《健康经济学》课件Chapter15_第1页
《健康经济学》课件Chapter15_第2页
《健康经济学》课件Chapter15_第3页
《健康经济学》课件Chapter15_第4页
《健康经济学》课件Chapter15_第5页
已阅读5页,还剩46页未读 继续免费阅读

下载本文档

版权说明:本文档由用户提供并上传,收益归属内容提供方,若内容存在侵权,请进行举报或认领

文档简介

MarketsforhealthcareandinsuranceWehavelearnedabouttheproblemsthatariseinboththesemarketsMarketsforhealthcareservicesOligopolypricingMonopolyrentsfordoctorsandspecialistsMedicalarmsracesHealthinsurancemarketsAdverseselectionandunderinsuranceMoralhazardandtechnologyoveruseHealthpolicytriestodealwiththeseproblems(buteverynewpolicycreatesnewproblemsorexacerbatesoldones).Ch15|ThehealthpolicyconundrumARROW’SIMPOSSIBILITYTHEOREMArrow’simpossibilitytheoremThetaskofdesigninganationalhealthsystemisatitsheartanoptimizationproblem,notdissimilartothetaskofanindividualintheGrossmanmodel.Societiesmustdecidehowmuchtimeandmoneytheywanttospendonimprovingtheirhealth,andhowmuchtimeandmoneytheywanttospendonothernationalpriorities–likeeducationandthemilitary.Thentheymustchartastrategyforachievingthelevelofhealththeywant,bothcheaplyandefficiently.Arrow’simpossibilitytheoremButthisanalogybetweenanindividualandasocietyisnotquiteright.Asociety–composedofmanypeople–isfundamentallydifferentfromasingleperson.Forexample,eachindividualinasocietyispresumedtohaveconsistentandtransitivepreferences.Withouttransitivepreferences,welfareeconomicsfallsapart.However,economistKenArrowhasprovedthatsocietiesdonotnecessarilyhavetransitivepreferences,evenwheneveryoneinthemdoes.HisfindingisknownasArrow’simpossibilitytheorem.ImplicationsofArrow’stheoremArrow’stheoremsuggestsitdoesnotmakesensetospeakofan“optimal”healthpolicyforacountrybecausesocietiesmaynothavepreferencesthatcanbeoptimizedinthetraditionalsense.Nevertheless,politicaldecisionsdogetmadeandvariousnationalhealthpolicieshaveemerged.Wewillassessthesepoliciesbyanalyzinghowwelltheymeetthreebroadgoals:health,wealth,andequity.Theseassessmentscannotrevealwhichpoliciesare“optimal,”buttheyallowustostudythetradeoffsinherentinhealthpolicy.Ch15|ThehealthpolicyconundrumTHEHEALTHPOLICYTRILEMMAThehealthpolicytrilemmaNationshavethreebroadgoalsinmindwhendesigninghealthpolicyAnyattemptbyanationtomoveclosertooneofthesethreegoalsnecessarilyinvolvesatradeoffthatmovesthatnationfurtherawayfromanothergoal.Forexample,anyhypotheticalpolicythatcombatsadverseselectionandincreasesequitywouldeitherincreasecostsorlowerhealthforsome.ThehealthpolicytrilemmaTherewillalwaysbetradeoffs,sotherewillneverbeaperfecthealthcaresystemwhereallthreegoalsaremaximized.ThehealthpolicytrilemmaFurthermore,peopledisagreeabouthowimportanteachofthesethreeis.Somecountriesvaluesocialequityveryhighly,andarewillingtopaymoreintaxestoachieveit.Othersplaceahighervalueonhealth,andarewillingtotoleratemoremoralhazardormonopolypricingtosecureit.KeyhealthcarepolicychoicesEverypolicychoiceinvolvesatradeoffbetweenhealth,wealthandequity(otherwiseitwouldbeobviousandprobablyimplementedalready).Thepolicyoptionsthatfollowarethuspresentedasanswerstothethreebroadquestionsthatanynationalhealthcaresystemmustanswer:Howshouldinsurancemarketswork?Howshouldmoralhazardbecontrolledinpublicinsurance?Howshouldhealthcareprovidermarketsberegulated?Ch15|ThehealthpolicyconundrumHOWSHOULDHEALTHINSURANCEMARKETSWORK?Howshouldhealthinsurancemarketswork?Severaloptions:CompletelyprivateinsurancemarketsUniversalpublicinsuranceCompulsoryinsuranceEmployer-sponsoredinsuranceMeans-testedhealthinsuranceThesearenotmutuallyexclusive,andmanynationsemployseveralatonceOption1:PrivateinsurancemarketsTheRothschild-Stiglitzmodelmodelpredictsthatinprivatemarkets,onlythefrailcustomersareinsuredfullyandmuchofthepopulationisunderinsured.Undercertainconditions,acompletelyprivatemarketcanunravelcompletely,leadingtouninsuranceforeveryone.Thisoptionminimizesgovernmentinvolvement,butitresultsinmaximaladverseselection.Taxpayersarehappywithlowtaxbills,butmanycitizenscannotbuyfullinsurance.Insteadtheyfretaboutthemedicalbillstheymightrackupiftheybecomeillorinjured.Option2:UniversalpublicinsuranceThegovernmentprovidesinsurancetoallcitizens,andfinancesitwithtaxes.Thispolicyoptionisappealingbecauseitside-stepsadverseselectionandendsuninsurance.Italsofurthersthegoalofequitybecausethepoorpaylittleornothingforcoverage.However,withuniversalpublicinsurance,stepsmustbetakentocontrolmoralhazard,whichcanexplodethegovernmentbudgetifleftunchecked.Option2:UniversalpublicinsuranceHighertaxesarethemaincostofpublicinsurance.Further,mosttaxesdistortbehaviorbydiscouraginglaborandcommerce,sotheentireeconomymaybecomelessefficientasaresult.Butsomearguethatuniversalpublicinsuranceismoreefficientthanprivateinsurancemarketsbecauseoflowoverheadcosts.Highertaxesareonecostofpublicinsurance.Note:thisis“single-payer”healthcarebecauseoneentity(thegovernment)paysforallcare.Option3:CompulsoryinsuranceAmandate(alegalrequirementthateveryoneinapopulationpurchaseprivateinsurance)confrontsadverseselectionbyeffectivelybanningit.Forexample,evenhealthycustomerswhowouldprefertooptoutarelegallyrequiredtobuyintothesystem.Butamandateisnotfreeforgovernmentsanddoesnotabsolvethemofregulatingthemarket.Amandatecanbeexpensive,andmanycitizenscannotaffordit.Thus,mandatesareusuallyeithercoupledwithsubsidiestothepoororpaidforwithpayrolltaxes.Amandatemustalsobecarefullydefinedoritmaybecompletelyineffective.Option4:Employer-sponsoredinsuranceUndersuchasystem,employersarerequiredorencouragedtoofferaprivateinsurancecontracttoalloftheiremployees.Job-specifichumancapitalprovidesastrongincentiveforhealthyemployeeswithalowriskofillnesstopoolwithhighrisk,unhealthyemployees.Thismitigatedadverseselection.Drawbacks:cancreatelabormarketinefficiencies,andnotappropriateforunemployedpopulations(children,retirees,disabled).Option5:Means-testedinsuranceSubsidizedhealthcareforthepoor.Example:MedicaidintheU.S.Itattemptstoimproveequitybyprovidinghealthcaretothosewhootherwisecouldnotaffordit.Thecostsofexpandingsubsidizedinsuranceforthepoorarebasicallyidenticaltothecostsofexpandingpublichealthinsuranceinotherways:highertaxburdensandgreatermoralhazard.Ch15|ThehealthpolicyconundrumHOWSHOULDMORALHAZARDBECONTROLLED?Howshouldmoralhazardbecontrolled?Inaprivatemarket,privateinsurerscompetetooffercustomerstheoptimalmixofinsurancecoverageandmoralhazardcontrol.Butwhengovernmentsentertheinsurancemarket,lawmakersandpolicymakersassumeresponsibilityforthesetoughdecisions.Theexperienceofmanycountrieshasshownthatmoralhazardcontroliscontroversialandpoliticallytreacherous.Howshouldmoralhazardbecontrolled?Policymakersdonothaveaneatlylabeledfiguretohelpthemmakethesedecisions,sotheymustmakesomeeducatedguessesabouthowmuchmoralhazardtoeliminate.Howshouldmoralhazardbecontrolled?Again,severaltoolsavailable:Healthtechnologyassessment(HTA)CostsharingGatekeepingandqueuingProspectivepaymentsOption1:Cost-effectivenessanalysisCEAentailsgatheringinformationabouttreatmentoptionsanddeterminingwhichoptionsproducethemostadditionalhealthfortheleastcost.CEAlimitsmoralhazardbyreducingspendingoninefficient,costlytreatments.ButCEAalsomakesinsurancecontractsless“full”forpatients,becausesomeservicesarenolongercovered.Thistradeoffcanbeworthwhilebecauseitmakestheentiresystemcheaper.Option1:Cost-effectivenessanalysisButdenyingcoverageforsometreatmentsmaybeunappealingforpoliticalreasons.WhilesomegovernmentshaveembracedCEA,othershavereactedbyshunningitaltogether.Example:U.S.MedicareisforbiddenbylawfromusingCEAinitscoveragedecisions.Medicarecoversanymedicallyeffectivetreatment,nomatterhowexpensive.Thisstrategyobviatesgut-wrenchingdecisionsabouttreatingsickpatients,butitalsoallowsmoralhazardtoflourish.Option2:CostsharingCostsharingmaybeaccomplishedthroughtheuseofdeductibles,coinsurance,andcopayments.Theseareout-of-pocketcoststhatinsuredpatientspaywhentheyreceivehealthcare.CostsharingcontrolsmoralhazardinawaythatissometimesmorepoliticallypalatablethanCEA,butitalsomakeshealthcarelessaffordableforpatients.Thiscanundermineequity.Option2:CostsharingExample:theUSMedicaresystemdoesnotfullycoverpatientcosts.Asof2012,Medicareenrolleesmustpaythefirst$1,156dollarsofexpensesforeachhospitalvisitandthefirst$140ofoutpatientclinicexpenseseachyear.Theymustalsostartpaying$289perdayonceahospitalstaylastslongerthan60days.Thisforcesenrolleestoeithereconomizeorpurchasesupplementalprivateinsurance.Option3:GatekeepingandqueuingGate-keepingentailsatieredsystemofdoctorsthatpatientsmustvisitinaspecifiedorder.Thiskeepscostsdownbyeliminatingfrivolousappointmentsandfocusinglimitedresourcesonpatientswhotrulyneedcare.Publicinsurancesystemsalsocontrolcostsbylimitingthetotalnumberofspecialistsavailable.However,whendemandforspecialists’servicesoutstripssupply,queuesresult.Option3:GatekeepingandqueuingUsuallyqueuesareasignofamarketinefficiency,butinthepresenceofmoralhazard,queuesmightbeanindicationofinflateddemand.Ifso,limitingthenumberofspecialistmaysavemoneywithoutsacrificinghealth.Thehassleofwaitinginlineconstitutesanon-financialcostthatpatientsmust“pay”forcare.Queue-basedsystemsmaybemoreequitablethanacost-sharingsystemifitmeansthatrichandpooralikemustwaitforcare.Butqueuingsystemsriskprovokingpoliticalbacklash.Option4:ProspectivepaymentsThetraditionalmethodforpayingforhealthcareisretrospectivepayments.Suchpaymentsaremadeafteraserviceisrendered,andtheamountpaiddependsonhowmuchhealthcareisreceived.Inafee-for-servicesystem,doctorshavenoreasontodenypatientsaservicebecausethecostsaretoohigh.Thissystemfosterstrustbetweenpatientsanddoctors,butcreatesincentivesforphysician-induceddemand.Option4:ProspectivepaymentsAnalternativesystemdesignedtoreducemoralhazardisprospectivepayments.Withprospectivepayments,paymentsaremadetodoctorsorhospitalsbeforehealthcareisdelivered.Chargesarenotbasedonproceduresperformed,butontheconditionofthepatientwhoisadmitted.Example:Aprospective-paymentssystemwillpayhospitalsafixedamountfortreatinganyheartattackpatient.Thisgiveshospitalsincentivestoeconomizeintheirtreatmentofheartattackpatients,becausetheynolongerreceiveextrapaymentsfordoingextrawork.Option4:ProspectivepaymentsSincetheearly1980s,governmentsaroundtheworldhaveembracedprospectivepaymentschemesasaneffectivewaytoreducemoralhazardandphysician-induceddemand.Butprospectivepaymentsystemscomeataprice.Doctor-patientrelationshipsturningadversarialInonestudyconductedaftertheU.S.Medicareprogramimplementedprospectivepaymentsin1984,patientmortalityincreasedsignificantlyatasubsetofhospitalsinthemonthsafterthetransition.Ch15|ThehealthpolicyconundrumHOWSHOULDHEALTHCAREPROVISIONBEREGULATED?Howshouldhealthcareprovisionberegulated?Recallthemaladiesofprivatehealthcaremarkets:OligopolypricingMonopolyrentsfordoctorsandspecialistsMedicalarmsracesPhysician-induceddemandWhatsetsofpoliciescancombatthesemaladieswithoutcreatingnewinefficienciesthatareevenworse?Howshouldhealthcareprovisionberegulated?Approach1:Nationalizehealthcareprovision.Underthisapproach,hospitalsaregovernment-runandfinancedbytaxes,andphysiciansareemployedbythegovernment.Thisapproachcouldreducecostsofmedicalcareandimprovequalityofcareifthemaladiesofhospitaloligopolyorinefficientqualitycompetitionaresufficientlysevere.Itmayalsolimitinefficientqualitycompetition.Howshouldhealthcareprovisionberegulated?AvailableoptionsPublicprovisionPrivatehospitalmarketsGovernment-setpricesOption1:PublicprovisionUnderthisapproach,hospitalsaregovernment-runandfinancedbytaxes,andphysiciansareemployedbythegovernment.Thisapproachcouldreducecostsofmedicalcareandimprovequalityofcarebybanishingoligopolypowerandmedicalarmsraces.Somealsosuggestthatnationalizedsystemsarelessefficientthanprivatemarkets.Governmentsarevulnerabletoagencyproblems,becausegovernmentworkersmayhavelessincentivethanprivateworkerstoensurethesuccessoftheirhospital.Governmentsystemsalsolackclearfeedbackmechanismstocorrectthemiftheyarenotsucceeding.Option1:PublicprovisionEmpirically,countrieswithnationalizedsystemsseembetteratcontrollinghealthcarecosts.However,thecommonchargeagainstgovernment-runhospitalsisthattheyofferlowerqualityhealthcare.Example:Countrieswithpublichospitalssufferlongqueues.Option2:PrivateprovisionThisapproachallowsforcompetitionamonghospitalsandpreservestheincentivesforhospitalstooperateefficiently.However,inprivatemarkets,toolittlecompetitionleadstomarketpowerandtheaccompanyingsociallossduetohighpricesandunderprovision.Conversely,toomuchcompetitioncanexacerbateinefficientqualitycompetition,leadtoamedicalarmsrace,andincreasehealthcarecosts.Option2:PrivateprovisionAnotherconcernisthatsomepopulations–likethepooranduninsured–willlackaccesstocare.Onesolutionistogivetaxbreakstonon-profithospitals,whichhistoricallyhaveattendedtothepoorandthevulnerable.Mostdevelopedcountriesalsorequirehospitalstoprovideemergencycaretoincomingpatientsregardlessoftheircitizenshipstatusorabilitytopay.Such“lastresort”lawspromoteequitybyensuringaminimumlevelofcareforeveryone,buttheyalsoimposecostsanddeterhospitalsfrombuildingemergencyroomsandtraumacenters.Option3:Government-setpricesBysettingprices,governmentsaimtopreventprivateprovidersfromexercisingmarketpowerandkeephealthcareaffordable.Intheory,suchpricecontrolscouldcontainhospitalcosts,butgovernmentsetpricescouldalsoinducesomeperverseincentives.Unlesspricesaresetproperly,treatmentspricedbelowmarginalcostsmaynotbeoffered,whilethemostprofitableservicesmaybeover-prescribed.Ch15|ThehealthpolicyconundrumCOMPARINGNATIONALHEALTHPOLICIESThreehealthpolicymodelsEverycountryhasitsownsetofpolicies,buteachcountry’sapproachfitsinoneofthreebroadgroups:BeveridgemodelBismarckmodelAmericanmodelBeveridgemodelBeveridgemodelSingle-payerinsurancePublicprovisionofhealthcare(physiciansaregovernmentemployees)VerylittlecostsharingatpointofserviceEmphasisonequityExamples:UK,Scandinavia,Canada,Australia,NZBismarckmodelAmericanmodelBismarckmodelBeveridgemodelBismarckmodelCompulsoryprivateinsurancePrivatehospitalsanddoctorsStrictpricecontrolssetbygovernment(sometimesinnegotiationwithdoctorsandhospitals)BalancesequityandlibertyExamples:Germany,Japan,Switzerland,NetherlandsAmericanmodelAmericanmodelBeveridgemodelBismarckmodelAmericanmodelPrivatemarketsinacentralroleNomandateforuniversalinsuranceNopricecontrolsPublicinsuranceforselectgroups:elderlyandpoorEmphasisonlibertyExamples:uniquetotheUS(othernationshadsimilarsystemsinpreviousdecades)ComparingnationalhealthpoliciesComparingahealthoutcome(likelifeexpectancy)andexpenditurescanserveasakindofreportcardforanation’shealthcaresystem.Howmuchhealthisachievedathowmuchcosttowealth?Doesnotprovideameaningfulassessmentofequity.ComparingnationalhealthpoliciesButwhatif:differentcountrieshavedifferentinherentlevelsofhealth?peopleindifferentcountriesvaluehealthdifferently?countriesdifferinhowmuchhealthinequalityexists?Ifcountriesdifferinanyoftheseways,thentheprecedinggraphisinsufficienttorenderjudgmentontheeffectiv

温馨提示

  • 1. 本站所有资源如无特殊说明,都需要本地电脑安装OFFICE2007和PDF阅读器。图纸软件为CAD,CAXA,PROE,UG,SolidWorks等.压缩文件请下载最新的WinRAR软件解压。
  • 2. 本站的文档不包含任何第三方提供的附件图纸等,如果需要附件,请联系上传者。文件的所有权益归上传用户所有。
  • 3. 本站RAR压缩包中若带图纸,网页内容里面会有图纸预览,若没有图纸预览就没有图纸。
  • 4. 未经权益所有人同意不得将文件中的内容挪作商业或盈利用途。
  • 5. 人人文库网仅提供信息存储空间,仅对用户上传内容的表现方式做保护处理,对用户上传分享的文档内容本身不做任何修改或编辑,并不能对任何下载内容负责。
  • 6. 下载文件中如有侵权或不适当内容,请与我们联系,我们立即纠正。
  • 7. 本站不保证下载资源的准确性、安全性和完整性, 同时也不承担用户因使用这些下载资源对自己和他人造成任何形式的伤害或损失。

评论

0/150

提交评论