When considering proposed reforms of the U.S. health care system, some physicians dismiss the single-payer model (Medicare for All or state-based universal health care proposals) out of concern that their reimbursement and thus their income would be reduced. This study is an effort to quantitate that concern in the case of state-based plans and, in so doing, to suggest a template for evaluating the financial consequences for physicians of single-payer health care reform in general. To put the data into concrete, practical terms, I envision a hypothetical primary care physician's practice and develop its plausible financial components in the present multi-payer system and in five proposed state-based, single-payer systems. The calculations reveal that in all five single-payer plans evaluated, the hypothetical physician's Total Net Income (take-home pay) would exceed that in the current multi-payer system. Whether these results apply to actual practices or not, they suggest that, when considering the financial impact of single-payer reform on their practices, physicians should consider all the financial consequences of such reform, not just the proposed reimbursement level. More quantitative analyses of these important financial variables in different practice settings must be pursued.
FrellickM. Healthcare professionals almost equally divided on medicare for all, poll shows. Medscape Internal Medicine. May 29, 2019. Accessed February 14, 2022. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/913411#vp_1.
10.
WoolhandlerSHimmelsteinDU. Administrative work consumes one-sixth of U.S. physicians’ working hours and lowers their career satisfaction. Int J Health Serv. 2014;44(4):635–642.
11.
TsengPKaplanRSRichmanBDShahMASchulmanKA. Administrative costs associated with physician billing and insurance-related activities at an academic health care system. JAMA. 2018;319(7):691–697.
12.
DuffinJ. The impact of single-payer health care on physician income in Canada, 1850-2005. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(7):1198–1208.
13.
CaiC. How would Medicare for All affect physician revenue?J Gen Intern Med. 2022;37(3):671–672. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-021-06979-z. Accessed May 14, 2022.
14.
PeikesDNReidRJDayTJ, et al.Staffing Patterns of Primary Care Practices in the Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative. Ann Fam Med. 2014;12(2):142–149.
15.
BasuSPhillipsRSPhillipsRPetersonLDLandonBE. Primary Care Practice Finances in the United States amid the COVID-19 Pandemic. Health Aff.2020;39(9):1605–1614.
JiwaniAHimmelsteinDWoolhandlerSKahnJ. Billing and insurance-related administrative costs in United States’ health care: synthesis of micro-costing evidence. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):556. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-014-0556-7
20.
KahnJKronickRKregerMGansD. The cost of health insurance administration in California: estimates for insurers, physicians, and hospitals. Health Aff (Millwood). 2005;24(6):1629–1639.
ZuckermanSSkopecLAaronsJ. Medicaid physician fees remained substantially below fees paid by Medicare in 2019. Health Aff. 2021;40(2):343–348.
28.
MorraDNicholsonSLevinsonWGansDNHammonsTCasalinoLP. US physician practices versus canadians: spending nearly four times as much money interacting with payers. Health Aff. 2011;30(8):1443–1450.
ScheinkerDRichmanBDMilsteinASchulmanKA. Reducing administrative costs in US health care: assessing single-payer and its alternatives. Health Serv Res. 2021;56(4):615–625.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
