Recent years have seen the rapid growth of private think tanks within the neoconservative movement that conduct “policy research” biased to their own agenda. This article provides an evidence-based rebuttal to a 2002 report by one such think tank, the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), which was intended to discredit 20 alleged myths about single-payer national health insurance as a policy option for the United States. Eleven “myths” are rebutted under eight categories: access, cost containment, quality, efficiency, single-payer as solution, control of drug prices, ability to compete abroad (the “business case”), and public support for a single-payer system. Six memes (self-replicating ideas that are promulgated without regard to their merits) are identified in the NCPA report. Myths and memes should have no place in the national debate now underway over the future of a failing health care system, and need to be recognized as such and countered by experience and unbiased evidence.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CareyA.Taking the Risk Out of Democracy: Corporate Propaganda versus Freedom and Liberty, pp. 91–93. University of Illinois Press, Chicago, 1995.
2.
GreiderW.Who Will Tell The People? The Betrayal of American Democracy, pp. 300–301. Simon and Schuster, New York, 1992.
GoodmanJ. C.HerrickD. M.Twenty Myths about Single-Payer Health Insurance: International Evidence on the Effects of National Health Insurance in Countries around the World. National Center for Policy Analysis, Dallas, 2002.
5.
GoodmanJ. C.MusgraveG. L.Twenty Myths about National Health Insurance. NCPA Policy Report No. 128. National Center for Policy Analysis, Dallas, December 1991.
6.
BrodieR.Virus of the Mind: The New Science of the Meme. Integral Press, Seattle, 1996.
7.
JohnsonR. W.CrystalS.Uninsured status and out-of-pocket costs at midlife. Health Serv. Res.35(5, Pt. 1): 911–932, 2000.
8.
DoorenJ. C.Health coverage in U.S. rises for children, but slips in total. Wall Street Journal, July 1, 2004.
9.
PearR.New study finds 60 million uninsured during a year. New York Times, May 13, 2003.
10.
MayJ. H.CunninghamP. J.Issue Brief #85. Center for Studying Health System Change, Washington, D.C., 2004.
11.
SwartzK.Who owns the problems of the uninsured?Inquiry33: 103–105, 1996.
12.
HansonK. W.Uncovering the health challenges facing people with disabilities: The role of health insurance. Health Aff., Web Exclusive, November 19, 2003, pp. W3–553.
13.
Kaiser Family Foundation Survey, June 5, 2002.
14.
Families USA. Press release, November 20, 2000.
15.
BlendonR. J.Inequities in health care: A five-country survey. Health Aff. (Millwood)21(3): 182–191, 2002.
16.
DirnfeldV.The benefits of privatization. CMAJ155(4): 407–410, 1996.
17.
WeberT.OrnsteinC.County USC doctors say delays fatal. Los Angeles Times, April 23, 2003.
18.
DerletR. W.Trends in the use and capacity of California's emergency departments, 1990–1999. Ann. Emerg. Med.39: 430, 2002.
19.
TuohyC.How Does Private Finance Affect Public Health Care Systems? Marshalling the Evidence from OECD Systems. Canadian Health Economics Research Association, Toronto, May 2001.
20.
Center for Studying Health System Change. Press release. Washington, D.C., September 5, 2002.
21.
RachlisM.Revitalizing Medicare: Shared Problems, Public Solutions, p. 25. Tommy Douglas Research Institute, Vancouver, January 2001.
22.
KatzS. J.Phantoms in the snow: Canadians' use of health care services in the United States. Health Aff. (Millwood)21(3): 35–41, 2002.
23.
Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. A Parallel Private System Would Reduce Waiting Times in the Public System. Mythbusters Series No. 2. Toronto, 2001.
24.
AndersonG.Health spending and outcomes: Trends in OECD countries: 1960–1998. Health Aff. (Millwood)19(3): 153, 2000.
25.
GeymanJ. P.Health Care in America: Can Our Ailing System Be Healed?, p. 398. Butterworth-Heinemann, Woburn, Mass., 2002.
26.
HefflerS.Health spending projections through 2013. Health Aff., Web Exclusive Abstract, February 11, 2004.
27.
IglehartJ. K.Medicaid in the health insurance market. Health Aff. (Millwood)23(2): 142, 2002.
28.
Litow, M., and the Technical Committee of the Council for Affordable Health Insurance. Rhetoric vs. Reality: Comparing Public and Private Health Care Administrative Costs. Council for Affordable Health Insurance, Alexandria, Va., March 1994.
29.
WoolhandlerS.Costs of health care administration in the United States and Canada. N. Engl. J. Med.349: 768–775, 2003.
30.
HimmelsteinD. U.Administrative Waste in the U.S. Health Care System in 2003: The Cost to the Nation, the States and the District of Columbia, with State-Specific Estimates of Potential Savings. Public Citizen Health Research Group, Washington, D.C., August 20, 2003.
StarfieldB.Primary Care: Concept, Evaluation and Policy. Oxford University Press, New York, 1992.
33.
StarfieldB.Primary Care: Balancing Health Needs, Services, and Technology. Oxford University Press, New York, 1998.
34.
ThompsonL. A.Is more neonatal intensive care always better? Insights from a cross-national comparison of reproductive care. Pediatrics109: 1036–1043, 2002.
35.
WeingartS. N.Epidemiology of medical error. BMJ320: 774–777, 2000.
36.
KohnL. T.CorriganJ. M.DonaldsonM. S. (eds.). To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1999.
37.
SchusterM. A.How good is the quality of health care in the United States?Milbank Q. 76(4): 517–563, 1998.
38.
Blue Cross and Blue Shield. Technology Evaluation Committee Reports, No. 1–28. Chicago, 1999.
39.
HimmelsteinD. U.Bleeding the Patient: The Consequences of Corporate Health Care, pp. 137–138. Common Courage Press, Monroe, Me., 2001.
40.
GeymanJ. P.The Corporate Transformation of Health Care: Can the Public Interest Still Be Served?Springer, New York, 2004.
41.
GrembowskiD. F.Measuring the “managedness” and covered benefits of health plans. Health Serv. Res.35(3): 707–734, 2000.
AchmanL.GoldM.New Analysis Describes 2004 Payment Increases to Medicare Advantage Plans. Mathematica Policy Research, Washington, D.C., April 2004.
44.
MartinezB.Care guidelines used by insurers face scrutiny. Wall Street Journal, September 14, 2000.
45.
NicholsL. M.Are market forces strong enough to deliver efficient health care systems? Confidence is waning. Health Aff. (Millwood)23(2): 8–21, 2004.
46.
U.S. Government Accounting Office. Canadian Health Insurance: Lessons for the United States. Document GAO/HRD-91-90. Washington, D.C., 1991.
47.
Congressional Budget Office. Single-payer and All-payer Health Insurance Systems Using Medicare's Payment Rates. Washington, D.C., April 1993.
48.
BrandR.Universal Comprehensive Coverage: A Report to the Massachusetts Medical Society. Massachusetts Medical Society, Waltham, Mass., 1998.
49.
SheilsJ. F.HaughtR. A.Analysis of the Costs and Impact of Universal Health Care Models for the State of Maryland: The Single-payer and Multi-payer Models. Lewin Group, Fairfax, Va., 2000.
50.
SmithR. F.Universal health insurance makes business sense. Rutland Herald, November 2, 2001.
PrekerA. S.The introduction of universal access to health care in the OECD: Lessons for developing countries. In Achieving Universal Coverage of Health Care, ed. NitagyarumphongE. S.MillsA., p. 103. Ministry of Public Health, Bangkok, 1998.
53.
RasellM. E.Cost sharing in health insurance—re-examination. N. Engl. J. Med.332: 1164, 1995.
54.
TamblynR.Adverse events associated with prescription drug cost-sharing among poor and elderly persons. JAMA285: 421, 2001.
55.
GeymanJ. P.The corporate transformation of medicine and its impact on costs and access to care. J. Am. Board Fam. Pract.16(5): 449, 2003.
56.
ChenJ.Do “America's Best Hospitals” perform better for acute myocardial infarction?N. Engl. J. Med.340: 286, 1999.
57.
HartzA. J.Hospital characteristics and mortality rates. N. Engl. J. Med.321: 1720, 1989.
58.
KoverC.GergenP. J.Nurse staffing levels and adverse events following surgery in U.S. hospitals. Image: J. Nurs. Scholarship30: 315, 1998.
59.
SilvermanE. M.The association between for-profit hospital ownership and increased Medicare spending. N. Engl. J. Med.341: 420, 1999.
60.
WoolhandlerS.HimmelsteinD. U.Costs of care and administration at for-profit and other hospitals in the United States. N. Engl. J. Med.36: 769, 1997.
61.
YuanZ.The association between hospital type and mortality and length of stay: A study of 16.9 million hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries. Med. Care.38: 231, 2000.
62.
HimmelsteinD. U.Quality of care in investor-owned vs not-for-profit HMOs. JAMA282: 159, 1999.
63.
HMO honor roll. U.S. News & World Report, October 23, 1997, p. 62.
64.
KuttnerR.The American health care system: Wall Street and health care. N. Engl. J. Med.340: 664, 1999.
65.
DevereauxP. J.Comparison of mortality between private for-profit and private not-for-profit hemodialysis centers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA288: 2449, 2002.
66.
GargR. P.Effect of the ownership of dialysis facilities on patients' survival and referral for transplantation. N. Engl. J. Med.341: 1653, 1999.
67.
HarringtonC.Does investor-ownership of nursing homes compromise the quality of care?Am. J. Public Health91(9): 1, 2001.
68.
WrichJ.Brief Summary of Audit Findings of Managed Behavioral Health Services. J. Wrich and Associates, Chicago, 1998.
69.
MunozR.How health care insurers avoid treating mental illness. San Diego Union Tribune, May 22, 2002.
70.
BlendonR. J.Physicians' views on quality of care: A five-country comparison. Health Aff. (Millwood)20(3): 236, 2001.
71.
RemlerD. K.Does managed care mean more hassles for physicians. Inquiry37: 304–316, 2000.
72.
Harris Poll. Attitudes toward the United States health care system: Long-term trends—views of the public, employers, physicians, health plan managers are closer now than at any times in the past. Harris Interactive2(17), 2002.
73.
SimonS. R.Views of managed care—A survey of students, residents, faculty and deans at medical schools in the United States. N. Engl. J. Med.340: 928, 1999.
74.
GrossD.Prescription Drug Prices in Canada. AARP Public Policy Institute, June 2003.
75.
Tedeschi, B. E-insurance: As the debate continues, opinions are divided over the merits of allowing online drug purchases from Canada. New York Times, March 8, 2004.
76.
BakerD.Patent medicine. American Prospect, January 29, 2001, p. 34–35.
77.
GooznerM.The $800 Million Pill: The Truth Behind the Cost of New Drugs. University of California Press, Berkeley, 2004.
78.
LueckS.Drug industry exaggerates R&D costs to justify pricing, consumer group says. Wall Street Journal, July 24, 2001.
LightD. W.Will lower drug prices jeopardize drug research? A policy fact sheet. Am. J. Bioethics4(1), 2004.
82.
CockburnI. M.The changing structure of the pharmaceutical industry. Health Aff. (Millwood)23(1): 10–22, 2004.
83.
European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations. The Pharmaceutical Industry in Figures, 2003 Update. Brussels, 2003.
84.
Publications and Reports. Prescription drugs: Hard to swallow rising prices for America's seniors. Health Aff. (Millwood)19(1): 254, 2000.
85.
BatesB.Free market or patent protection? Research costs—role of FDA cited in drug debate. Fam. Pract. News34(4): 1, 2004.
86.
WesselD.Health care costs blamed for hiring gap. Wall Street Journal, March 11, 2004.
87.
Ha KimD.GM says costs for retiree care tops $60 billion. New York Times, March 12, 2004.
88.
DowneyK.A heftier dose to swallow. Washington Post, March 6, 2004.
89.
AndrewsE. L.Small business: Health care heights. New York Times, February 24, 2004.
90.
Committee on the Consequences of Uninsurance, Institute of Medicine. Hidden Costs, Value Lost: Uninsurance in America, pp. 3–4. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., June 2003.
91.
WoolhandlerS.HimmelsteinD. U.Paying for national health insurance—And not getting it. Health Aff. (Millwood)21(4): 88, 2002.
92.
SteinmoS.WattsJ.It's the institutions, stupid? Why comprehensive national health insurance always fails in America. J. Health. Polit. Policy Law20: 329, 1995.
93.
BlendonR. J.BensonJ. M.Americans' views on health policy: A fifty-year historical perspective. Health Aff. (Millwood)20(2): 33, 2001.
94.
National Coalition on Healthcare. A report of a national survey. J. Health Care Finance23: 12, 1997.
95.
LesterW.Poll: Public supports health care for all. Washington Post, October 19, 2003.
96.
Ackerman, S. U.S. media favor radical health reform—for Canada. Extra! May/June 2000, p. 7.
97.
EvansR. G.Going for the gold: The redistributive agenda behind market-based health care reform. J. Health Polit. Policy Law22: 427–465, 1997.
98.
MarmorT.SullivanK.Who's shaping the debate on health care reform?Hartford Courant, February 12, 2003.
99.
CourtK.FlanaganJ.Insurance “reform”? Consider the source. Wall Street Journal, March 18, 2003.
100.
GoreyK. M.An international comparison of cancer survival: Toronto, Ontario and Detroit, Michigan metropolitan areas. Am. J. Public Health87: 1156–1163, 1997.
101.
CouttsJ.Medicare gives poor a better chance. Toronto Globe and Mail, August 1, 1997.
102.
FisherE. S.WelchH. G.Avoiding the unintended consequences of growth in medical care: How might more be worse?JAMA281: 446–453, 1999.
103.
PennachioD. L.Full-body scans—or scams?Med. Econ., August 9, 2002, p. 62.
104.
WoolhandlerS.Proposal of the Physician's Working Group for Single-Payer National Health Insurance. JAMA290: 798–805, 2003.
105.
HartP.NaureckerJ.NBC slams universal health care, Extra!Update, December 2002, p. 4.
