Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2007;335:1126-1129 (1 December), doi:10.1136/bmj.39400.549502.94
Steffie Woolhandler, associate professor of medicine, David U Himmelstein, associate professor of medicine
Department of Medicine, Cambridge Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, MA, USA
Correspondence to: D U Himmelstein, 1493 Cambridge Street, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA david_himmelstein@hms.harvard.edu
Are the UK and other countries right to adopt a market based model for improving their health services? Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein believe that the appropriate response to the US experience with such policies is quarantine, not replication
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Why would anyone choose to emulate the US healthcare system? Costs per capita are about twice the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development average. Forty seven million people are completely uninsured. Many others with insurance face high out of pocket costs that hinder care and bankrupt more than a million annually.1 Mortality statistics lag behind those of most other wealthy countries, and even for the insured population, clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction are mediocre.2 3
This dismal record arises, we contend, from health policies that emphasise market incentives. Even as the public share of health spending in the US has risen to 60% (box) investor owned firms have eclipsed the public, professional, and charitable bodies that previously managed the financing and delivery of care. The development and effect of US policies that mix public funding and private management has wider relevance because politicians in Europe and beyond are pushing analogous schemes.
|
Read all Rapid Responses