) to report (a) increases in utilization and costs due to improved insurance/access, (b) savings due to simplified payment administration (a single payment process using one set of coverage and reimbursement rules), lower drug prices, and other specified reasons, and (c) total system costs and internet costs of the single-payer programme.

For this report, nosotros did non require or consider financing (revenue) plans, which turn on an entirely different set of technical issues. Nosotros also did not seek analyses of broader economic furnishings, such every bit de-investing in the private insurance market place or facilitation of labor mobility and start-ups through delinking of insurance and employment. Our analysis besides omits long-term effects on medical innovation.

Studies were reviewed past at least 2 team members before finalizing inclusion or exclusion. Uncertain decisions (eastward.g., regarding adequacy of technical information or severity of deviation from the study definition of single-payer) were discussed with the entire team.

Extraction

We extracted the following information from each study: annual healthcare costs without unmarried-payer (specified for the year and setting, at the national or land level), initial-yr annual toll under single-payer, cost increase due to utilization growth, and savings (from all sources and four specific categories: simplified payment administration, lowered costs for medications [and for durable medical equipment, if bundled together], reduced clinical inefficiency [i.due east., unneeded procedures] and fraud, and a switch to Medicare payment rates, which are lower than individual insurance rates). Nosotros did not report transition costs such as purchases of for-profit businesses and training (which were, in any case, rarely assessed), and no study quantified the costs of potential showtime-year implementation challenges. If available, we extracted longer term costs and savings, defined equally costs or savings accumulated subsequent to the kickoff year of implementation. We besides extracted or calculated the utilization increment causeless for newly insured individuals.

Each study was reviewed past 2 team members, and all study extractions were reviewed by the senior investigator (JGK), who requested refinements and further documentation for unclear or unexpected values. When we had questions due to omissions or ambivalence in the report, we attempted to contact written report authors. Nosotros too sent them, when successfully located, a study draft for review.

Analysis

We standardized all cost numbers to percentage of contemporaneous total health system costs, to allow for directly comparison across times and locations. This arroyo obviated the need for inflation adjustments. Nosotros standardized costs due to increased utilization as the increment in almanac price for the newly insured divided by the mean price for the already insured. We examined results visually, ordered by year and by cyberspace cost (highest internet toll to highest internet savings).

To assess the association of net cost with plan and assay features (e.g., whether drug cost reductions were considered), we used a visual method (color-coding analysis features). We besides conducted univariate and multivariate linear regressions with net savings or cost as the consequence and with the following predictors: utilization increase, specific savings categories, blazon of funder arrangement, and type of analyst organisation. In the multivariate analysis, we assigned dummy variables for missingness of the utilization predictor.

Results

Studies identified

We reviewed xc studies and included master analyses of 22 single-payer plans from 18 studies, published between 1991 and 2018, including 8 national and 14 land-level plans (Massachusetts, California, Maryland, Vermont, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, New York, and Oregon). Included studies are listed in Table F in S1 Appendix. Assay teams included The states government agencies, business consultants and research organizations, and academics. Nine single-payer plans (from half-dozen studies) were excluded for the post-obit reasons: age limits on single-payer, varied benefits beyond individuals, rest billing, inclusion of private insurers or intermediaries in the programme or analysis, and lack of specification of assumptions regarding utilization and savings. Twelve studies were not reviewed because of duplication (same author, different state, earlier, n = 11) and age (1971, n = 1).

Projected costs and savings

Net price or savings in the first year of single-payer functioning varies from an increase of vii.2% of arrangement costs to a reduction of fifteen.5% (Fig ii). The median finding was a net savings of 3.5% of organization costs, and analyses of 19 of 22 plans found net savings. Internet costs reflect the balance of added costs due to higher utilization (by eliminating uninsurance and in some studies also capturing the increase due to ending underinsurance) and savings (via payment simplification, lower drug prices, and other factors). Higher utilization increases costs past 2.0% to xix.3% (median ix.3%). Total savings range from 3.3% to 26.5% (median 12.one%).

Fig 2. Cyberspace savings for single-payer in get-go year of implementation, sorted by net toll/savings.

The median finding was savings (−3.46% of total wellness system costs), and analyses of 19 of 22 plans found cyberspace savings.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003013.g002

The cost increase due to expansion of insurance coverage varies due to the number of newly covered individuals and generosity of coverage benefits, but too reflects policy components and good assessment. For example, written report estimates of increased utilization past newly covered individuals range from 25% to eighty% of the costs for those already insured, reflecting varied assessments of uninsured individuals' healthcare admission and wellness condition. Additionally, price-control choices such equally copays vary across plans.

The mix of projected savings from unmarried-payer shows both consistent and variable elements across studies (Fig 3). All studies estimate lower costs due to simplified payment assistants, but vary in the size of these savings and in the inclusion and magnitude of other savings. Administrative savings vary from i.ii% to xvi.iv% (median viii.8%) of healthcare spending. Savings from lowered prices for medications and durable medical equipment are included in 12 models and range from 0.2% to seven.ix%. Savings from reduced fraud and waste matter are included in 10 models and range from 0.4% to 5.0%. Savings due to a shift to Medicare payment rates are included in 8 models and range from i.4% to x.0%. Over time, utilization increases are stable and projected savings grow, leading to larger estimates for potential savings.

In the long term, projected net savings increase, due to a more tightly controlled rate of growth. For the 10 studies with projections for up to eleven years, each year resulted in a mean 1.four% shift toward internet savings (Text A and Figs A and B in S1 Appendix). At this rate, the three studies that find net costs in the first year would reach net savings by 10 years.

Influence of programme and analysis features on findings

Fig 4 presents net costs or savings alongside a color-coded summary of cardinal plan features and model assumptions. The 3 of 22 models that found net costs in the first year shared specific policy choices including low or no cost sharing (copays), rich benefit packages, and a lack of savings predicted from reduced medication/medical equipment costs. Ii of these models (Hsiao 2011 Low Cost Sharing and CBO 1993 SP2) are estimated for additional scenarios that yield net savings.

Fig 4. Net costs or savings versus assumptions in plans and analyses, sorted by net costs/savings.

The three models that plant net costs in the outset year (Hsiao 2011 Low Cost Sharing, CBO 1993 SP2, and White 2017) shared specific policy choices including low or no cost sharing (copays), rich benefit packages, and a lack of savings captured from reduced medication/medical equipment costs.

https://doi.org/10.1371/periodical.pmed.1003013.g004

We adjacent assessed whether the inclusion of different analysis features (aye or no) was associated with internet costs, based on univariate regressions (Fig v). Cost sharing did not have a significant association with net costs beyond all studies (2.0 points, 95% CI −iii.1 to vii.ane, p = 0.43); xi of 19 analyses showing internet savings in the first yr included no or depression cost sharing in their plans. Similarly, the association between inclusion of undocumented individuals and net costs was not statistically meaning (−two.vii points, 95% CI −vii.8 to 2.4, p = 0.28). Inclusion of medication and equipment savings in the model was associated with lower internet costs by 7.0 points (95% CI −11.1 to –3.0, p = 0.002), and inclusion of efficiency gains and fraud reduction was associated with lower net costs by four.three points but non significant (95% CI −nine.1 to 0.6, p = 0.08). Inclusion of a shift to Medicare payment rates was not a strong predictor of cyberspace costs. We cannot assess the association between internet costs and presence or absence of administrative savings in these dichotomous analyses because all studies include these savings. The number of unlike assay features included in the model was likewise associated with lower net costs. For each boosted analysis feature included, net costs were reduced by 2.3 points (95% CI –4.iii to –0.3, p = 0.02).

Fig 5. Net costs versus the inclusion of different analysis features.

Each estimate comes from a separate linear regression of net costs and a binary predictor. Fault bars represent 95% confidence intervals.

https://doi.org/x.1371/journal.pmed.1003013.g005

In univariate regressions of internet savings against the magnitude of inputs, several relationships sally (Fig 6). A 1-point increase in utilization rate was associated with college net costs of 9.ix points; however, this human relationship did not reach statistical significance (95% CI −6.3 to 26.0, p = 0.22). In dissimilarity, the magnitude of net savings was associated with college savings in administrative costs (net price −0.85 points, 95% CI −1.iii to −0.4, p = 0.01) and in medication and equipment costs (−1.79 points, 95% CI −two.43 to −1.16, p < 0.0001). Net savings were non strongly related to Medicare payment rates or efficiency gains/fraud reduction.

Fig six. Net toll (%) versus utilization rise and savings magnitude.

(A) Utilization rate; (B) administrative savings; (C) medicine and equipment savings; (D) efficiency gains and fraud reduction; (E) Medicare payment rate. Each dot represents one model. The cherry lines correspond linear regressions, with displayed results indicating the regression equation (including intercept and slope) and R ² (proportion of variation explained). The regression line for Medicare payment charge per unit (Due east) was omitted due to the preponderance of 0 values (73%, or all but 6, of the 22 models). Higher utilization was associated with greater costs, whereas the magnitude of authoritative and medication/equipment savings was associated with reduced net costs.

https://doi.org/x.1371/periodical.pmed.1003013.g006

In a multivariate regression (limited past small sample size), we constitute that net costs were associated with medication and equipment toll savings (−1.5 points, 95% CI −2.6 to −0.4, p = 0.01); other assay features did not strongly predict net costs. Lower net costs were associated with funder type (left-leaning versus right-leaning: −6.7 points, 95% CI −11.5 to −1.8, p = 0.009) and analyst type (academic versus other: vii.6 points, 95% CI 0.4 to 14.9, p = 0.04) in bivariate regressions, but not in multivariate regressions, perchance due to reduced precision due to the sample size. Tables H and I in S1 Appendix report the multivariate regression details.

Discussion

We identified 22 credible economic models of the cost of unmarried-payer financing in the US, from a variety of government, business organization consultant, and bookish organizations. We found that 19 (86%) predict net savings in the starting time yr of operations, with a range from 7% higher internet toll to fifteen% lower internet cost. Increases in price due to improved insurance coverage and thus higher utilization were two% to xix%. Savings from simplified payment assistants at insurers and providers, drug cost reductions, and other mechanisms ranged from iii% to 27%. The largest net savings were for plans with reductions in drug costs. Net savings accumulate over fourth dimension at an estimated 1.4% per yr. Of note, nosotros excluded 2 widely publicized studies [20,24], both of which plant internet costs, on the grounds that these studies made assumptions that included private insurance intermediaries (i.e., non a single-payer) or lacked technical detail for evaluation.

These analyses propose that single-payer tin save money, even in twelvemonth one, incorporating a wide range of assumptions almost potential savings. More ambitious measures to realize cost reductions are projected to yield greater cyberspace savings. This implies that concerns nearly wellness system cost growth with unmarried-payer may be misplaced, though costs to authorities are probable to grow as tax-based financing replaces private insurance premiums and out-of-pocket spending.

Empirical evidence for model assumptions

The results of these economical models depend on input assumptions regarding the effect of single-payer provisions. In detail, the magnitude of cyberspace savings reflects the quantitative effects of utilization rises due to increased insurance and savings strategies. Reasonable analysts may differ on these assumptions based on program features, setting, and bear witness available at the time of modeling. There is growing empirical evidence for each provision, which we review below.

Utilization increases due to new and improved insurance drive the cost growth effects of unmarried-payer. There is strong testify over decades that the newly insured roughly double their healthcare utilization [25–27]. Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act appears to demonstrate a mix of utilization furnishings [28,29]. Moreover, in a single-payer organisation, the newly insured may be younger and healthier than the already insured, meaning that utilization may non increase to the levels of the already insured. Evidence on utilization increases for the underinsured are mixed [30–32]. Importantly, in that location is prove that when uninsured individuals proceeds insurance, increases in utilization for the newly insured are balanced by slightly lower utilization for the already insured, due to supply-side constraints [33–35]. Still, with a decrease in billing-related administrative burden for clinicians, a 10% or greater ascent in doctor clinical capacity may occur, which would conform additional care utilization. Finally, increases in utilization for the uninsured and underinsured are likely to upshot in increased use of preventive services, which should pb to some futurity cost saving [25,36].

Simplified payment administration represents the largest type of savings from single-payer. At that place is very strong prove that billing and insurance-related administrative burden is higher in the United states than in Canada (which has unmarried-payer) past 12%–15% of full healthcare costs [13]. The excess administrative costs are carve up roughly 50% at insurers and l% at providers. Studies of hospitals find consistent large differences in administrative costs betwixt the US and unmarried-payer systems in Europe [37]. There is no direct testify of power to capture all of this excess, simply solid empirical data from Canada and other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Evolution (OECD) countries support the intuition that administrative costs would sharply subtract with elimination or streamlining of existing onerous payment processes.

Lower drug spending is typically the second largest source of savings with single-payer, and predicts big net savings. The Usa Veterans Administration (VA) gets a 30% disbelieve on prescription medications compared to private Medicare Advantage Plans [38,39]. Usa per-capita drug spending exceeds that of whatever other country [38,39]. Drug prices are the primary driver of higher cost, with the U.s.a. spending $ane,011 annually per capita on prescription drugs compared to the OECD average of $422 [11].

Research estimates savings of 30% for diabetes drugs through use of drug formularies, due to medication choice and prices [forty]. Drug companies debate that reducing prices will reduce enquiry and innovation. Nonetheless, many more than expensive drugs offer express medical benefits [38,41,42]. Farther, drug firms often enhance prices later recovering development costs. Research and evolution costs for 10 companies that launched new cancer agents were $ix billion, while revenue exceeded $67 billion [43]. Perhaps most tellingly, Fortune 500 drug companies had a mean profit reported in 2019 of 24% compared to 9% for all corporations [38,44,45]. Drug companies merits that if the entire health system gets the same discount equally the VA, the discount levels will substantially decrease. However, if Medicare adopted the VA's tighter drug formulary, the savings would be roughly $505 per capita annually [46]. Overall, there is strong evidence of the potential for a substantial reduction in drug costs, with magnitude likely a part of political choices and dynamics. A portion of these savings could also exist realized if the government negotiated for lower drug prices in the existing Medicare programme.

Reports estimate that up to twenty%–xl% of US healthcare spending is fraudulent or wasteful [47,48]. However, there is niggling evidence on how to avoid this spending. The Affordable Care Human activity set upward accountable care organizations (ACOs), groups of healthcare providers responsible for a divers fix of patients and contracting with a payer (unremarkably Medicare) for a payment structure tied to operation metrics, in an effort to reduce costs. Recent ACO demonstration projects establish minimal savings, potentially less than the cost of administering programs, leading to overall net 0 savings [49]. ACOs that are "two-sided" (using both penalties and shared savings) reduce service costs by a mean of 0.7% yet require on average near two% costs to administer [50,51]. Overall, betwixt 2013 and 2017, ACOs increased full costs to Medicare by 70 billion when bonuses were taken into account [52]. Recent analysis suggests modestly growing savings, in medico if not hospital groups, potentially more than administration costs [53,54]. Unmarried-payer may facilitate efforts to reduce fraud and waste by providing comprehensive and consistent clinical encounter data within the unmarried billing organization (including diagnoses and services, too as clinical outcomes). Thus, single-payer might bolster the marginally effective efforts in this area. Nonetheless, the evidence to support big reductions in waste and fraud is tenuous. Furthermore, a reliance on ACO incentive approaches (which crave large patient panels and specific payment structures) could undermine desired features of a unmarried-payer programme, such as free choice of provider, substantial use of fee-for-service billing in some plans, and hospital global budgeting. In light of these uncertainties, well-nigh economic models do non conceptualize reductions in fraud or waste, and those that exercise generally assume only a pocket-size reduction.

Limitations

Our analysis has several of import limitations. Offset, the included economic studies varied in methodological rigor and quality of reporting, funding sources, political motivations, and amount of prove cited to support claims. Although we tried to allocate studies by major unmarried-payer and assay characteristics, uncaptured variations may have added noise in the comparison. Relatedly, the variety of plans nether report did not permit for a formal meta-analysis, which is designed to integrate empirical evaluations of standardized interventions, especially using measures of association such equally odds ratios.

2nd, nosotros did not utilise quality rating scores for the included economic studies. We institute no quality rating scores for wellness arrangement modeling, equally existing scores are intended for evaluation studies, empirical measurements of costs and effects, or decision analyses [55–57]. A quality rating system could be useful. Included studies all lacked sensitivity analyses, and the choice of the most appropriate data source for input values could be subjective. For example, studies varied in what per centum of savings could be accomplished through simplification of payment administration. We are unaware of studies analyzing the effects of other key inputs, such as reductions in reimbursement rate. Time to come inquiry is needed to appraise the quality of unmarried-payer studies, analyze fundamental model inputs, and clarify proposed ranges for sensitivity analyses. In terms of the potential for financial disharmonize of interest bias, we were reassured that a prominent health concern consultant (Lewin Group, with several included analyses), presumably with clients that stand up to lose coin with single-payer, nonetheless found internet savings.

Third, no single-payer system has been implemented in the The states, due to lack of government approval fifty-fifty for demonstration projects. Thus, there is no domestic, large-calibration empirical example to properly test the economic models. Much of the research on single-payer is based on show from single-payer nations such as Canada, Australia, and Taiwan. As reviewed higher up, US health systems that approximate single-payer, such every bit the VA, and other empirical studies provide support for model assumptions. Ultimately, our goal was not to compare toll models with (nonexistent) empirical benchmarks, but to assess the consistency of inputs beyond models and with empirical testify, and to narrate patterns in model findings. Assuming that US single-payer demonstrations are coming, economic models can be tested and refined. Until so, the relative consistency of existing models is the best evidence available.

4th, our study was limited to proposals of single-payer as defined in the U.s.a., with a unmarried (government) payer, and meeting specified criteria. Our results are non generalizable to multi-payer "universal coverage" reforms, which would likely show substantially smaller savings and thus increases in net cost [58]. The Maryland all-payer model, for example, showed 2.7% savings subsequently iii years, a effigy that is significantly lower than the average savings from single-payer systems we found in our review [59]. Multi-payer systems accept higher costs in part due to increased cost shifting. Our analysis is not able to quantify precisely the furnishings of reduced cost sharing. A unified provider payment system, as opposed to a unmarried-payer arrangement, may reach substantial cost savings, but our analysis only considered the latter. Indeed, many OECD countries have a unified payment system with a standard benefits parcel, a single payment process, a single formulary, and not-for-profit insurers, which shares many features with "unmarried-payer." Finally, despite the drawbacks of our narrow inclusion criteria, a benefit is that our results provide a clearer and more relevant assessment of the economic touch on of a unmarried-payer system in the US.

5th, in addition to saving costs, unified payment models such equally single-payer take the potential to foster quality and efficient care through payment signals, also equally to monitor trends in intendance patterns via rapid admission to highly standardized claims data. For instance, in Nippon's unified payment system, price incentives are used to promote public health goals, such every bit increasing preventive intendance [60]. The use of toll incentives to bulldoze operation is common in high-income countries [61]. However, studies did not include this in their analysis, so we deemed information technology outside the scope of our report.

Sixth, as with whatever review, our search period is fourth dimension-limited, ending in Dec 2018. We are aware of 1 study in 2019 [62], just did not systematically search for other studies. We limited our Google searches to 10 pages. Notwithstanding, we never found a relevant study after page 2 of search results, increasing our confidence that a 10-page review was adequate. We volition update this analysis in coming years.

Finally, we examined merely economic studies of organization operating costs, in the commencement year and over fourth dimension. We ignored i-time transition costs (in particular, buy of for-profit entities, unemployment and alimony benefits, and retraining of displaced workers). Breezy review of existing testify suggests that these costs are small in comparing to health organisation spending, which is 18% of the economic system. Nosotros also did not examine financing, e.grand., revenue enhancement strategies. These are important next steps.

Policy implications

This review highlights a high caste of analytic consensus that unmarried-payer financing would result in a favorable result for system financial burden: efficiency savings exceed added costs. A net price reduction of iii%–4% is likely initially, growing over time. Cyberspace savings would be expected to occur, if not immediately, certainly within a few years. Yet, maximizing performance and savings will require optimized implementation. Payment procedures must be as elementary as in other countries, drug prices a substantial reduction from contemporary levels, and comprehensive clinical data used in sophisticated ways to identify and reduce inappropriate care. The logical next step is existent-world experimentation, including evaluation and refinement to minimize transition costs and achieve modeled performance in reality.

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Lauren Carroll for assistance in searching.

References

1. 1. Tolbert J, Orgera Yard, Singer N, Damico A. Key facts about the uninsured population. San Francisco Kaiser Family Foundation; 2019 December 13 [cited 2019 December 18]. https://www.kff.org/uninsured/fact-sheet/key-facts-about-the-uninsured-population/.
2. 2. Woolhandler S, Himmelstein DU. The human relationship of health insurance and mortality: is lack of insurance deadly? Ann Intern Med. 2017;167(six):424–431. pmid:28655034
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
3. 3. Chen Z, Min J, Bian J, Wang 1000, Zhou L, Prosperi M. Risk of health morbidity for the uninsured: 10-year show from a large hospital center in Boston, Massachusetts. Int J Qual Health Care. 2018;31(v):325–3.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
4. 4. Christopher AS, McCormick D, Woolhandler S, Himmelstein DU, Bor DH, Wilper AP. Access to care and chronic disease outcomes amid Medicaid-insured persons versus the uninsured. Am J Public Wellness. 2016;106(1):63–9. pmid:26562119
   • View Commodity
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
5. v. McWilliam JM. Health consequences of uninsurance among adults in the Usa: recent evidence and implications. Milbank Q. 2009;87(2):443–94. pmid:19523125
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
6. 6. Kaiser Family unit Foundation. 2018 Employer health benefits survey. Oakland (CA): Kaiser Family unit Foundation; 2018 [cited 2019 Dec 24]. https://www.kff.org/report-section/2018-employer-wellness-benefits-survey-section-5-market-shares-of-wellness-plans/.
7. 7. Collins SR, Rasmussen Prisoner of war, Beutel Southward, Doty MM. The problem of underinsurance and how ascent deductibles will brand information technology worse: findings from the Commonwealth Fund Biennial Health Insurance Survey, 2014. New York: Commonwealth Fund; 2015.
8. 8. Nguyen KH, Sommers BD. Access and quality of care by insurance type for low-income adults before the Affordable Care Human activity. Am J Public Health. 2016;106(8):1409–15. pmid:27196646
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
9. 9. Heart for Medicare and Medicaid Services. National health expenditure data: historical. Baltimore: Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services; 2019 [cited 2019 Dec 18]. https://world wide web.cms.gov/Inquiry-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsHistorical.html.
10. x. Himmelstein DU, Woolhandler Due south. The electric current and projected taxpayer shares of U.s. health costs. Am J Public Health. 2016;106(iii):449–52. pmid:26794173
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
11. xi. Anderson GF, Hussey P, Petrosyan Five. It's even so the prices, stupid: why the Usa spends so much on health intendance, and a tribute to Uwe Reinhardt. Health Aff (Millwood). 2019;38(1):87–95.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
12. 12. Papanicolas I, Woskie LR, Jha AK. Wellness care spending in the Usa and other high-income countries. JAMA. 2018;319(x):1024–39. pmid:29536101
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
13. thirteen. Jiwani A, Himmelstein D, Woolhandler S, Kahn JG. Billing and insurance-related administrative costs in United States' health intendance: Synthesis of micro-costing show. BMC Wellness Serv Res. 2014;fourteen(1):556.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
14. xiv. Stein L, Cornwell South, Tanfani J. Inside the progressive movement roiling the Democratic Party. Reuters. 2018 Aug 23 [cited 2019 December 18]. https://world wide web.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-election-progressives/.
15. 15. Serafini M. Why clinicians back up single-payer—and who will win and lose. NEJM Catalyst. 2018 Jan 17.
16. 16. Pol, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Americans' health and education priorities for the new congress in 2019. Boston: Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health; 2019 Jan [cited 2019 Dec 18]. https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/94/2019/01/Political leader-Harvard-Poll-January-2019-Wellness-and-Education-Priorities-for-New-Congress-in-2019.pdf.
17. 17. Kaiser Family Foundation. Public opinion on single-payer, national health plans, and expanding access to Medicare coverage. Kaiser Family Foundation; 2019 Nov 26 [cited 2019 Dec xviii]. https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer-national-health-plans-and-expanding-admission-to-medicare-coverage/.
18. 18. Pollin R, Heintz J, Arno P, Wicks-Lim J, Ash Thou. Economic analysis of Medicare for All. Amherst (MA): Political Economy Research Institute, University of Massachusetts Amherst; 2018 Nov 30 [cited 2019 Dec 18]. https://www.peri.umass.edu/publication/particular/1127-economical-analysis-of-medicare-for-all.
19. nineteen. Blahous C. The costs of a national single-payer healthcare organisation. Arlington (VA): Mercatus Eye, George Mason University; 2018 Jul [cited 2019 December 18]. https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare-mercatus-working-paper-v1_1.pdf.
20. xx. Holahan J, Buettgens M, Clemans-Cope L, Favreault MM, Blumberg LJ, Ndwandwe S. The Sanders single-payer health care plan: the consequence on national health expenditures and federal and private spending. Washington (DC): Urban Institute; 2016 May 9 [cited 2019 Dec 18]. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/sanders-unmarried-payer-health-intendance-program-effect-national-wellness-expenditures-and-federal-and-individual-spending/view/full_report.
21. 21. Hellander I. How much would single payer toll? A summary of studies compiled by Ida Hellander, M.D. Chicago: Physicians for a National Health Program; 2019 [cited 2019 December xviii]. http://pnhp.org/how-much-would-unmarried-payer-cost/.
22. 22. Healthcare-At present. List of single payer studies. Boston: Healthcare-NOW; 2019 [cited 2019 December 18]. https://www.healthcare-now.org/single-payer-studies/listing-of-single-payer-studies/.
23. 23. Center for American Progress. Medicare Extra for All: a plan to guarantee universal health coverage in the United States. Washington (DC): Center for American Progress; 2018 Feb 22 [cited 2019 Dec 18]. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/healthcare/reports/2018/02/22/447095/medicare-extra-for-all/.
24. 24. Thorpe KE. An analysis of Senator Sanders unmarried payer plan. Boston: Healthcare-NOW; 2016 [cited 2019 Dec 29]. https://www.healthcare-now.org/296831690-Kenneth-Thorpe-southward-assay-of-Bernie-Sanders-s-single-payer-proposal.pdf.
25. 25. Lau JS, Adams SH, Park MJ, Boscardin WJ, Irwin CE. Improvement in preventive care of young adults later on the Affordable Intendance Act: the Affordable Care Act is helping. JAMA Pediatr. 2014;168(12):1101–6. pmid:25347766
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
26. 26. Buchmueller TC, Grumbach K, Kronick R, Kahn JG. The result of health insurance on medical care utilization and implications for insurance expansion: a review of the literature. Med Care Res Rev. 2005;62(1):3–thirty. pmid:15643027
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
27. 27. Cheng SH, Chiang TL. The upshot of universal health insurance on wellness care utilization in Taiwan. JAMA. 1997;278(two):89–93. pmid:9214512
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
28. 28. Pickens Chiliad, Karaca Z, Cutler E, Dworsky M, Eibner C, Moore B, et al. Changes in infirmary inpatient utilization post-obit wellness care reform. Health Serv Res. 2018;53(4):2446–69. pmid:28664983
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
29. 29. Mahendraratnam North, Dusetzina SB, Farley JF. Prescription drug utilization and reimbursement increased following land Medicaid expansion in 2014. J Manage Intendance Spec Pharm. 2017;23(3):355–63.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
30. thirty. Ku L. Medical and dental care utilization and expenditures under Medicaid and private wellness insurance. Med Care Res Rev. 2009;66(four):456–71. pmid:19389727
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
31. 31. Hadley J, Holahan J. Is health care spending higher under Medicaid or private insurance? Inquiry. 2003;40(iv):323–42. pmid:15055833
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
32. 32. Kaiser Family unit Foundation. When high deductibles injure: fifty-fifty insured patients postpone care. San Francisco: Kaiser Family Foundation; 2017 Jul 28 [cited 2019 Dec xviii]. https://khn.org/news/when-high-deductibles-hurt-even-insured-patients-postpone-care/.
33. 33. Fauke C, Himmelstein D. Doubling down on errors: Urban Institute defends its ridiculously loftier single payer cost estimates. HuffPost. 2017 Dec 6 [cited 2019 Dec 18]. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/steffie-woolhandler/urban-institute-errors-single-payer-costs_b_10100836.html.
34. 34. Gaffney A, Woolhandler S, Himmelstein D. The effect of large-scale health coverage expansions in wealthy nations on club-wide healthcare utilization. J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Nov 19. pmid:31745857
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
35. 35. Gaffney A, McCormick D, Bor D, Woolhandler S, Himmelstein D. Coverage expansions and utilization of doc care: testify from the 2014 Affordable Care Act and 1966 Medicare/Medicaid expansions. Am J Public Wellness. 2019;109(12):1694–701. pmid:31622135
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
36. 36. Simon Thou, Soni A, Cawley J. The impact of health insurance on preventive care and health behaviors: prove from the first 2 years of the ACA Medicaid expansions. J Policy Anal Manage. 2017;36(2):390–417. pmid:28378959
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
37. 37. Himmelstein DU, Jun M, Busse R, Chevreul K, Geissler A, Jeurissen PPT, et al. A comparison of infirmary administrative costs in eight nations: U.s.a. costs exceed all others by far. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014;33(nine):1586–94.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
38. 38. Gaffney A, Lexchin J. Healing an ailing pharmaceutical system: prescription for reform for Usa and Canada. BMJ. 2018;361:k1039. pmid:29773533
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
39. 39. Kesselheim Every bit, Avorn J, Sarpatwari A. The high cost of prescription drugs in the Us: origins and prospects for reform. JAMA. 2016;316(8):858–71. pmid:27552619
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
40. 40. Hogervorst M. A qualitative and quantitative cess on drug pricing methods in a single-payer system in the U.Southward. [master's thesis]. Utrecht: Utrecht University; 2019.
41. 41. Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. Annual report 2016. Ottawa: Patented Medicine Prices Review Board; 2017 [cited 2019 Dec xix]. http://www.pmprb-cepmb.gc.ca/view.asp?ccid=1334.
42. 42. Lanthier M, Miller KL, Nardinelli C, Woodcock J. An improved approach to measuring drug innovation finds steady rates of offset-in-class pharmaceuticals, 1987–2011. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(8):1433–9.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
43. 43. Prasad 5, Mailankody S. Research and development spending to bring a single cancer drug to market and revenues after blessing. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(xi):1569–75. pmid:28892524
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
44. 44. Drug Channels. Profits in the 2019 Fortune 500: manufacturers vs. managed care vs. pharmacies, PBMs, and wholesalers. Philadelphia: Drug Channels; 2019 Aug 27 [cited 2019 Dec 29]. https://www.drugchannels.net/2019/08/profits-in-2019-fortune-500.html.
45. 45. Fox J. Corporate profits are down, but wages are up. New York: Bloomberg; 2019 Sep one [cited 2019 Dec 29]. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-09-01/corporate-profits-are-downward-but-wages-are-up.
46. 46. Frakt AB, Pizer SD, Feldman R. Should Medicare adopt the Veterans Health Administration formulary? Health Econ. 2012;21(five):485–95. pmid:21506191
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
47. 47. Young PL, Saunders RS, Olsen Fifty. The healthcare imperative: lowering costs and improving outcomes: workshop serial summary. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 2010.
48. 48. Chisholm D, Evans DB. Improving health system efficiency as a ways of moving towards universal coverage. Geneva: Earth Health Organization; 2010 [cited 2019 Dec 19]. https://www.who.int/healthsystems/topics/financing/healthreport/28UCefficiency.pdf.
49. 49. Sullivan G. Seema Verma hyperventilates about tiny differences betwixt ACOs exposed to one-and ii-sided adventure. The Wellness Care Blog. 2018 Aug 21 [cited 2019 December nineteen]. https://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2018/08/21/seema-verma-hyperventilates-about-tiny-differences-between-acos-exposed-to-one-and-two-sided-gamble/.
50. l. Verma S. Pathways to success: a new start for Medicare's accountable intendance organizations. Health Affairs Blog. 2018 Aug 9 [cited 2019 Dec 19]. https://world wide web.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20180809.12285/total/.
51. 51. Medicare Payment Informational Commission. Written report to Congress: Medicare and the healthcare delivery system. Washington (DC): Medicare Payment Advisory Committee; 2018 Jun 15 [cited 2019 Dec xix]. http://medpac.gov/docs/default-source/reports/jun18_medpacreporttocongress_sec.pdf.
52. 52. Role of Inspector General. Medicare shared savings program answerable intendance organizations have shown potential for reducing spending and increasing quality. Washington (DC): Section of Health and Human Services; 2017 Aug [cited 2019 Dec 19]. https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-02-fifteen-00450.pdf.
53. 53. Bleser WK, Muhlestein D, Saunders RS, McClellan MB. Half a decade in, Medicare accountable care organizations are generating internet savings: Part 1. Health Affairs Blog. 2018 Sep twenty [cited 2019 Dec 19]. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/x.1377/hblog20180918.957502/full/.
54. 54. McWilliams JM, Hatfield LA, Landon BE, Hamed P, Chernew ME. Medicare spending after 3 years of the Medicare shared savings plan. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(12):1139–49. pmid:30183495
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
55. 55. Joanna Briggs Institute. The Joanna Briggs Institute Disquisitional Appraisal tools for use in JBI Systematic Reviews: checklist for economical evaluations. Adelaide: Joanna Briggs Institute; 2017 [cited 2019 December 19]. https://joannabriggs.org/sites/default/files/2019-05/JBI_Critical_Appraisal-Checklist_for_Economic_Evaluations2017_0.pdf.
56. 56. Wolff RF, Moons KG, Riley RD, Whiting PF, Westwood G, Collins GS, et al. PROBAST: a tool to appraise the risk of bias and applicability of prediction model studies. Ann Intern Med. 2019;170:51–viii. pmid:30596875
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
57. 57. Langer A. A framework for assessing Health Economic Evaluation (HEE) quality appraisal instruments. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:253. pmid:22894708
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
58. 58. Lewin Grouping. Cost and coverage analysis of nine proposals to expand health insurance coverage in California. Falls Church (VA): Lewin Group; 2002 Apr 12 [cited 2019 Dec 19]. https://health-admission.org/images/documents_other/health_care_options_project/hcop_lewin_report.pdf.
59. 59. Haber S, Beil H, Amico P, Morrison M, Akhmerova V, Beadles C, et al. Evaluation of the Maryland all-payer model: third annual report. Waltham (MA): RTI International; 2018 [cited 2019 December 19]. https://downloads.cms.gov/files/cmmi/md-all-payer-thirdannrpt.pdf.
60. 60. Ikegami N, editor. Universal health coverage for inclusive and sustainable evolution: lessons from Nippon. Washington (DC): Earth Depository financial institution; 2014 [cited 2019 December xix]. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/263851468062350384/pdf/Universal-health-coverage-for-inclusive-and-sustainable-development-lessons-from-Japan.pdf.
61. 61. Figueras J, Robinson R, Jakubowski Eastward, editors. Purchasing to meliorate wellness systems operation. European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies Serial. Geneva: World Wellness Organization; 2005 [cited 2019 Dec 19]. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/avails/pdf_file/0004/98428/E86300.pdf.
62. 62. Liu J, Eibner C. National health spending estimates under Medicare for All. Santa Monica (CA): RAND; 2019 [cited 2019 Dec 19]. https://world wide web.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3106.html.

corninghilike.blogspot.com

Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003013

Share this post