Peer Review of the Peri Medicare for All Study

• Loading metrics

Open up Admission

Peer-reviewed

Research Commodity

Projected costs of single-payer healthcare financing in the The states: A systematic review of economic analyses

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

ten

• Published: January xv, 2020
• https://doi.org/ten.1371/journal.pmed.1003013

Figures

Abstract

Background

The United States is the but high-income nation without universal, government-funded or -mandated health insurance employing a unified payment system. The Usa multi-payer arrangement leaves residents uninsured or underinsured, despite overall healthcare costs far above other nations. Unmarried-payer (often referred to as Medicare for All), a proposed policy solution since 1990, is receiving renewed press attention and popular support. Our review seeks to appraise the projected cost bear upon of a single-payer arroyo.

Methods and findings

We conducted our literature search between June one and Dec 31, 2018, without get-go date brake for included studies. We surveyed an good panel and searched PubMed, Google, Google Scholar, and preexisting lists for formal economic studies of the projected costs of single-payer plans for the U.s.a. 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, we 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. We further examined how modeling assumptions afflicted results. Our search yielded economic analyses of the cost of 22 unmarried-payer plans over the past 30 years. Exclusions were due to inadequate technical information or bold a substantial ongoing office for private insurers. We found that 19 (86%) of the analyses predicted net savings (median internet result was a savings of three.46% of total costs) in the outset year of program performance and 20 (91%) predicted savings over several years; anticipated growth rates would consequence in long-term cyberspace savings for all plans. The largest source of savings was simplified payment assistants (median eight.viii%), and the best predictors of net savings were the magnitude of utilization increment, and savings on assistants and drug costs (R ^two of 0.035, 0.43, and 0.62, respectively). Only drug toll savings remained significant in multivariate assay. Included studies were heterogeneous in methods, which precluded us from conducting a formal meta-assay.

Conclusions

In this systematic review, we establish a high degree of analytic consensus for the fiscal feasibility of a single-payer arroyo in the US. Bodily costs will depend on plan features and implementation. Future inquiry should refine estimates of the effects of coverage expansion on utilization, evaluate provider administrative costs in varied existing single-payer systems, clarify implementation options, and evaluate US-based unmarried-payer programs, as bachelor.

Author summary

Why was this written report done?

• As the US healthcare debate continues, in that location is growing involvement in "single-payer" also known as "Medicare for All." Single-payer uses a simplified public funding approach to provide everyone with high-quality wellness insurance.
• Public support for provision of universal health coverage through a program like Medicare for All is equally high as lxx%, but falls when costs are emphasized.
• Economical models help appraise the financial viability of single-payer. Yet, models vary widely in their assumptions and methods, and can be difficult to compare.

What did the researchers do and find?

• We institute and compared cost analyses of 22 single-payer plans for the U.s. or private states.
• Nineteen (86%) of the analyses estimated that health expenditures would fall in the offset year, and all suggested the potential for long-term cost savings.
• The largest savings were predicted to come from simplified billing and lower drug costs.
• Studies funded past organizations across the political spectrum estimated savings for single-payer.

What practice these findings hateful?

• There is nigh-consensus in these analyses that single-payer would reduce health expenditures while providing loftier-quality insurance to all US residents.
• To reach net savings, single-payer plans rely on simplified billing and negotiated drug toll reductions, equally well as global budgets to control spending growth over time.
• Replacing private insurers with a public arrangement is expected to reach lower net healthcare costs.

Citation: Cai C, Runte J, Ostrer I, Berry K, Ponce N, Rodriguez M, et al. (2020) Projected costs of single-payer healthcare financing in the U.s.: A systematic review of economic analyses. PLoS Med 17(one): e1003013. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003013

Bookish Editor: Zirui Vocal, Massachusetts Full general Hospital, UNITED STATES

Received: May 6, 2019; Accepted: December 17, 2019; Published: January xv, 2020

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

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

Funding: CC, JR, IO and KB each received a pupil summer enquiry grant of $750 each from Physicians for a National Health Program (http://pnhp.org/most/) to support this study. No other back up. The funders had no role in the written report design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish or manuscript grooming.

Competing interests: I have read the periodical's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: CC is an executive lath member of Students for a National Health Plan (SNaHP). SNaHP had no role in study pattern, information collection, analysis, determination to publish or manuscript preparation.

Abbreviations: ACO, answerable care organization; OECD, Organisation for Economic Co-functioning and Development; VA, The states Veterans Administration

Introduction

9 years after passage of the Affordable Intendance Act, x.4% (27.ix million) of the nonelderly US population remains uninsured [1]. Lack of insurance is associated with worse health outcomes, including decease [2], due to decreased access to healthcare and preventive services [iii–5]. Underinsurance, defined every bit cost sharing that represents significant financial barriers to care or take chances of catastrophic medical expenditures, is rising and is associated with a 25% or greater likelihood of omitted or delayed care [half-dozen,7]. Low-income adults with public insurance have improved access and quality of care compared to uninsured adults [8].

Meanwhile, healthcare costs keep to ascension, budgeted 1-fifth of the economic system. In 2018, national health expenditures reached $3.six trillion, equivalent to 17.7% of Gdp [9]. Authorities funding, including public programs, private insurance for government employees, and taxation subsidies for private insurance, represented 64% of national wellness expenditures in 2013, or 11% of Gdp, more than than total health expenditures in almost any other nation [x]. Higher costs in the US are due primarily to higher prices and authoritative inefficiency, not higher utilization [11–13].

An oft-proposed alternative to the contemporary multi-payer system is unmarried-payer, besides referred to as Medicare for All. Key elements of single-payer include unified authorities or quasi-government financing, universal coverage with a single comprehensive benefit bundle, elimination of private insurers, and universal negotiation of provider reimbursement and drug prices. Single-payer equally it has been proposed in the US has no or minimal toll sharing. Polled support for single-payer is almost an all-fourth dimension high, as high every bit two-thirds of Americans [14] and 55% of physicians [15]. Two-thirds of Americans support providing universal health coverage through a national plan like Medicare for All every bit an extremely high priority for the incoming Congress [16]. However, support varies substantially according to how single-payer is described [17]. Equally of Nov 2019, there are 2 "Medicare for All Act of 2019" legislative proposals in the US Congress: Senate Beak 1129 and House of Representatives Beak 1384.

Economic analyses are crucial for formally estimating the cyberspace cost of single-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 administration, lower drug prices, and other factors. Such economic projections tin can shape program blueprint, contribute to policy soapbox, and affect the viability of legislation. As single-payer proposals proceeds legislative traction, the importance of economic models rises.

However, these analyses are complex and heterogeneous, making generalizations difficult. Findings vary across studies, from large "net savings" to "internet costs," every bit do modeling assumptions, such every bit the extent of administrative savings and presence or absence of drug price negotiations. The diversity of findings contributes to political spin and fuels popular uncertainty over the predictable costs of a unmarried-payer healthcare organisation. For case, a 2018 study past Pollin et al. (Political Economic system Inquiry Institute) estimated that a national Medicare for All system would save $313 million in the get-go year of implementation, while a 2018 report past Blahous (Mercatus Centre) plant that the aforementioned organisation would save $93 one thousand thousand in the commencement year, and a 2016 written report from Holahan et al. (Urban Institute) suggested that a modified form of this proposal, e.one thousand., relying on private insurers, would increase costs [eighteen–twenty]. Variation in single-payer proposals and analytic approaches likely explains many of the differences in outcomes across studies, but no comparative review has been undertaken, to our knowledge.

The goal of this report is to systematically review economical analyses of the cost of single-payer proposals in the US (both national and state level), summarize results in a logical but accessible manner, examine the clan of findings with plan features and with analytic methods, and, finally, examine the empirical prove regarding key study assumptions.

Methods

Overview

We specified in advance that we would extract and quantitatively compare increased costs due to utilization rises and savings due to administrative 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 information were publicly available. All data are available in the original studies, which are listed in S1 Appendix. Nosotros 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 information nearly plan features, analytic assumptions, and findings (costs due to college utilization, savings of all types, and net costs; see Table A in S1 Appendix for definitions of terms). We expressed all estimates as a percentage of contemporaneous healthcare spending, to facilitate comparison across settings and time periods. We summarized written report methods and findings graphically and analyzed associations between studies and spending estimates.

Search

Nosotros adopted a broad search strategy, reflecting our initial assessment (subsequently confirmed) that economic models of the toll of single-payer plans are not published in academic journals. We 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 ("Single-payer" OR "unmarried-payer") AND ("cost" OR "model" OR "economic" OR "price-benefit"). We express our Google search to 10 pages of results. We consulted existing lists maintained by Physicians for a National Health Program and Healthcare-NOW [21,22]. We asked a convenience sample of 10 single-payer experts. We besides searched the websites of leading advancement and industry-sponsored groups in favor of single-payer reform (Physicians for a National Wellness Programme and Healthcare-Now) and in opposition to single-payer reform (Partnership for America's Health Care Future). Additional search details are provided in Tabular array B in S1 Appendix. A PRISMA flow diagram is provided in Fig 1. A PRISMA checklist tin be found in Table Chiliad in S1 Appendix.

Inclusion and exclusion

"Unmarried-payer" has a broad range of definitions, both in the Us and internationally. Nosotros chose inclusion and exclusion criteria that were most consistent with single-payer plans that have been proposed in the The states. For example, while some single-payer plans internationally have included private intermediaries inside a unified payment organization, United states of america proposals take omitted a role for private insurers. Thus, we use private intermediaries equally an exclusion criterion. Notably, recent healthcare proposals such as "Medicare Extra for All" would not meet our inclusion criteria [23].

Study inclusion required ceremoniousness of both the plan and the assay. Specific inclusion criteria for the programme were that (1) all legal residents are permanently covered for a standard comprehensive set of medically advisable outpatient and inpatient medical services under 1 payer and (2) the payer is a not-for-profit government or quasi-government bureau. Other key single-payer features, such as providers being entirely in or out, uniform payments with no balance billing, and use of a drug formulary, are often unspecified and thus were assumed present (and thus not a ground for exclusion) unless explicitly omitted. Some plans include undocumented immigrants, and some exclude them. Exclusion criteria were (one) apply of big cost-sharing measures such as deductibles (some United states single-payer plans include small-scale copays, e.m., $five–$x for an outpatient visit, which was not considered grounds for exclusion) and (2) an explicit function for non-uniform payment levels (i.e., payments differing by patient), balance billing, multiple payment systems, multiple drug formularies, or private insurers or intermediaries. Chiefly, we applied these criteria to the modeled plan, so models incorporating whatever of these features when analyzing an otherwise qualifying unmarried-payer plan would be excluded. These excluded studies are listed in Table C in S1 Appendix. Finally, nosotros excluded 12 plans from 11 studies that met inclusion criteria simply 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 East in S1 Appendix).

For the analysis, all studies were required (1) to specify input assumptions and values based on transparent review of empirical evidence and (2) to study (a) increases in utilization and costs due to improved insurance/admission, (b) savings due to simplified payment administration (a unmarried payment procedure using one prepare of coverage and reimbursement rules), lower drug prices, and other specified reasons, and (c) total system costs and net costs of the single-payer plan.

For this report, nosotros did non require or consider financing (revenue) plans, which turn on an entirely different gear up of technical issues. We besides did non seek analyses of broader economic effects, such as de-investing in the private insurance market place or facilitation of labor mobility and get-go-ups through delinking of insurance and employment. Our analysis also omits long-term furnishings on medical innovation.

Studies were reviewed past at to the lowest degree 2 team members before finalizing inclusion or exclusion. Uncertain decisions (e.thousand., regarding adequacy of technical information or severity of deviation from the study definition of single-payer) were discussed with the unabridged team.

Extraction

Nosotros extracted the post-obit information from each study: almanac healthcare costs without unmarried-payer (specified for the year and setting, at the national or state level), initial-year annual cost under unmarried-payer, cost increase due to utilization growth, and savings (from all sources and 4 specific categories: simplified payment administration, lowered costs for medications [and for durable medical equipment, if arranged together], reduced clinical inefficiency [i.e., unneeded procedures] and fraud, and a switch to Medicare payment rates, which are lower than private insurance rates). We 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 commencement-yr implementation challenges. If available, we extracted longer term costs and savings, defined as costs or savings accumulated subsequent to the first year of implementation. We also extracted or calculated the utilization increment assumed for newly insured individuals.

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

Analysis

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

To assess the association of net cost with program and assay features (due east.g., whether drug cost reductions were considered), we used a visual method (color-coding analysis features). We also conducted univariate and multivariate linear regressions with net savings or toll every bit the upshot and with the post-obit predictors: utilization increase, specific savings categories, type of funder arrangement, and type of analyst organization. In the multivariate assay, we assigned dummy variables for missingness of the utilization predictor.

Results

Studies identified

We reviewed 90 studies and included primary analyses of 22 unmarried-payer plans from eighteen studies, published between 1991 and 2018, including viii national and xiv state-level plans (Massachusetts, California, Maryland, Vermont, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, New York, and Oregon). Included studies are listed in Tabular array F in S1 Appendix. Analysis teams included Usa government agencies, business organisation consultants and research organizations, and academics. Nine single-payer plans (from six studies) were excluded for the following reasons: age limits on single-payer, varied benefits across individuals, balance billing, inclusion of individual insurers or intermediaries in the plan or analysis, and lack of specification of assumptions regarding utilization and savings. Twelve studies were not reviewed because of duplication (same author, dissimilar state, earlier, north = 11) and age (1971, n = i).

Projected costs and savings

Net cost or savings in the first twelvemonth of single-payer operation varies from an increase of vii.2% of system costs to a reduction of 15.5% (Fig 2). The median finding was a net savings of 3.v% of arrangement costs, and analyses of 19 of 22 plans found cyberspace savings. Net costs reverberate the balance of added costs due to higher utilization (past 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 by 2.0% to 19.3% (median ix.three%). Full savings range from 3.three% to 26.5% (median 12.1%).

Fig 2. Net savings for single-payer in first year of implementation, sorted past net price/savings.

The median finding was savings (−iii.46% of full health organisation costs), and analyses of xix of 22 plans institute internet savings.

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

The cost increment due to expansion of insurance coverage varies due to the number of newly covered individuals and generosity of coverage benefits, merely also reflects policy components and adept assessment. For case, report estimates of increased utilization by newly covered individuals range from 25% to lxxx% of the costs for those already insured, reflecting varied assessments of uninsured individuals' healthcare admission and health status. Additionally, cost-control choices such as copays vary beyond plans.

The mix of projected savings from single-payer shows both consequent and variable elements across studies (Fig 3). All studies estimate lower costs due to simplified payment assistants, only vary in the size of these savings and in the inclusion and magnitude of other savings. Administrative savings vary from ane.2% to sixteen.4% (median eight.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.9%. Savings from reduced fraud and waste 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 viii models and range from 1.4% to 10.0%. Over fourth dimension, utilization increases are stable and projected savings grow, leading to larger estimates for potential savings.

In the long term, projected internet savings increase, due to a more tightly controlled rate of growth. For the ten studies with projections for up to 11 years, each year resulted in a hateful 1.4% shift toward cyberspace savings (Text A and Figs A and B in S1 Appendix). At this charge per unit, the three studies that observe cyberspace costs in the first twelvemonth would achieve internet savings by ten years.

Influence of plan and analysis features on findings

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

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

The 3 models that found net costs in the get-go year (Hsiao 2011 Low Toll Sharing, CBO 1993 SP2, and White 2017) shared specific policy choices including depression 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/journal.pmed.1003013.g004

Nosotros next assessed whether the inclusion of different analysis features (yes or no) was associated with net costs, based on univariate regressions (Fig 5). Toll sharing did not have a significant clan with net costs beyond all studies (2.0 points, 95% CI −three.i to vii.i, p = 0.43); 11 of 19 analyses showing cyberspace savings in the outset year included no or low cost sharing in their plans. Similarly, the association between inclusion of undocumented individuals and net costs was not statistically pregnant (−2.vii points, 95% CI −seven.8 to two.4, p = 0.28). Inclusion of medication and equipment savings in the model was associated with lower cyberspace costs past 7.0 points (95% CI −11.one to –iii.0, p = 0.002), and inclusion of efficiency gains and fraud reduction was associated with lower cyberspace costs by 4.3 points but not meaning (95% CI −ix.1 to 0.six, p = 0.08). Inclusion of a shift to Medicare payment rates was not a strong predictor of cyberspace costs. Nosotros cannot assess the association betwixt internet costs and presence or absence of administrative savings in these dichotomous analyses because all studies include these savings. The number of different assay features included in the model was too associated with lower net costs. For each boosted analysis feature included, net costs were reduced by 2.3 points (95% CI –4.3 to –0.iii, p = 0.02).

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

Each guess comes from a split linear regression of net costs and a binary predictor. Error confined stand for 95% confidence intervals.

https://doi.org/10.1371/periodical.pmed.1003013.g005

In univariate regressions of net savings confronting the magnitude of inputs, several relationships emerge (Fig 6). A one-indicate increase in utilization rate was associated with college net costs of 9.9 points; even so, this relationship did not reach statistical significance (95% CI −6.three to 26.0, p = 0.22). In contrast, the magnitude of internet savings was associated with higher savings in administrative costs (net cost −0.85 points, 95% CI −1.iii to −0.4, p = 0.01) and in medication and equipment costs (−1.79 points, 95% CI −2.43 to −1.16, p < 0.0001). Net savings were not strongly related to Medicare payment rates or efficiency gains/fraud reduction.

Fig 6. Cyberspace cost (%) versus utilization ascent 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 1 model. The red lines correspond linear regressions, with displayed results indicating the regression equation (including intercept and gradient) and R ² (proportion of variation explained). The regression line for Medicare payment rate (East) was omitted due to the preponderance of 0 values (73%, or all but six, of the 22 models). Higher utilization was associated with greater costs, whereas the magnitude of administrative and medication/equipment savings was associated with reduced net costs.

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

In a multivariate regression (limited past small sample size), nosotros found that net costs were associated with medication and equipment cost savings (−1.5 points, 95% CI −2.6 to −0.4, p = 0.01); other analysis features did non strongly predict internet costs. Lower net costs were associated with funder blazon (left-leaning versus correct-leaning: −6.vii points, 95% CI −11.5 to −one.8, p = 0.009) and analyst type (bookish versus other: 7.6 points, 95% CI 0.4 to 14.9, p = 0.04) in bivariate regressions, but not in multivariate regressions, perhaps due to reduced precision due to the sample size. Tables H and I in S1 Appendix written report the multivariate regression details.

Discussion

Nosotros identified 22 apparent economic models of the cost of single-payer financing in the US, from a variety of authorities, business organization consultant, and academic organizations. We institute that xix (86%) predict internet savings in the first year of operations, with a range from seven% college net cost to 15% lower internet cost. Increases in price due to improved insurance coverage and thus higher utilization were two% to 19%. Savings from simplified payment assistants at insurers and providers, drug cost reductions, and other mechanisms ranged from three% to 27%. The largest net savings were for plans with reductions in drug costs. Net savings accumulate over fourth dimension at an estimated i.four% per year. Of annotation, we excluded two widely publicized studies [20,24], both of which found internet costs, on the grounds that these studies made assumptions that included private insurance intermediaries (i.eastward., not a single-payer) or lacked technical item for evaluation.

These analyses suggest that single-payer can salve money, fifty-fifty in year 1, incorporating a wide range of assumptions most potential savings. More ambitious measures to realize cost reductions are projected to yield greater internet savings. This implies that concerns nearly wellness system price growth with single-payer may be misplaced, though costs to regime are likely to abound equally tax-based financing replaces individual insurance premiums and out-of-pocket spending.

Empirical bear witness for model assumptions

The results of these economic models depend on input assumptions regarding the result of single-payer provisions. In particular, the magnitude of net savings reflects the quantitative furnishings of utilization rises due to increased insurance and savings strategies. Reasonable analysts may differ on these assumptions based on plan features, setting, and show available at the fourth dimension of modeling. There is growing empirical evidence for each provision, which we review beneath.

Utilization increases due to new and improved insurance drive the price growth effects of single-payer. There is strong evidence over decades that the newly insured roughly double their healthcare utilization [25–27]. Medicaid expansion nether the Affordable Care Act appears to demonstrate a mix of utilization furnishings [28,29]. Moreover, in a single-payer system, the newly insured may be younger and healthier than the already insured, meaning that utilization may non increment to the levels of the already insured. Bear witness on utilization increases for the underinsured are mixed [30–32]. Importantly, in that location is evidence that when uninsured individuals gain insurance, increases in utilization for the newly insured are balanced past slightly lower utilization for the already insured, due to supply-side constraints [33–35]. However, with a decrease in billing-related administrative brunt for clinicians, a 10% or greater ascent in physician clinical capacity may occur, which would suit additional care utilization. Finally, increases in utilization for the uninsured and underinsured are likely to result in increased employ of preventive services, which should lead to some future cost saving [25,36].

Simplified payment administration represents the largest type of savings from single-payer. There is very stiff evidence that billing and insurance-related administrative brunt is college in the US than in Canada (which has single-payer) by 12%–xv% of total healthcare costs [thirteen]. The excess administrative costs are dissever roughly fifty% at insurers and fifty% at providers. Studies of hospitals find consequent large differences in administrative costs betwixt the United states and single-payer systems in Europe [37]. In that location is no direct show of ability to capture all of this excess, but solid empirical data from Canada and other System for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries support the intuition that administrative costs would sharply decrease 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 large internet savings. The U.s. Veterans Assistants (VA) gets a xxx% discount on prescription medications compared to private Medicare Advantage Plans [38,39]. US per-capita drug spending exceeds that of any other country [38,39]. Drug prices are the primary driver of higher price, with the US spending $one,011 annually per capita on prescription drugs compared to the OECD average of $422 [eleven].

Research estimates savings of 30% for diabetes drugs through use of drug formularies, due to medication choice and prices [40]. Drug companies argue that reducing prices volition reduce inquiry and innovation. However, many more than expensive drugs offer limited medical benefits [38,41,42]. Further, drug firms oftentimes raise prices subsequently recovering evolution costs. Research and evolution costs for x companies that launched new cancer agents were $ix billion, while revenue exceeded $67 billion [43]. Perchance 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 claim that if the entire health system gets the same discount as the VA, the discount levels will essentially subtract. However, if Medicare adopted the VA's tighter drug formulary, the savings would be roughly $505 per capita annually [46]. Overall, at that place is potent bear witness of the potential for a substantial reduction in drug costs, with magnitude probable a function of political choices and dynamics. A portion of these savings could too be realized if the government negotiated for lower drug prices in the existing Medicare program.

Reports estimate that up to 20%–40% of US healthcare spending is fraudulent or wasteful [47,48]. However, in that location is little evidence on how to avert this spending. The Affordable Care Deed prepare up accountable care organizations (ACOs), groups of healthcare providers responsible for a defined ready of patients and contracting with a payer (usually Medicare) for a payment structure tied to performance metrics, in an try to reduce costs. Recent ACO sit-in projects found minimal savings, potentially less than the cost of administering programs, leading to overall net 0 savings [49]. ACOs that are "2-sided" (using both penalties and shared savings) reduce service costs by a mean of 0.vii% yet require on average about two% costs to administer [l,51]. Overall, between 2013 and 2017, ACOs increased total costs to Medicare by 70 billion when bonuses were taken into account [52]. Recent analysis suggests modestly growing savings, in physician if non hospital groups, potentially more than administration costs [53,54]. Single-payer may facilitate efforts to reduce fraud and waste matter past providing comprehensive and consistent clinical encounter data within the single billing system (including diagnoses and services, as well as clinical outcomes). Thus, unmarried-payer might bolster the marginally constructive efforts in this area. Withal, the evidence to support large reductions in waste and fraud is tenuous. Furthermore, a reliance on ACO incentive approaches (which require big patient panels and specific payment structures) could undermine desired features of a single-payer programme, such as free choice of provider, substantial employ of fee-for-service billing in some plans, and hospital global budgeting. In lite of these uncertainties, most economic models do not anticipate reductions in fraud or waste material, and those that practise generally assume but a modest reduction.

Limitations

Our analysis has several of import limitations. Commencement, the included economical studies varied in methodological rigor and quality of reporting, funding sources, political motivations, and amount of evidence cited to support claims. Although we tried to classify studies by major single-payer and analysis characteristics, uncaptured variations may have added noise in the comparison. Relatedly, the diverseness of plans under report did non let for a formal meta-analysis, which is designed to integrate empirical evaluations of standardized interventions, especially using measures of association such every bit odds ratios.

Second, we did not apply quality rating scores for the included economic studies. Nosotros found no quality rating scores for health arrangement modeling, as 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 pick of the well-nigh appropriate data source for input values could be subjective. For case, studies varied in what per centum of savings could be achieved through simplification of payment assistants. We are unaware of studies analyzing the effects of other cardinal inputs, such every bit reductions in reimbursement rate. Hereafter inquiry is needed to appraise the quality of single-payer studies, clarify key model inputs, and analyze proposed ranges for sensitivity analyses. In terms of the potential for financial conflict of involvement bias, nosotros were reassured that a prominent health concern consultant (Lewin Grouping, with several included analyses), presumably with clients that stand up to lose money with single-payer, nonetheless found net savings.

Third, no single-payer system has been implemented in the U.s., due to lack of government approval fifty-fifty for demonstration projects. Thus, at that place is no domestic, large-scale empirical case to properly examination the economical models. Much of the research on single-payer is based on evidence from single-payer nations such equally Canada, Australia, and Taiwan. As reviewed above, US health systems that approximate single-payer, such as the VA, and other empirical studies provide support for model assumptions. Ultimately, our goal was not to compare price models with (nonexistent) empirical benchmarks, but to appraise the consistency of inputs across models and with empirical evidence, and to narrate patterns in model findings. Assuming that US single-payer demonstrations are coming, economic models tin can be tested and refined. Until and then, the relative consistency of existing models is the best testify available.

Quaternary, our written report was limited to proposals of single-payer as defined in the US, with a single (regime) payer, and meeting specified criteria. Our results are not generalizable to multi-payer "universal coverage" reforms, which would probable prove substantially smaller savings and thus increases in net cost [58]. The Maryland all-payer model, for example, showed 2.7% savings after iii years, a figure that is significantly lower than the average savings from single-payer systems we found in our review [59]. Multi-payer systems take higher costs in part due to increased price shifting. Our analysis is not able to quantify precisely the effects of reduced price sharing. A unified provider payment system, as opposed to a single-payer system, may accomplish substantial cost savings, but our analysis only considered the latter. Indeed, many OECD countries have a unified payment organisation with a standard benefits bundle, a single payment process, a single formulary, and not-for-turn a 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 impact of a single-payer arrangement in the US.

5th, in addition to saving costs, unified payment models such as single-payer have the potential to foster quality and efficient intendance through payment signals, as well every bit to monitor trends in care patterns via rapid access to highly standardized claims data. For instance, in Nippon'due south unified payment system, price incentives are used to promote public health goals, such as increasing preventive care [lx]. The use of toll incentives to bulldoze performance is common in high-income countries [61]. Notwithstanding, studies did not include this in their analysis, and then we deemed it outside the telescopic of our study.

Sixth, as with any review, our search period is time-limited, ending in December 2018. Nosotros are enlightened of 1 study in 2019 [62], only did not systematically search for other studies. We limited our Google searches to 10 pages. However, nosotros never found a relevant written report afterward folio 2 of search results, increasing our confidence that a x-page review was adequate. Nosotros will update this analysis in coming years.

Finally, we examined only economic studies of system operating costs, in the offset year and over time. We ignored erstwhile transition costs (in particular, purchase of for-turn a profit entities, unemployment and pension benefits, and retraining of displaced workers). Informal review of existing bear witness suggests that these costs are pocket-size in comparison to health system spending, which is xviii% of the economy. We also did not examine financing, e.thou., revenue enhancement strategies. These are important next steps.

Policy implications

This review highlights a high degree of analytic consensus that single-payer financing would result in a favorable issue for system financial burden: efficiency savings exceed added costs. A net toll reduction of iii%–iv% is likely initially, growing over time. Net savings would exist expected to occur, if non immediately, certainly inside a few years. However, maximizing operation and savings will require optimized implementation. Payment procedures must be as simple 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 intendance. The logical side by side pace is real-world experimentation, including evaluation and refinement to minimize transition costs and achieve modeled performance in reality.

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

The authors give thanks Lauren Carroll for assistance in searching.

References

1. ane. Tolbert J, Orgera K, Vocalist N, Damico A. Central facts nearly the uninsured population. San Francisco Kaiser Family Foundation; 2019 Dec 13 [cited 2019 Dec eighteen]. https://www.kff.org/uninsured/fact-sheet/key-facts-about-the-uninsured-population/.
2. two. Woolhandler S, Himmelstein DU. The relationship of health insurance and mortality: is lack of insurance deadly? Ann Intern Med. 2017;167(6):424–431. pmid:28655034
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
3. 3. Chen Z, Min J, Bian J, Wang G, Zhou Fifty, Prosperi M. Hazard of health morbidity for the uninsured: 10-twelvemonth evidence from a big infirmary center in Boston, Massachusetts. Int J Qual Health Care. 2018;31(5):325–3.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
4. four. Christopher Every bit, McCormick D, Woolhandler S, Himmelstein DU, Bor DH, Wilper AP. Access to care and chronic disease outcomes amidst Medicaid-insured persons versus the uninsured. Am J Public Wellness. 2016;106(1):63–9. pmid:26562119
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
5. five. McWilliam JM. Health consequences of uninsurance among adults in the United States: recent show and implications. Milbank Q. 2009;87(two):443–94. pmid:19523125
   • View Commodity
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
6. vi. Kaiser Family Foundation. 2018 Employer health benefits survey. Oakland (CA): Kaiser Family Foundation; 2018 [cited 2019 December 24]. https://www.kff.org/report-section/2018-employer-health-benefits-survey-section-5-market place-shares-of-health-plans/.
7. seven. Collins SR, Rasmussen Pow, Beutel S, Doty MM. The problem of underinsurance and how rising deductibles will make information technology worse: findings from the Democracy 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 Act. Am J Public Wellness. 2016;106(8):1409–15. pmid:27196646
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
9. 9. Middle for Medicare and Medicaid Services. National wellness expenditure data: historical. Baltimore: Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services; 2019 [cited 2019 December eighteen]. https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsHistorical.html.
10. x. Himmelstein DU, Woolhandler Southward. The electric current and projected taxpayer shares of U.s.a. wellness costs. Am J Public Health. 2016;106(three):449–52. pmid:26794173
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
11. 11. Anderson GF, Hussey P, Petrosyan V. It'southward nevertheless the prices, stupid: why the U.s.a. spends so much on health care, 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. Health care spending in the United States and other high-income countries. JAMA. 2018;319(10):1024–39. pmid:29536101
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
13. 13. Jiwani A, Himmelstein D, Woolhandler Due south, Kahn JG. Billing and insurance-related administrative costs in Usa' wellness intendance: Synthesis of micro-costing evidence. BMC Wellness Serv Res. 2014;14(1):556.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
14. 14. Stein L, Cornwell S, Tanfani J. Inside the progressive movement roiling the Democratic Party. Reuters. 2018 Aug 23 [cited 2019 Dec 18]. https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/united states of america-ballot-progressives/.
15. fifteen. Serafini M. Why clinicians support unmarried-payer—and who will win and lose. NEJM Catalyst. 2018 January 17.
16. 16. POLITICO, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Americans' health and education priorities for the new congress in 2019. Boston: Harvard T.H. Chan Schoolhouse of Public Wellness; 2019 Jan [cited 2019 Dec 18]. https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/94/2019/01/Political leader-Harvard-Poll-Jan-2019-Health-and-Didactics-Priorities-for-New-Congress-in-2019.pdf.
17. 17. Kaiser Family unit Foundation. Public opinion on single-payer, national health plans, and expanding access to Medicare coverage. Kaiser Family unit Foundation; 2019 Nov 26 [cited 2019 December 18]. https://world wide web.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-unmarried-payer-national-health-plans-and-expanding-access-to-medicare-coverage/.
18. 18. Pollin R, Heintz J, Arno P, Wicks-Lim J, Ash 1000. Economic analysis of Medicare for All. Amherst (MA): Political Economy Research Found, Academy of Massachusetts Amherst; 2018 November 30 [cited 2019 Dec xviii]. https://www.peri.umass.edu/publication/item/1127-economical-analysis-of-medicare-for-all.
19. 19. 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. 20. Holahan J, Buettgens K, Clemans-Cope L, Favreault MM, Blumberg LJ, Ndwandwe Southward. The Sanders unmarried-payer health intendance plan: the outcome on national wellness expenditures and federal and private spending. Washington (DC): Urban Institute; 2016 May ix [cited 2019 Dec 18]. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/sanders-single-payer-health-care-programme-effect-national-health-expenditures-and-federal-and-private-spending/view/full_report.
21. 21. Hellander I. How much would unmarried payer cost? A summary of studies compiled past Ida Hellander, M.D. Chicago: Physicians for a National Health Programme; 2019 [cited 2019 Dec 18]. http://pnhp.org/how-much-would-single-payer-cost/.
22. 22. Healthcare-At present. Listing of unmarried payer studies. Boston: Healthcare-At present; 2019 [cited 2019 Dec eighteen]. 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 December 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 single payer plan. Boston: Healthcare-Now; 2016 [cited 2019 Dec 29]. https://world wide web.healthcare-at present.org/296831690-Kenneth-Thorpe-s-assay-of-Bernie-Sanders-s-unmarried-payer-proposal.pdf.
25. 25. Lau JS, Adams SH, Park MJ, Boscardin WJ, Irwin CE. Improvement in preventive care of immature adults after the Affordable Care Act: the Affordable Care Deed 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 effect 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–xxx. pmid:15643027
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
27. 27. Cheng SH, Chiang TL. The consequence of universal health insurance on health intendance utilization in Taiwan. JAMA. 1997;278(2):89–93. pmid:9214512
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
28. 28. Pickens 1000, Karaca Z, Cutler E, Dworsky M, Eibner C, Moore B, et al. Changes in infirmary inpatient utilization following health care reform. Health Serv Res. 2018;53(four):2446–69. pmid:28664983
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
29. 29. Mahendraratnam Northward, Dusetzina SB, Farley JF. Prescription drug utilization and reimbursement increased following state Medicaid expansion in 2014. J Manage Intendance Spec Pharm. 2017;23(three):355–63.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
30. xxx. Ku L. Medical and dental care utilization and expenditures under Medicaid and private wellness insurance. Med Intendance Res Rev. 2009;66(iv):456–71. pmid:19389727
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
31. 31. Hadley J, Holahan J. Is health intendance spending higher under Medicaid or individual insurance? Inquiry. 2003;40(4):323–42. pmid:15055833
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
32. 32. Kaiser Family Foundation. When loftier deductibles hurt: fifty-fifty insured patients postpone intendance. San Francisco: Kaiser Family Foundation; 2017 Jul 28 [cited 2019 Dec 18]. https://khn.org/news/when-loftier-deductibles-injure-even-insured-patients-postpone-intendance/.
33. 33. Fauke C, Himmelstein D. Doubling downwardly on errors: Urban Institute defends its ridiculously loftier unmarried payer cost estimates. HuffPost. 2017 Dec 6 [cited 2019 Dec 18]. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/steffie-woolhandler/urban-institute-errors-unmarried-payer-costs_b_10100836.html.
34. 34. Gaffney A, Woolhandler S, Himmelstein D. The result of large-scale health coverage expansions in wealthy nations on social club-wide healthcare utilization. J Gen Intern Med. 2019 November 19. pmid:31745857
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
35. 35. Gaffney A, McCormick D, Bor D, Woolhandler Due south, Himmelstein D. Coverage expansions and utilization of medico intendance: evidence from the 2014 Affordable Care Human activity and 1966 Medicare/Medicaid expansions. Am J Public Health. 2019;109(12):1694–701. pmid:31622135
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
36. 36. Simon G, Soni A, Cawley J. The bear upon of wellness insurance on preventive care and health behaviors: evidence from the commencement 2 years of the ACA Medicaid expansions. J Policy Anal Manage. 2017;36(2):390–417. pmid:28378959
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
37. 37. Himmelstein DU, Jun Grand, Busse R, Chevreul K, Geissler A, Jeurissen PPT, et al. A comparing of hospital administrative costs in eight nations: US costs exceed all others by far. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014;33(9):1586–94.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
38. 38. Gaffney A, Lexchin J. Healing an ailing pharmaceutical organization: prescription for reform for United States and Canada. BMJ. 2018;361:k1039. pmid:29773533
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
39. 39. Kesselheim Equally, 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 Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
40. 40. Hogervorst M. A qualitative and quantitative assessment on drug pricing methods in a single-payer system in the U.S. [master'due south thesis]. Utrecht: Utrecht University; 2019.
41. 41. Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. Almanac report 2016. Ottawa: Patented Medicine Prices Review Board; 2017 [cited 2019 Dec nineteen]. 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 first-in-class pharmaceuticals, 1987–2011. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(8):1433–9.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
43. 43. Prasad Five, Mailankody S. Research and development spending to bring a single cancer drug to market and revenues after approving. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(11):1569–75. pmid:28892524
    • View Article
    • 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://world wide web.drugchannels.net/2019/08/profits-in-2019-fortune-500.html.
45. 45. Fob J. Corporate profits are down, only wages are upwardly. New York: Bloomberg; 2019 Sep i [cited 2019 Dec 29]. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-09-01/corporate-profits-are-down-but-wages-are-upwards.
46. 46. Frakt AB, Pizer SD, Feldman R. Should Medicare adopt the Veterans Health Administration formulary? Health Econ. 2012;21(v):485–95. pmid:21506191
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
47. 47. Immature PL, Saunders RS, Olsen L. The healthcare imperative: lowering costs and improving outcomes: workshop series summary. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 2010.
48. 48. Chisholm D, Evans DB. Improving health system efficiency equally a means of moving towards universal coverage. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010 [cited 2019 Dec 19]. https://www.who.int/healthsystems/topics/financing/healthreport/28UCefficiency.pdf.
49. 49. Sullivan K. Seema Verma hyperventilates about tiny differences between ACOs exposed to one-and two-sided risk. The Health Intendance Blog. 2018 Aug 21 [cited 2019 Dec 19]. https://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2018/08/21/seema-verma-hyperventilates-virtually-tiny-differences-between-acos-exposed-to-ane-and-two-sided-chance/.
50. l. Verma Southward. Pathways to success: a new showtime for Medicare'due south accountable care organizations. Health Affairs Blog. 2018 Aug 9 [cited 2019 Dec 19]. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/x.1377/hblog20180809.12285/full/.
51. 51. Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. Report to Congress: Medicare and the healthcare delivery system. Washington (DC): Medicare Payment Advisory Commission; 2018 Jun xv [cited 2019 Dec 19]. http://medpac.gov/docs/default-source/reports/jun18_medpacreporttocongress_sec.pdf.
52. 52. Office of Inspector General. Medicare shared savings program accountable intendance organizations have shown potential for reducing spending and increasing quality. Washington (DC): Department of Wellness and Human Services; 2017 Aug [cited 2019 Dec 19]. https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-02-15-00450.pdf.
53. 53. Bleser WK, Muhlestein D, Saunders RS, McClellan MB. Half a decade in, Medicare accountable intendance organizations are generating net savings: Part 1. Wellness Diplomacy Web log. 2018 Sep 20 [cited 2019 Dec 19]. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20180918.957502/total/.
54. 54. McWilliams JM, Hatfield LA, Landon Exist, Hamed P, Chernew ME. Medicare spending after 3 years of the Medicare shared savings program. Northward Engl J Med. 2018;379(12):1139–49. pmid:30183495
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
55. 55. Joanna Briggs Plant. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools for use in JBI Systematic Reviews: checklist for economic evaluations. Adelaide: Joanna Briggs Institute; 2017 [cited 2019 December nineteen]. 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 K, Collins GS, et al. PROBAST: a tool to appraise the take chances of bias and applicability of prediction model studies. Ann Intern Med. 2019;170:51–8. pmid:30596875
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
57. 57. Langer A. A framework for assessing Health Economical Evaluation (HEE) quality appraisement instruments. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:253. pmid:22894708
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
58. 58. Lewin Group. Cost and coverage analysis of nine proposals to expand health insurance coverage in California. Falls Church (VA): Lewin Grouping; 2002 April 12 [cited 2019 Dec xix]. 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 5, Beadles C, et al. Evaluation of the Maryland all-payer model: third almanac written report. Waltham (MA): RTI International; 2018 [cited 2019 Dec 19]. https://downloads.cms.gov/files/cmmi/doc-all-payer-thirdannrpt.pdf.
60. sixty. Ikegami North, editor. Universal health coverage for inclusive and sustainable development: lessons from Nihon. Washington (DC): Globe Bank; 2014 [cited 2019 Dec nineteen]. 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 E, editors. Purchasing to improve health systems performance. European Observatory on Wellness Systems and Policies Series. Geneva: World Health Arrangement; 2005 [cited 2019 Dec 19]. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/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 December xix]. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3106.html.

burgessthaske.blogspot.com

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

Share this post