Managed Care: Running Head And Attachment 1 Health 

Running Head Managed Care1managed Care8attachment 1health Insuran


Analyze the contrasting features of the United States and Japan regarding their health insurance systems and managed care practices, including history, health & benefit plans, supplemental insurance, provider contracting, payment, utilization, quality management, governance, and overall health outcomes.


Paper For Above instruction


Health care systems across the globe exhibit notable diversity, shaped by historical developments, cultural values, economic constraints, and governmental policies. The United States and Japan are two prominent models with fundamentally different approaches to managed care and health insurance, each with unique features and implications for their populations’ health outcomes.


Historical Development of Managed Care and Health Insurance


The United States’ managed care origin dates back to the 19th century when physicians in various cities started offering prepaid medical plans to workers’ unions, fraternal organizations, and other labor groups. These associations allowed members to pay a small, upfront fee in exchange for access to a wide range of healthcare services. As industrialization progressed, large employers, especially in sectors like mining, railroads, and lumber, contracted with medical groups to provide care for their workers. The growth of prepaid services was slow initially but gained momentum during periods of economic downturns, such as the Great Depression, when both employers and employees adopted Medicare-like services in the 20th century. The 1970s and 1980s saw a significant push from the government to promote managed care through legislation and incentives, culminating in widespread employer-sponsored plans today that include private insurance and government programs like Medicare and Medicaid (Douthit, Dwolatzky, & Biswas, 2015).


In contrast, Japan’s health insurance system developed following the Meiji Restoration, which modernized the country’s medical infrastructure and introduced Western medicine. The first formal health insurance for employees was established in 1927, with comprehensive universal health coverage becoming the norm by the 1960s. Japanese health insurance is predominantly employer-based or publicly sponsored, with systems harmonized in the 1980s to control costs and improve efficiency (Sakamoto et al., 2019). The Japanese system emphasizes universal coverage, ensuring that nearly every individual is insured either through employer schemes or government programs, financed through mandatory contributions from individuals and corporations (Sasaki, Izawa, & Okada, 2015).


Health & Benefit Plans and Supplementary Insurance


In the United States, health insurance plans vary widely depending on the state and provider but typically include outpatient services, inpatient care, preventive services (vaccinations, screenings), mental health, pediatric, dental, and visual health services. The US system is characterized by a significant private sector role, with many individuals purchasing private insurance or receiving employer-sponsored plans. Supplemental insurance, such as Medigap policies, fills gaps by covering costs like co-payments and deductibles, especially for retirees or those with extensive needs (Dieleman et al., 2017). These supplements are essential to mitigate the high out-of-pocket expenses frequently associated with US healthcare.


Japan’s insurance system provides a comprehensive coverage package mandated for all residents, including outpatient and inpatient care, mental health services, prescription drugs, preventive care, dental, and pediatric services. Unlike the US, supplementary private health insurance is generally unnecessary in Japan because the public systems are designed to address most health needs effectively. However, foreign residents and expatriates often purchase supplemental private plans to cover additional services or expedite care (Sakamoto et al., 2019).


Provider Contracting, Credentialing, and Payment Systems


In the United States, healthcare providers contract with insurance companies, which involves credentialing processes that include gathering provider identification details, verifying licenses, and negotiating fees and service scope. Providers must maintain updated credentials like the national provider identifier (NPI) and tax identification numbers (Webber et al., 2019). Payment methods predominantly include fee-for-service, capitation, or value-based arrangements, with insurers reimbursing providers after service delivery.


Japan’s provider contracting is centralized, with healthcare providers required to hold valid licenses and adhere to national standards. Credentialing involves obtaining necessary licenses and identification numbers. Provider payments are typically managed through government and insurance-reimbursed schemes, with standardized fee schedules to keep costs predictable. Employers and government agencies pay premiums, and providers claim payments based on predetermined rates established by national protocols (Sakamoto et al., 2018).


Utilization Management and Quality Assurance


The US healthcare system faces challenges with high costs and variable quality due to inconsistent utilization management. Despite advanced facilities, issues such as over-utilization of certain services and under-utilization of others persist, often driven by fee-for-service incentives (Dieleman et al., 2017). Conversely, Japan maintains high standards of care with efficient utilization patterns thanks to strict regulation and comprehensive insurance coverage that encourages appropriate use of services. Japan’s focus on quality assurance is reflected in regular clinical audits and standardized treatment protocols, resulting in superior health outcomes (Sakamoto et al., 2019).


Governance, Administration, and Overall Health Outcomes


In the US, health governance largely involves private organizations with regulation and oversight from federal and state agencies. However, political influence and complex regulatory environments often hinder effective administration, leading to disparities in access and coverage. Despite high healthcare expenditure, the US lags behind in key health metrics such as life expectancy and disease prevention (Dieleman et al., 2017).


Japan’s healthcare governance is primarily government-led, with policies focused on universal coverage, cost control, and quality assurance. The Japanese government actively manages health programs, resulting in superior overall health outcomes, including high life expectancy, low infant mortality, and effective management of chronic diseases (Sakamoto et al., 2018). The country’s comprehensive approach and minimal disparities contribute to its reputation as a global leader in population health.


Conclusion


The comparison between the US and Japan’s health insurance and managed care systems reveals stark differences rooted in historical, cultural, and policy choices. The US model emphasizes private enterprise and individual choice, often at the expense of cost control and equitable access. Japan’s approach, characterized by universal coverage and government regulation, fosters high-quality care with better health outcomes and cost-effectiveness. These contrasting systems demonstrate that integrated health policies tailored to cultural contexts can significantly influence national health metrics and the sustainability of healthcare delivery.


References
  • Dieleman, J., Campbell, M., Chapin, A., Eldrenkamp, E., Fan, V. Y., Haakenstad, A., & Reynolds, A. (2017). Evolution and patterns of global health financing 1995–2014: development assistance for health, and government, prepaid private, and out-of-pocket health spending in 184 countries. The Lancet.
  • Douthit, N., Kiv, S., Dwolatzky, T., & Biswas, S. (2015). Exposing some critical barriers to health care access in the rural USA. Public health, 129(6).
  • Sakamoto, H., Rahman, M., Nomura, S., Okamoto, E., Koike, S., Yasunaga, H., & Palmer, M. (2018). Japan health system review.
  • Sasaki, T., Izawa, M., & Okada, Y. (2015). Current trends in health insurance systems: OECD countries vs. Japan. Neurologia medico-chirurgica, 55(4).
  • Webber, B. J., Burganowski, R. P., Colton, L., Escobar, J. D., Pathak, S. R., & Gambino-Shirley, K. J. (2019). Lyme disease overdiagnosis in an extensive healthcare system: a population-based, retrospective study. Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 25(10).
  • Sakamoto, H., Rahman, M., Nomura, S., Okamoto, E., Koike, S., Yasunaga, H., & Palmer, M. (2019). Japan health system review.
  • Okada, Y., & Yasuda, M. (2019). Universal health coverage in Japan: achievements and challenges. Health Policy.
  • OECD. (2020). Health at a Glance: Asia/Pacific 2020. OECD Publishing.
  • World Health Organization. (2019). World health statistics 2019: Monitoring health for the SDGs.
  • Reinhardt, U. E. (2018). The economics of health and health care. Springer Publishing Company.

Related Assignments