Many think going to a single payor government sponsored system such as that in Canada or the U.K. will solve many problems and reduce cost. It doesn't matter what kind of system the country has be it single payor or a hybrid like ours is now, you must have more money coming in than going out. In the United States, we have far more demand than supply. JamesNT
Single payor will eliminate duplicative administrative costs. Having 400 different entities all duplicating the same administrative functions, some better and worse is a waste of health care dollars.
There may be advantages with preventive duplicate testing and such since it would be easier to query what was done by another provider. This would depend on how the system was set up.
We do have more demand than supply. That is because you get what you pay for. Specialists have traditionally been paid more than PCPs and thus more physicians have gone that route. Procedures were more valued than prevention. The inequity will need to be addressed regardless of the system.
Often many of the services done by specialists could be done by PCPs but are referred by habit or by reimbursement issues. Again, this is not related to the type of system but another issue that would need to be corrected.
People often confuse single payor with government. It need not be the case. Any nonprofit could fit the bill. It could be regional - somewhat like the Blue Cross model. If you are out of area, the Blues work it out among themselves. It probably averages out in the long run.
(Of course BCBS of IL built a 1 billion dollar building downdown and 10 years later added a 2 Billion dollar addition on top - all paid in cash depends on what you call nonprofit...)
