Suppr超能文献

对奥巴马医改的批判性分析:是可承受的医疗保健,还是惠及多数人的保险和少数人的覆盖范围?

A Critical Analysis of Obamacare: Affordable Care or Insurance for Many and Coverage for Few?

作者信息

Manchikanti Laxmaiah, Helm Ii Standiford, Benyamin Ramsin M, Hirsch Joshua A

机构信息

Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.

出版信息

Pain Physician. 2017 Mar;20(3):111-138.

Abstract

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), of 2010, or Obamacare, was the most monumental change in US health care policy since the passage of Medicaid and Medicare in 1965. Since its enactment, numerous claims have been made on both sides of the aisle regarding the ACA's success or failure; these views often colored by political persuasion. The ACA had 3 primary goals: increasing the number of the insured, improving the quality of care, and reducing the costs of health care. One point often lost in the discussion is the distinction between affordability and access. Health insurance is a financial mechanism for paying for health care, while access refers to the process of actually obtaining that health care. The ACA has widened the gap between providing patients the mechanism of paying for healthcare and actually receiving it. The ACA is applauded for increasing the number of insured, quite appropriately as that has occurred for over 20 million people. Less frequently mentioned are the 6 million who have lost their insurance. Further, in terms of how health insurance is been provided, the majority the expansion was based on Medicaid expansion, with an increase of 13 million. Consequently, the ACA hasn't worked well for the working and middle class who receive much less support, particularly those who earn more than 400% of the federal poverty level, who constitute 40% of the population and don't receive any help. As a result, exchange enrollment has been a disappointment and the percentage of workers obtaining their health benefits from their employer has decreased steadily. Access to health care has been uneven, with those on Medicaid hampered by narrow networks, while those on the exchanges or getting employer benefits have faced high out-of-pocket costs.The second category relates to cost containment. President Obama claimed that the ACA provided significant cost containment, in that costs would have been even much higher if the ACA was not enacted. Further, he attributed cost reductions generally to the ACA, not taking into account factors such as the recession, increased out-of-pocket costs, increasing drug prices, and reduced coverage by insurers.The final goal was improvement in quality. The effort to improve quality has led to the creation of dozens of new agencies, boards, commissions, and other government entities. In turn, practice management and regulatory compliance costs have increased. Structurally, solo and independent practices, which lack the capability to manage these new regulatory demands, have declined. Hospital employment, with its associated increased costs, has been soaring. Despite a focus on preventive services in the management of chronic disease, only 3% of health care expenditures have been spent on preventive services while the costs of managing chronic disease continue to escalate.The ACA is the most consequential and comprehensive health care reform enacted since Medicare. The ACA has gained a net increase in the number of individuals with insurance, primarily through Medicaid expansion. The reduction in costs is an arguable achievement, while quality of care has seemingly not improved. Finally, access seems to have diminished.This review attempts to bring clarity to the discussion by reviewing the ACA's impact on affordability, cost containment and quality of care. We will discuss these aspects of the ACA from the perspective of proponents, opponents, and a pragmatic point of view.Key words: Affordable Care Act (ACA), Obamacare, Medicare, Medicaid, Medicare Modernization Act (MMA), cost of health care, quality of health care, Merit-Based Incentive Payments System (MIPS).

摘要

2010年的《平价医疗法案》(ACA),即“奥巴马医改”,是自1965年《医疗补助计划》和《医疗保险制度》通过以来,美国医疗保健政策中最具里程碑意义的变革。自该法案颁布以来,两党就ACA的成败提出了众多主张;这些观点往往受到政治倾向的影响。ACA有3个主要目标:增加参保人数、提高医疗质量以及降低医疗成本。讨论中常常被忽视的一点是可负担性和可及性之间的区别。医疗保险是支付医疗保健费用的一种财务机制,而可及性则指的是实际获得医疗保健服务的过程。ACA扩大了为患者提供支付医疗保健费用的机制与实际获得医疗保健服务之间的差距。ACA因增加了参保人数而受到赞扬,这是恰当的,因为参保人数增加了超过2000万。较少被提及的是600万人失去了他们的保险。此外,就医疗保险的提供方式而言,大多数的扩面是基于医疗补助计划的扩面,增加了1300万。因此,ACA对工作阶层和中产阶级的效果不佳,他们得到的支持少得多,特别是那些收入超过联邦贫困线400%的人,他们占人口的40%,却得不到任何帮助。结果,医保交易所的参保情况令人失望,从雇主那里获得医保福利的工人比例也在稳步下降。获得医疗保健服务的情况不均衡,医疗补助计划的参保者受到网络狭窄的限制,而医保交易所的参保者或获得雇主福利的人则面临高额的自付费用。

第二类涉及成本控制。奥巴马总统声称,ACA实现了显著的成本控制,因为如果没有颁布ACA,成本会更高。此外,他通常将成本降低归因于ACA,而没有考虑到诸如经济衰退、自付费用增加、药品价格上涨以及保险公司承保范围缩小等因素。

最后一个目标是提高质量。提高质量的努力导致设立了数十个新的机构、委员会、委员会和其他政府实体。相应地,实践管理和监管合规成本增加了。从结构上看,缺乏管理这些新监管要求能力的单人诊所和独立诊所数量减少了。医院雇佣人数及其相关成本一直在飙升。尽管在慢性病管理中注重预防服务,但只有3%的医疗保健支出用于预防服务,而慢性病管理成本却在不断攀升。

ACA是自医疗保险制度以来颁布的最重要、最全面的医疗保健改革。ACA使参保人数净增加,主要是通过医疗补助计划的扩面实现的。成本降低是一个有争议的成就,而医疗质量似乎并未得到改善。最后一点,可及性似乎有所下降。

本综述试图通过回顾ACA对可负担性、成本控制和医疗质量的影响,使讨论更加清晰。我们将从支持者、反对者和务实的角度讨论ACA的这些方面。

关键词

《平价医疗法案》(ACA)、奥巴马医改、医疗保险制度、医疗补助计划、《医疗保险现代化法案》(MMA)、医疗保健成本、医疗保健质量、基于绩效的激励支付系统(MIPS)

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验