The central to the functioning of a market economy are the laws of supply and demand. When the supply, price, quality and demand for a product or service are aligned and the market can operate at its optimum. The laws of supply and demand underpinning the national economy in general also apply to the provision of health services. Yet the healthcare market is considerably distorted. One reason for this distortion is a disconnection between supply and demand for services. This, in turn, fostered in part by the fact that consumers are not actively engaged and properly educated as partners in their use of health services. Health care is a significant and growing share of all expenses and production in the United States. Patients now spend more
…show more content…
Life expectancy is up and the percentage of Americans aged seventy five and older is growing quickly. The more we get older, the more our health becomes very expensive. This means more aches and pains, more disease, more trips to the doctor, more drugs and several days in the hospital. Consequently, there is a distinguished rise on medical expenses. But the main cause of higher medical expenses is of course technological change. In fact, this is why we continue getting older. In the nearest past, the US government spent almost zero about cancer or heart disease or even kidney disease infections. The government spent anything because it did not have treatments to offer. The doctors could do little more than check the disease and patients waiting to die. Thus, the health care system was cheap because most of all equipment were not present. Now mounting medical costs have forced the country to face a crucial question: who should pay for those costs? Should we treat health care as chips and allow individual consumers and producers make free choices about what to produce and how much to buy and sell? Should we allow market supply and demand to allocate medical resources? Health systems differ significantly between countries. For example, Canadians visit government clinics or public hospitals are staffed by pharmacists, nurses, technicians and doctors paid to the government. The services are at no cost to the patient. All costs are covered by public funds which are
Life expectancy is up and the percentage of Americans aged seventy five and older is growing quickly. The more we get older, the more our health becomes very expensive. This means more aches and pains, more disease, more trips to the doctor, more drugs and several days in the hospital. Consequently, there is a distinguished rise on medical expenses. But the main cause of higher medical expenses is of course technological change. In fact, this is why we continue getting older. In the nearest past, the US government spent almost zero about cancer or heart disease or even kidney disease infections. The government spent anything because it did not have treatments to offer. The doctors could do little more than check the disease and patients waiting to die. Thus, the health care system was cheap because most of all equipment were not present. Now mounting medical costs have forced the country to face a crucial question: who should pay for those costs? Should we treat health care as chips and allow individual consumers and producers make free choices about what to produce and how much to buy and sell? Should we allow market supply and demand to allocate medical resources? Health systems differ significantly between countries. For example, Canadians visit government clinics or public hospitals are staffed by pharmacists, nurses, technicians and doctors paid to the government. The services are at no cost to the patient. All costs are covered by public funds which are