health care policy poli 352a. does your health system need reform? fundamental reform? completely...
TRANSCRIPT
Health care policy
POLI 352A
Does your health system need reform?
Fundamental reform?
Completely rebuild system?
Canada 59% 18%
United States 51% 28%
United Kingdom 60% 18%
Germany 66%
OK, but what’s the problem?
High cost / inadequate coverage?
Shortage of supply / Waiting times
Canada13%
8%
54%
27%
United States48%
25%
5%
3%
United Kingdom6%
8%
33%
39%
How responsive is the system?
Ranking
United States 1
Germany 5
Canada 7
United Kingdom 26
How fairly are costs distributed?
Ranking
Germany 6
United Kingdom 8
Canada 17
United States 54
Out-of-pocket costs
Amount / person / year
(US$)
Share of health spending
United Kingdom $40 3.1%
Canada $304 17%
Germany $306 11%
United States $696 16%
Overall performance
Responsiveness Fairness Cost-control
United States High Low Low
United Kingdom Low High High
Canada Medium Medium Medium
Germany High High Medium-low
Financing health care
• Unified financing: taxation– Cost distributed fairly
– Easy to cap spending
VS.
• Fragmented financing: Insurers– Hard to cap spending
– Unfair distribution if unregulated
Delivering health care
• Public delivery
• Private delivery (non- or for-profit)– May be more responsive
– But cost-control may be harder depending on
• Payment method – this is crucial– Fee-for-service more care, higher costs
• More common with private delivery
– Salary / capitation
Financing and delivering care
Unified
(Tax-financing)
Fragmented
(Insurers)
PublicUnited
KingdomFrance
(hospitals)
Private
(for- or non-profit)
Canada
Germany (social)
United States (private)
Financing
Delivery
Financing and delivering care
Unified
(Tax-financing)
Fragmented
(Insurers)
PublicNational health
service?
Private
(for- or non-profit)
National health insurance
Social or private
insurance
Financing
Delivery
Why policy differences?:Public opinion?
• Do voters get the health care system they want?
• Comparison– U.K., Canada, U.S. all individualist cultures
• Processes– Elite action in UK and Canada precedes public clamour
– Much NHI support in U.S.
Why policy differences?:Interests?
Could outcome reflect the power of interests for and against?
• Doctors– Oppose state dominance
– But to varying degrees, shaped by past policy
• Labor– Similar strength in Canada/US till 1960s
– Labor unrest in US in 1930s
– NHI not always creature of the Left
Explanation:Hacker on policy feedback
Three policy choices have big feedback effects:
1. Policies that encourage private insurance
2. Policies that target vulnerable groups first
3. Policies that promote medical technology
• Sequence matters.
Explanation:Hacker on institutions
Institutions determine when moves are made and which policies come first.
• Shape opportunities of organized opponents (veto points)
• Shape paths to influence of small, insurgent parties
Policy feedback in health care
• Group interests
• Costs of NHI• Objective
policy problems
• Public opinion
Difficulty of moving to NHI later
Early health policy choice
New politics
Policy feedback in Britain
• Social learning about 1911 failures
• Vested interests in status quo (inhibits reform)
• Shapes doctors’ interests
• Shapes public expectations
Early adoption of NHI (1911)
New politics
Britain: 1911
• Institutions allow early adoption of NHI (1911)– Single-party government
– Party discipline
• But early policy matters– Has to accommodate existing insurers
– Doctors’ interests shaped by poor prior conditions
Policy feedback in Britain
• New ideas
• Still-broken system
• Doctors’ weakened opposition
• Public support
Policy choice (1946):
Socialized finance and delivery
New politics
+ Institutions
Canada: 1945
• Popular support• Federal government support• Little MD-friendly private insurance
BUT
• Federalism as constraint
No reform
Policy feedback in Canada
• Spread of fee-for-service private insuranceNon-adoption of public insurance (1945)
New politics
Canada: 1950s - 1960s
NOW: Federalism as opportunity
1. Regionalism aids socialist insurgent party– CCF wins provincial office
– Launching pad for federal NDP
2. Fiscal equalization encourages innovation
Hospital insurance in SK
Imitation by BC, AB, ON
Policy feedback in Canada
Widespread private insurance + federalism
Public fee-for-service insurance (1966)
New politics
United States
• 1910s: Support for socialist and third parties– But electoral institutions no federal seats
• Weak national party competition, Republican nat’l dominance
Reformers had to fight in states– Inhospitable institutional terrain
• Large number of units• Fear of business exit because of lack of fiscal
equalization• Strong, business-friendly state courts
United States
• New Deal – huge potential opening but:– Veto points
– Lack of party discipline
No reform
• Repeated under Truman+
Policy feedback in U.S.
• Spread of employer-provided insurance– Satisfies doctors
– Satisfies unions
– Excludes old and poor
Non-adoption of public insurance (‘30s & ‘40s)
New politics
Public fee-for-service insurance for elderly and poor only
Policy feedback in U.S.
• Exploding public costs• Best-organized groups
satisfied• Vested interests in current
arrangements
New politics
Failure of Clinton plan (1994)
Health policy and feedback
• Current health policies NOT a direct reflection of nat’l values or public preferences– Narrow, well-organized interests matter– Current policy choices constrained by past choices
• Current organization of interests and public preferences shaped by past policy choices
• Sometimes policy is not chosen– Emerges through political interactions over time
• Especially strongly shaped by past policy choices, sequence
– Large role for investment
– Well-organized vested interests