Since the program’s creation in 1965, Medicare has had a negative impact on health care quality. Researchers have documented widespread quality problems for decades, yet Congress and Medicare administrators have failed to enact meaningful reform. Medicare’s negative impact on quality should give even the staunchest Medicare for All advocates pause.

A new article by Michael F. Cannon and Jacqueline Pohida proposes the novel solution of applying traditionally Democratic “public option” principles to Medicare. Public‐option advocates argue that when a government health plan and private insurers compete for enrollees on a level playing field, competition will deliver more of what enrollees want. Applying public‐option principles to Medicare requires eliminating any advantages traditional Medicare or private insurers may have to create a completely level playing field between all forms of health insurance. Public‐option principles would promote quality within Medicare by allowing open competition between different payment rules and quality‐improvement programs.

At this virtual event, leading health policy experts will discuss how Medicare impacts health care quality and what policymakers should do to give enrollees the update in health care quality they deserve.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Would ‘Medicare for All’ Mean Quality for All? How Public‐​Option Principles Could Reverse Medicare’s Negative Impact on Quality 59:01 Share

Cato Event Podcast

Shownotes Transcript

Would ‘Medicare for All’ Mean Quality for All? How Public‐Option Principles Could Reverse Medicare’s Negative Impact on Quality