Political Economy of Reform under US Federalism: Adopting Single-Payer Health Coverage in New York State

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Ashley M. Fox, Yongjin Choi
{"title":"Political Economy of Reform under US Federalism: Adopting Single-Payer Health Coverage in New York State","authors":"Ashley M. Fox, Yongjin Choi","doi":"10.1080/23288604.2019.1635414","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The US remains the only high-income country that lacks a universal health financing system and instead relies on a fragmented system with the largest segment of the population receiving health insurance through private, voluntary employer-sponsored health insurance plans. While not “universal” in the sense of being mandatory and tax-financed, through a series of reforms, the US has managed to provide some form of health insurance coverage to 90% of the population. Yet, the high cost of this system, the insufficient coverage afforded to many, and continued concerns about equity have led to calls for a national health insurance program that can reduce costs across the board while providing high-quality coverage for all. Given the policy gridlock at the national level, the states have often sought to achieve universal health financing on their own, but these bills have met with little success so far. Why has the ideal of states as “laboratories of democracy” failed to produce policy change towards national health insurance? This article examines the prospects for the New York Health Act, a single-payer bill that would create a universal health financing plan for all New York State residents. Applying the Political Economy of Health Financing Framework, we analyze the politics of health reform in New York State and identify strategies to overcome opposition to this policy proposal. We find that while a clear political opportunity is in place, the prospects for adoption remain low given the power of symbolic politics and institutional inertia on the reform process.","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23288604.2019.1635414","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Abstract The US remains the only high-income country that lacks a universal health financing system and instead relies on a fragmented system with the largest segment of the population receiving health insurance through private, voluntary employer-sponsored health insurance plans. While not “universal” in the sense of being mandatory and tax-financed, through a series of reforms, the US has managed to provide some form of health insurance coverage to 90% of the population. Yet, the high cost of this system, the insufficient coverage afforded to many, and continued concerns about equity have led to calls for a national health insurance program that can reduce costs across the board while providing high-quality coverage for all. Given the policy gridlock at the national level, the states have often sought to achieve universal health financing on their own, but these bills have met with little success so far. Why has the ideal of states as “laboratories of democracy” failed to produce policy change towards national health insurance? This article examines the prospects for the New York Health Act, a single-payer bill that would create a universal health financing plan for all New York State residents. Applying the Political Economy of Health Financing Framework, we analyze the politics of health reform in New York State and identify strategies to overcome opposition to this policy proposal. We find that while a clear political opportunity is in place, the prospects for adoption remain low given the power of symbolic politics and institutional inertia on the reform process.
美国联邦制下改革的政治经济学:纽约州采用单一付款人医疗保险
美国仍然是唯一一个缺乏全民医疗融资系统的高收入国家,而是依赖于一个分散的系统,最大一部分人口通过私人、自愿雇主赞助的医疗保险计划获得医疗保险。虽然从强制性和税收融资的意义上说,美国并不是“全民”,但通过一系列改革,美国已经成功地为90%的人口提供了某种形式的医疗保险。然而,这一体系的高成本、对许多人的覆盖不足以及对公平的持续担忧,导致人们呼吁建立一个国家医疗保险计划,在全面降低成本的同时,为所有人提供高质量的覆盖。鉴于国家层面的政策僵局,各州经常寻求自己实现全民医疗融资,但这些法案迄今为止收效甚微。为什么将国家作为“民主实验室”的理想,未能产生针对国民健康保险的政策变化?本文考察了纽约健康法案的前景,这是一项单一付款人法案,将为所有纽约州居民创建一个普遍的健康融资计划。运用卫生融资框架的政治经济学,我们分析了纽约州卫生改革的政治,并确定了克服反对这一政策建议的策略。我们发现,虽然存在明显的政治机会,但鉴于象征性政治的力量和改革进程的体制惰性,采用的前景仍然很低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信