Few Public Health Services

·         The United States operates a hybrid health care system, which is neither completely private nor fully public.[1]  Health care services are primarily provided by doctors and medical staff working in privately run clinics.  This is combined with the public insurance programs Medicare and Medicaid, which serve the elderly and those with low incomes.  The U.S. has the smallest amount of public insurance or provision of public health services of any developed nation in the world.[2]

·         Among Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, there are three main types of health care programs.”[3]

<         A National Health Service, where medical services are delivered via government-salaried physicians, in hospitals and clinics that are publicly owned and operated.  The U.K. and Spain are examples of such a system.

<         A National Health Insurance System, or single-payer system, in which medical services are publicly financed but not publicly provided.  Examples include Canada, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden.

<         A universal Multi-payer Health Insurance System, or all-payer system, as in Germany and France.  These systems provide universal health insurance via sickness funds, which are used to pay physicians and hospitals at uniform rates.  These rates are negotiated annually.

 

High Private Administrative Costs

·         The U.S. spends considerably more on health care than any other OECD country, averaging $4,887 per person in 2001, and climbing to $5,440 in 2002.[4]  Canada spends just 57% that of the U.S., Sweden spends just 46%, and the U.K. spends only 41% as much as the U.S. on health care.[5]

·         The U.S. also spends the highest proportion of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on health care:  nearly 14% in 2001, compared to an OECD median of 8.1%.[6]

·         One primary reason for the high costs of U.S. health care is administrative costs.  Several studies have suggested that a single-payer, universal health insurance system would not necessarily cost more than we already spend—and might even cost less—because of the substantial administrative cost savings.[7]  One recent report found that in 1999, 31% of U.S. health care spending went to administrative costs, an amount equal to $294.3 billion ($1,059 per capita).  By contrast, Canada spent $9.4 billion ($307 per capita) or 16.7% of its total health care spending on administration.  The study concludes that, “reducing U.S. administrative costs to Canadian levels would save […] enough to fund universal coverage.”[8]

·         Physicians in the U.S. also must spend more of their time on administrative tasks:  13.5%, compared with 8.4% for Canadian doctors.[9]

 

Health Insurance:  Rising Premiums, Falling Coverage

·         Health insurance premiums in the U.S. are rising fast.  Between the spring of 2003 and the spring of 2004, health insurance premiums rose 11.2%, the fourth consecutive year of double-digit growth.[10]  Growth rates in insurance premiums are five times greater than both inflation and wage increases (2.3% and 2.2%, respectively).[11]

·         In 2003, 45 million Americans—15.6%—were uninsured, up from 43.5 million (15.2%) in 2002.  This is the third straight annual increase in the number of people without health insurance.[12]

·         In 2003, the number of full-time workers without health insurance rose to 17.5%, up from 16.8% in 2002.[13]

·         Uninsured workers are found in every industry:  agriculture, service, wholesale and retail trade, manufacturing, and the public sector each have a sizeable portion of uninsured employees.[14]

·         More than three out of five Americans of working age rely on employer-sponsored health insurance for themselves and their families,[15] but the number of jobs providing health coverage is decreasing.  The percentage of firms that provide employees with health benefits has decreased from 68% in 2001 to 63% in 2004, meaning that the number of jobs providing health insurance may have decreased by at least five million over the same period.[16]  Only 6.6% of people under 65 purchased health insurance on their own (i.e., not through their employer) in 2002.[17]

·         Smaller firms are significantly less likely to provide health benefits.  In 2004, while 99% of firms with 200 or more workers offered health insurance, only 63% of firms with up to 199 workers provided benefits.  Of firms with less than 10 employees, only 52% offered health benefits.[18]

·         Only 23% of all firms offer benefits to part-time workers.  Moreover, firms with a large number of part-time employees, with high employee turnover rates, and with lower overall wage levels, are less likely to offer benefits to any of their employees.  Only 4% of all workplaces offered health insurance to temporary employees.[19]

·         Firms that employ union workers are much more likely to provide health benefits:  96% of firms with union workers offered benefits, versus 61% of firms without union workers.[20]

·         The age group with the highest rate of uninsurance is 18-24 year olds, of whom 30.2% were uninsured in 2003.[21]  Twenty-five to thirty-four year olds saw the largest jump in percentage without insurance:  from 24.9% in 2002, to 26.4% in 2003.[22]

·         The Institute of Medicine (IOM) reports that uninsured people receive too little medical care, too late.  As a result, some 18,000 unnecessary deaths each year are attributable to a lack of health insurance coverage.  In 2003, 43% of adults without health insurance did not seek medical help for health problems, compared with 10% who were insured.  Uninsured individuals with diabetes, HIV, cardiovascular disease, and mental illness have been consistently shown to have less access to preventative care and worse clinical outcomes.  Uninsured car crash victims have been found to have a mortality rate 37% higher than people with insurance, and uninsured women with breast cancer have a 30-50% higher risk of dying.[23]

 

Quality of U.S. Health Care in an International Context

·         The U.S. ranked 37^th out of 191 member states in terms of “overall health system performance” in the World Health Organization’s (WHO) 2000 World Health Report.  The rankings were based on measures of the health of the population, the level and distribution of respect and attention shown to patients, and the fairness of financial contribution, all in relation to overall health system expenditures.  A ranking of 37^th places the U.S. below such countries as Colombia, Saudi Arabia, and Portugal.[24]

·         The U.S. has the 7^th highest infant mortality rate of the 30 OECD member countries.  The countries with higher infant mortality than the U.S. are Hungary, South Korea, Mexico, Poland, Turkey, and the Slovak Republic.[25]

·         The U.S. also has the 9^th lowest life expectancy of the OECD member countries.[26]

·         The U.S. ranks lower than the OECD median in all three categories of physicians, nurses, and hospital beds per capita, despite its high level of spending.[27]  Low nurse-to-patient ratios have been linked to higher instances of medical errors and patient complications, including death.[28]

·         There are 14,000 AIDS-related deaths in the U.S. each year—more than in Russia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and the U.K. combined.[29]

·         A recent study in Health Affairs compared the quality of care in five countries:  the U.S., the U.K., New Zealand, Canada, and Australia.[30]  No country scored consistently best or worst, and each country had at least one best and one worst rating.  The U.S. had the best 5-year survival rate for breast cancer, for instance, but the worst survival rate for kidney transplants, and an increasing rate of mortality among asthmatics.