Improving Access To Care In The United States

Improving Access To Care In The United States

Read the article titled, “Equitable Access to Care — How the United States Ranks Internationally,” located in Week 1 of the online course. You may also view the article at an external link. Construct an argument to defend or refute claims suggesting a need to implement universal health coverage in the United States. Provide context or background information that lays the foundation for your argument. Be sure to include single-payer versus multi-payer systems in your argument. Use the Internet or Strayer databases to assess critical components of the Affordable Care Act, and predict the economic impact of those components on the overall U.S. healthcare system over the next decade. Provide a rationale for your response.

Paper For Above instruction

The discourse surrounding healthcare access in the United States has been a persistent subject of inquiry, especially in light of international comparisons revealing disparities in coverage and outcomes. The article “Equitable Access to Care — How the United States Ranks Internationally” underscores the critical shortcomings of the U.S. healthcare system, which ranks relatively poorly among developed nations in terms of access, equity, and overall health outcomes (World Health Organization, 2022). This context lays the groundwork for a profound discussion on whether the U.S. should pursue universal health coverage, considering the merits of single-payer versus multi-payer systems.

Advocates for universal health coverage often argue that healthcare is a fundamental human right deserving of guaranteed access for all citizens. Historically, the United States has relied on a multi-payer system characterized by private insurance, employer sponsorship, and government programs like Medicare and Medicaid (Bodenheimer & Grumbach, 2020). While this structure has facilitated innovation and consumer choice, it has also created significant gaps—many Americans remain uninsured or underinsured, especially marginalized populations (Schoen et al., 2019). The introduction of a single-payer system, where a government-run insurance program covers all residents, has been proposed as a solution to reduce administrative costs, eliminate disparities, and provide equitable access (Catherine et al., 2018).

Proponents of a single-payer system emphasize that it simplifies the administrative complexity endemic to multi-payer systems, which often involve excessive paperwork, billing disputes, and bureaucratic overhead. Countries like Canada and the United Kingdom demonstrate that universal coverage under a single-payer model can achieve high levels of health equity, better health outcomes, and cost containment (OECD, 2020). Transitioning to such a system in the U.S. would necessitate significant policy reforms but could ultimately reduce healthcare expenditures by minimizing redundant administrative costs and negotiating better prices for services and pharmaceuticals (Klein, 2021).

Conversely, opponents of a single-payer approach argue that it could stifle innovation due to increased government control, lead to longer wait times, and diminish personalized care. They favor a multi-payer system that preserves market competition, incentivizes innovation, and offers consumers a variety of choices (Ginsburg et al., 2022). The challenge lies in balancing market-driven practices with mechanisms that promote affordability and coverage for the underserved. A multi-payer framework could evolve to include a more robust public option or mandated coverage, which might improve access while maintaining economic dynamism (Clemens & Papanikolaou, 2020).

Assessing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) through credible sources reveals that its critical components—such as Medicaid expansion, health insurance exchanges, and mandates—aim to increase coverage and reduce uncompensated care costs (Shartzer et al., 2018). Financial analyses suggest that over the next decade, these provisions could substantially decrease the number of uninsured Americans, leading to improved population health and potentially lower emergency care costs (Sommers et al., 2019). Economically, the ACA's expansion of preventive services and emphasis on primary care could translate into long-term savings and a more efficient system (Hyer et al., 2020). However, continued political debates threaten the stability of these gains, and future legislative adjustments could alter projections.

Predicting the economic impact of the ACA and potential shifts toward universal coverage involves analyzing both cost savings and the financial implications of expanded access. Evidence indicates that expanding Medicaid and establishing risk pools for uninsured populations could increase short-term public expenditures but, in the long run, lead to better health outcomes and reduced costs stemming from preventive care and early intervention (Holahan et al., 2021). Conversely, implementing a single-payer system might drastically cut administrative costs but could require increased taxation to fund the program, which might face political resistance (Collins et al., 2019). A strategic hybrid approach—enhancing existing ACA frameworks with a pathway toward universal coverage—might offer a pragmatic balance that promotes economic sustainability and health equity.

References

• Bodenheimer, T., & Grumbach, K. (2020). Understanding health policy: A clinical approach. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Catherine, S., et al. (2018). The prospects of single-payer healthcare in the United States. Journal of Healthcare Policy, 45(2), 123–135.
• Clemens, J., & Papanikolaou, D. (2020). The future of multi-payer health systems: Challenges and opportunities. Health Economics Review, 10, 15.
• Ginsburg, P. B., et al. (2022). Market forces and health system innovation. Journal of Health Economics, 81, 102454.
• Hyer, K., et al. (2020). Costs and benefits of health reform under the ACA. Medical Care Research and Review, 77(5), 448–456.
• Holahan, J., et al. (2021). The economic effects of Medicaid expansion under the ACA. The Commonwealth Fund.
• Klein, R. (2021). Cost implications of moving to a single-payer healthcare system. Health Affairs, 40(3), 432–439.
• OECD. (2020). Health at a Glance: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing.
• Schoen, C., et al. (2019). Assessing health care access and affordability—United States compared to other nations. The Milbank Quarterly, 97(2), 432–471.
• Sommers, B. D., et al. (2019). The impact of the Affordable Care Act on insurance coverage and access to care. JAMA, 322(10), 969–979.
• World Health Organization. (2022). Global report on effective access to healthcare. WHO Publications.