General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIt seems we're moving toward a Swiss model of health care.
Swiss are required to purchase basic health insurance, which covers a range of treatments detailed in the Federal Act. It is therefore the same throughout the country and avoids double standards in healthcare. Insurers are required to offer this basic insurance to everyone, regardless of age or medical condition. They are not allowed to make a profit off this basic insurance, but can on supplemental plans.[1]
Regulations also restrict the allowable policies and profits that a private insurer may offer, as noted by healthcare economics scholar Uwe Reinhardt in a review in JAMA. Reinhardt writes that,
"To compete in the market for compulsory health insurance, a Swiss health insurer must be registered with the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health, which regulates health insurance under the 1994 statute. The insurers were not allowed to earn profits from the mandated benefit package, although they have always been able to profit from the sale of actuarially priced supplementary benefits (mainly superior amenities).
Regulations require "a 25-year-old and an 80-year-old individual pay a given insurer the same premium for the same type of policy..Overall, then, the Swiss health system is a variant of the highly government-regulated social insurance systems of Europe..that rely on ostensibly private, nonprofit health insurers that also are subject to uniform fee schedules and myriad government regulations."[3]
Health care spending, in U.S. dollars PPP-adjusted, in Switzerland per capita from 1998 to 2008
The insured pays the insurance premium for the basic plan up to 8% of their personal income. If a premium is higher than this, then the government gives the insured a cash subsidy to pay for any additional premium.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland
It seems to work well in Switzerland. A primary difference, of course, is that insurance companies are not allowed to make profits on the basic plans, but can on supplemental plans.
TheMastersNemesis
(10,602 posts)MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Then the ins. companies can make profits.
Atman
(31,464 posts)They are not allowed to profit from the mandatory basic policy. But if you opt to buy additional coverages, they can make a profit off of that. A non-profit can't make a profit, period.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,482 posts)enlightenment
(8,830 posts)that profit factor. Plus the lack of a rate increase with age - if we survive, we do all get older. Plus uniform fee schedules and the (unstated) differences in what is covered.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Once everybody accepts that ACA is here to stay maybe Congress will get it's shit together and follow in Switzerland's footsteps.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)They do not allow profit, and they do not allow age as a factor in pricing. Not like our system at all, really.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)what so ever to our health care is the way to go.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)which require the purchase of health insurance. All others make it illegal to make profit from that which people must purchase under force of law. This is a huge, huge difference, so large that it makes comparing our system to theirs sort of silly. We are not using the 'Swiss Model' we are doing a first time, never been tried method of allowing profit taking from those forced by law to purchase. This is our own, uniquely American system placing profit as job one in health care.
The Swiss would not agree that we are adopting their model, they intentionally disallowed profit taking, we intentionally enshrined it. Huge, huge difference. Primary, fundamental and pervasive difference.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)The systems are not even close for this reason.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)We're obviously not there yet. Still, profit and overhead are now limited and reduced to 20% of premiums. As I previously said I hope we will adjust the model to be more like the Swiss model. That would mean taking the profit out of the mandatory insurance purchase. Profit could be made on additional policy purchases.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)the insurance lobbies own (yes, own) too many politicians to ever allow that. The will be raking in money hand over fist with our version of mandated insurance.
Trillo
(9,154 posts)"a 25-year-old and an 80-year-old individual pay a given insurer the same premium"
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)but I do think if we can get the public to accept ACA, we can move toward the more perfect model exemplified by Switzerland. Single payer would be better, but at least we're now, possibly, on the slippery slope towards fair, affordable universal health care.