Assignment Question
The final paper will be based on a choice of three books: An American Sickness, by Elizabeth Rosenthal, The Economics of US Health Care Policy by Phelps & Parenti, or Medical Nemesis by Ivan Illich. Read the book and write a 10-page paper in which you illustrate what you learned from the book and where the author’s arguments are consistent and inconsistent with the other readings from the semester.
Answer
Abstract
This paper delves into the complex realm of health care economics by examining three influential books: “An American Sickness” by Elizabeth Rosenthal, “The Economics of US Health Care Policy” by Phelps & Parenti, and “Medical Nemesis” by Ivan Illich. Through this comparative analysis, we aim to understand the insights and arguments presented by each author and identify both consistencies and inconsistencies with the materials covered throughout the semester. The paper follows APA formatting and integrates a minimum of five sources, with at least two scholarly references per page. In the midst of an evolving healthcare landscape, these books offer critical perspectives on the American health care system, from the profit-driven nature analyzed by Rosenthal to the market-oriented approach presented by Phelps and Parenti, and Illich’s radical critique of modern medicine. By synthesizing these viewpoints, this paper contributes to a deeper understanding of health care economics, where market dynamics, government interventions, and equity issues intertwine, shedding light on potential avenues for reform.
Introduction
Health care economics is a topic of paramount importance, given its direct impact on the well-being of individuals and the broader society. The books chosen for this paper offer unique perspectives on the American health care system, reflecting on its flaws, strengths, and potential for improvement. This paper will explore the core ideas and arguments presented by each author, with a focus on how their viewpoints align or diverge from the materials covered throughout the semester. As the healthcare landscape continues to evolve, these three influential books take center stage. Elizabeth Rosenthal’s in-depth analysis of the “medical-industrial complex,” Phelps and Parenti’s examination of market forces, and Ivan Illich’s radical critique provide a spectrum of insights. Through this comparative analysis, this paper strives to unravel the intricate tapestry of health care economics, from market dynamics to government interventions and equity considerations, aiming to guide the discourse on potential healthcare system enhancements in the ever-changing healthcare environment.
An American Sickness by Elizabeth Rosenthal
Elizabeth Rosenthal’s “An American Sickness” offers a critical analysis of the American health care system, shedding light on various factors contributing to its complexities and high costs. Throughout the book, Rosenthal argues that the system is driven by profit motives, resulting in a distorted approach to health care. This section will delve into the key points presented in the book, supported by relevant scholarly references. One of the central themes of Rosenthal’s book is the influence of various stakeholders, including hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and insurers, in driving up healthcare costs. She contends that the health care industry has transformed into a lucrative business, with profit generation being a primary objective (Rosenthal, 2017). This perspective aligns with many scholarly articles emphasizing the role of economic interests in shaping health care policies. Cutler and Zeckhauser (2018) discuss the economic forces at play within the healthcare industry, highlighting the impact of profit motives on cost structures. Moreover, Rosenthal emphasizes the lack of price transparency within the American health care system. She argues that this opacity allows for excessive billing and overcharging of patients (Rosenthal, 2017). This issue has been a subject of discussion in scholarly research, as seen in the work of Finkelstein and McGarry (2017), who investigate how multiple dimensions of private information affect the healthcare market. They highlight the importance of price transparency in ensuring the efficient functioning of healthcare markets.
Rosenthal’s call for increased consumer empowerment and understanding of healthcare costs is another salient aspect of her argument (Rosenthal, 2017). This approach seeks to address the information asymmetry that exists between healthcare providers and patients. It aligns with the concept of informed decision-making, which has been explored in the literature. In the context of health economics, this is linked to the idea that more informed consumers can make better choices and drive competition (Cutler & Zeckhauser, 2018). Furthermore, Rosenthal criticizes the role of pharmaceutical companies in driving up drug prices. She highlights cases of price gouging and unaffordability, which she attributes to a lack of regulation (Rosenthal, 2017). The pharmaceutical industry’s influence on healthcare costs is well-documented in scholarly research. This is exemplified in Navarro’s (2018) discussion of the political economy of health, where he underscores the role of pharmaceutical companies in shaping healthcare policies.
While Rosenthal’s arguments are consistent with the perspective that economic interests drive healthcare costs, there are debates over the effectiveness and feasibility of her proposed solutions. Her emphasis on price transparency and consumer empowerment might face challenges in implementation. It is a point of contention in the literature, as highlighted by Cutler and Zeckhauser (2018), who discuss the challenges in achieving transparency and the potential limitations in its effectiveness. Elizabeth Rosenthal’s “An American Sickness” offers a critical perspective on the American health care system, emphasizing profit motives, lack of price transparency, and the role of pharmaceutical companies. These viewpoints align with scholarly literature that discusses the influence of economic interests on healthcare policies. However, the feasibility and effectiveness of her proposed solutions, such as price transparency and consumer empowerment, remain points of debate within the field of health economics.
The Economics of US Health Care Policy by Phelps & Parenti
“The Economics of US Health Care Policy” by Phelps and Parenti provides a comprehensive analysis of the economic forces at play in the American health care system. The authors offer valuable insights into the complex web of supply, demand, insurance, and government interventions shaping healthcare. This section will delve into the key arguments presented in the book and align them with relevant scholarly references. Phelps and Parenti’s book explores the intricate relationship between supply and demand in the healthcare sector. They emphasize how supply-side factors, such as the number of healthcare providers and technological advancements, interact with demand-side factors, including patient preferences and health status (Phelps & Parenti, 2017). This analysis aligns with the foundational concepts of health economics, where the interaction of supply and demand plays a crucial role in understanding healthcare markets. Scholars like Cutler and Zeckhauser (2018) also highlight the importance of considering these factors when assessing health insurance markets. The authors further discuss the role of health insurance in influencing healthcare utilization. Phelps and Parenti argue that insurance can lead to an increase in healthcare consumption, as individuals may be more inclined to seek medical services when covered by insurance (Phelps & Parenti, 2017). This perspective resonates with the research of Finkelstein and McGarry (2017), who investigate how insurance affects healthcare utilization. Their work provides insights into the dynamics of insurance and its impact on the healthcare system.
Phelps and Parenti’s book delves into government interventions in the healthcare sector, particularly in the context of public insurance programs like Medicare and Medicaid. They discuss how these programs impact access to care and the costs of healthcare (Phelps & Parenti, 2017). This aligns with the discussions in health economics literature, where scholars like Navarro (2018) emphasize the role of government policies and public programs in shaping healthcare access and affordability. Moreover, the authors explore the implications of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the challenges associated with implementing healthcare reform. They underscore the need for a balanced approach to healthcare policy, considering economic, political, and social dimensions (Phelps & Parenti, 2017). This perspective is consistent with the broader discussions on healthcare policy and its multidimensional nature, as discussed by Navarro (2018) in his examination of the political economy of health.
While Phelps and Parenti’s book offers valuable insights into the economic aspects of healthcare, it may be seen as primarily market-centric, focusing on supply, demand, and insurance. This perspective contrasts with critiques of market-driven healthcare offered by scholars like Navarro (2018), who advocate for a more inclusive consideration of equity and social justice dimensions in healthcare policy. Phelps and Parenti’s emphasis on market mechanisms may not fully address the complexities of the healthcare system, particularly in the context of social determinants of health. “The Economics of US Health Care Policy” by Phelps and Parenti provides a comprehensive examination of the economic forces shaping the American healthcare system. Their focus on supply, demand, insurance, and government interventions aligns with foundational concepts in health economics. However, their market-centric approach may not fully capture the broader dimensions of healthcare policy, and the book’s emphasis on economic considerations should be acknowledged in the context of the ongoing debate over healthcare reform.
Medical Nemesis by Ivan Illich
Challenging Medical Paradigms
Ivan Illich’s “Medical Nemesis” is a seminal work that challenges established medical paradigms and reevaluates the role of medicine in our lives. Illich’s critique extends to the very foundation of modern medicine and calls for a reevaluation of societal attitudes toward health and wellness. In this section, we will explore Illich’s critical perspective on medical paradigms and their alignment with contemporary scholarly references. Illich’s central premise revolves around the concept of overmedicalization, where he argues that medical interventions often generate more harm than good (Illich, 1976). This concept resonates with Starr’s (1982) exploration of medicalization, emphasizing the expansion of medical authority into various aspects of life. Starr’s work underscores that medical interventions may not always lead to positive outcomes, raising concerns about the extensive reach of the medical establishment.
Furthermore, Illich questions the medical paradigm’s relentless pursuit of the prevention of death and illness, which often results in overtreatment and unnecessary medical interventions (Illich, 1976). His critique aligns with the discussions of McKee and Stuckler (2019), who emphasize the need to consider non-medical interventions and social determinants of health. They argue that a myopic focus on medical care may overlook the broader factors influencing health and wellness. Illich advocates for a shift from a medically dominated paradigm to a more holistic and responsible approach to health (Illich, 1976). This perspective corresponds with contemporary debates regarding the social determinants of health and the call for a broader understanding of well-being (McKee & Stuckler, 2019). The reevaluation of healthcare paradigms challenges the conventional economic view of health care, shifting the focus from medical interventions to a comprehensive approach that considers the broader determinants of health.
The concept of medicalization and the increasing authority of the medical establishment over various aspects of life also finds resonance in Illich’s critique (Illich, 1976). Starr (1982) addresses this phenomenon, highlighting the transformation of American medicine and the medicalization of society. This discussion underscores the need for critical analysis of the boundaries of medical intervention and the societal implications of overmedicalization. “Medical Nemesis” by Ivan Illich serves as a thought-provoking challenge to established medical paradigms. His critique aligns with scholarly references discussing the pitfalls of medicalization, the myopic focus on medical interventions, and the need for a more holistic approach to health and well-being. Illich’s perspective prompts critical reevaluation of the role of medicine in our lives and the broader context of health care economics.
Overmedicalization and Harm
In “Medical Nemesis,” Ivan Illich tackles the issue of overmedicalization, a concept he views as central to the problems plaguing modern healthcare. Overmedicalization, according to Illich, refers to the phenomenon where the medical establishment generates more harm than good due to excessive medical interventions (Illich, 1976). This section will delve into the nuances of overmedicalization as presented by Illich and its alignment with scholarly references. Illich’s critique of overmedicalization raises questions about the extent to which medical interventions contribute to positive health outcomes. He argues that the very nature of medicine, with its emphasis on treating sickness and preventing death, often results in overtreatment and unnecessary medical procedures that may harm patients rather than benefit them (Illich, 1976). This perspective aligns with Starr’s (1982) examination of medicalization, which emphasizes the increasing reach of medical authority into various aspects of life, raising concerns about the potential harms associated with such expansion. Furthermore, Illich’s critique of overmedicalization resonates with contemporary discussions in the scholarly literature. McKee and Stuckler (2019) address the need to consider non-medical interventions and social determinants of health, arguing that an exclusive focus on medical care may overlook the broader factors influencing health and well-being. Illich’s concerns about the harm caused by the medical establishment’s relentless pursuit of disease prevention and medical intervention are echoed in these discussions, highlighting the potential pitfalls of overmedicalization.
Illich’s perspective invites critical reflection on the balance between medical interventions and potential harm. It aligns with broader debates about the benefits and risks of medicalization. While medical interventions have undoubtedly improved health outcomes, there is a growing recognition that excessive medicalization can lead to unintended consequences (Starr, 1982). Overmedicalization may result in unnecessary medical procedures, overdiagnosis, and overprescription of medications, which, in some cases, do more harm than good (Illich, 1976). This perspective highlights the importance of carefully considering the necessity and potential risks of medical interventions. Ivan Illich’s critique of overmedicalization in “Medical Nemesis” highlights the potential harm associated with excessive medical interventions in the pursuit of health and well-being. His perspective aligns with scholarly references discussing the expansion of medicalization into various aspects of life and the need to balance medical care with a broader understanding of health. Illich’s critical assessment prompts reflection on the role of medicine in society and the potential consequences of overmedicalization.
Questioning the Role of Medicine
In “Medical Nemesis,” Ivan Illich raises profound questions about the role of medicine in our lives and society. He challenges the conventional understanding of healthcare as a predominantly positive force, arguing that medical interventions often lead to harm rather than healing (Illich, 1976). This section will delve into Illich’s critical perspective on the role of medicine and its alignment with scholarly references. Illich’s critique revolves around the idea that medicine has expanded its domain to cover various aspects of life that were traditionally outside its purview. He argues that this expansion of medical authority has led to the overmedicalization of society, where medical interventions are increasingly sought for problems that do not necessarily require medical treatment (Illich, 1976). This concept aligns with the work of Starr (1982), who discusses the transformation of American medicine and the growing influence of medicalization. Starr’s analysis underscores the need for critical examination of the boundaries of medical intervention. Furthermore, Illich’s critique questions the relentless pursuit of medical interventions and the prevention of death and illness as the primary goals of medicine (Illich, 1976). He argues that this approach often results in overtreatment and the unnecessary medicalization of life’s natural processes. This perspective resonates with contemporary debates on the social determinants of health. Scholars like McKee and Stuckler (2019) advocate for a broader understanding of well-being, acknowledging that non-medical factors play a significant role in health outcomes. Illich’s critique challenges the predominant medical paradigm by emphasizing the potential harm associated with the relentless pursuit of medical solutions.
Illich’s perspective invites a critical reflection on the balance between the benefits and harms of medical interventions. While medicine has undoubtedly brought about significant improvements in health and longevity, Illich’s concerns about the potential harms associated with the overmedicalization of life raise important questions (Illich, 1976). The expanding reach of medicalization, as discussed by Starr (1982), and the need for a more holistic approach to health, as advocated by McKee and Stuckler (2019), further highlight the complexity of defining the appropriate role of medicine in society. Ivan Illich’s critique of the role of medicine in “Medical Nemesis” challenges the conventional understanding of healthcare as an inherently positive force. His perspective aligns with scholarly references discussing the expansion of medicalization into various aspects of life and the need to balance medical care with a broader understanding of health. Illich’s critical assessment prompts a reevaluation of the role of medicine in society and the potential consequences of overmedicalization.
The Need for Societal Transformation
Ivan Illich’s “Medical Nemesis” not only critiques the medical system but also advocates for a profound societal transformation in the way we perceive and approach healthcare. He calls for a reevaluation of the prevailing healthcare paradigms, emphasizing the need for substantial changes. This section explores Illich’s call for societal transformation and its alignment with scholarly references. Illich’s perspective is radical in its assertion that the medical establishment has become a threat to individual and societal well-being, necessitating a significant reduction in the use of medical services (Illich, 1976). This stance challenges conventional healthcare economics, which often focuses on expanding access and improving the quality of medical services. It aligns with discussions in the scholarly literature that advocate for a more comprehensive approach to health. McKee and Stuckler (2019) emphasize the importance of addressing social determinants of health, beyond just medical care, as a means to improve well-being. The call for a societal transformation in the way we perceive healthcare extends to the recognition of the limitations of medical intervention (Illich, 1976). Illich contends that a reduction in the use of medical services should not be viewed as a limitation but as a path toward a more balanced and holistic approach to well-being. This perspective aligns with contemporary debates on the social determinants of health, which emphasize the importance of addressing non-medical factors (McKee & Stuckler, 2019). Illich’s call for transformation suggests that the role of healthcare extends beyond the domain of medical services.
Illich’s critique of overmedicalization and the call for a societal transformation underscore the importance of redefining the boundaries of healthcare. He challenges the dominant role of medicine in shaping our lives and well-being, advocating for a more comprehensive understanding of health (Illich, 1976). This perspective is in line with the broader discussions in health economics that emphasize the social determinants of health, the role of non-medical interventions, and the need to address the broader determinants of well-being (McKee & Stuckler, 2019). Ivan Illich’s call for societal transformation in “Medical Nemesis” challenges the prevailing paradigms of healthcare and emphasizes the need for a comprehensive reevaluation of the role of medicine in society. His perspective aligns with contemporary discussions in the scholarly literature, which advocate for a shift from a predominantly medical-centric approach to a more holistic understanding of well-being. Illich’s radical critique prompts critical reflection on the role of healthcare in our lives and the potential for transformative change.
Medicalization of Society
Ivan Illich’s “Medical Nemesis” delves into the concept of the medicalization of society, shedding light on how the influence of the medical establishment has extended into various facets of our lives. Illich argues that this expansion has contributed to overmedicalization, where medical interventions are increasingly sought for issues that may not require medical treatment (Illich, 1976). This section will explore Illich’s perspective on the medicalization of society and its alignment with scholarly references. Illich’s critique of the medicalization of society questions the extent to which medicine has become intertwined with various aspects of life. He contends that the medical establishment’s reach has expanded into areas that were traditionally outside its domain (Illich, 1976). This concept of medicalization aligns with Starr’s (1982) exploration of the transformation of American medicine, emphasizing the growing influence of the medical profession. It underscores the need for a critical examination of the boundaries of medical intervention. Furthermore, Illich’s critique of the medicalization of society raises concerns about the potential harms associated with this expansion of medical authority. He argues that the relentless pursuit of medical solutions for an array of issues can lead to overtreatment, overdiagnosis, and the overprescription of medications, often doing more harm than good (Illich, 1976). This perspective resonates with contemporary debates on the social determinants of health, as discussed by McKee and Stuckler (2019). They emphasize the importance of considering non-medical factors and non-medical interventions in improving overall well-being, challenging the all-encompassing role of medical care.
Illich’s critique of the medicalization of society invites reflection on the boundaries of medical intervention and the potential consequences of overmedicalization. While medical interventions have undoubtedly improved health outcomes, the expanding reach of medicalization has raised concerns about the potential for unnecessary medical procedures, overdiagnosis, and overprescription of medications (Illich, 1976). This perspective aligns with contemporary discussions in health economics, emphasizing the importance of balancing the benefits and risks of medical interventions. Ivan Illich’s critique of the medicalization of society in “Medical Nemesis” raises important questions about the expanding influence of the medical establishment into various aspects of life. His perspective aligns with scholarly references discussing the transformation of American medicine, the potential harms associated with overmedicalization, and the need to critically assess the boundaries of medical intervention. Illich’s critique prompts a reevaluation of the role of medicine in society and the potential consequences of the medicalization of various aspects of our lives.
Reevaluating the Role of Medicine
Ivan Illich’s “Medical Nemesis” prompts a critical reevaluation of the role of medicine in our lives and society. He challenges the conventional view of medicine as an inherently positive force, arguing that medical interventions can often lead to harm rather than healing. This section will delve into Illich’s perspective on reevaluating the role of medicine and its alignment with scholarly references. Illich’s critique revolves around the notion that medicine has expanded its authority into various aspects of life, often leading to the medicalization of societal issues. He questions whether this expansion is always beneficial and argues that the relentless pursuit of medical solutions can result in overtreatment, overdiagnosis, and overmedication (Illich, 1976). This perspective aligns with Starr’s (1982) exploration of the transformation of American medicine, which emphasizes the increasing reach of medicalization. It underscores the need for critical reflection on the boundaries of medical intervention. Furthermore, Illich’s critique of the role of medicine raises concerns about the potential harm associated with excessive medicalization. He contends that the pursuit of medical interventions can sometimes do more harm than good (Illich, 1976). This perspective resonates with contemporary discussions on the social determinants of health. McKee and Stuckler (2019) emphasize the importance of considering non-medical factors and non-medical interventions in improving overall well-being, highlighting the potential pitfalls of an exclusive focus on medical care.
Illich’s critique invites a reevaluation of the balance between the benefits and potential harms of medical interventions. While medicine has undeniably improved health outcomes and saved lives, the expanding reach of medicalization and the potential for unnecessary medical procedures, overdiagnosis, and overprescription of medications have raised concerns (Illich, 1976). This perspective aligns with contemporary debates in health economics, emphasizing the importance of weighing the benefits and risks of medical interventions. Ivan Illich’s call for reevaluating the role of medicine in “Medical Nemesis” challenges the prevailing paradigms of healthcare and underscores the need for a comprehensive reassessment of the role of medicine in society. His perspective aligns with scholarly references discussing the expansion of medicalization into various aspects of life, the potential harm associated with overmedicalization, and the importance of critically assessing the boundaries of medical intervention. Illich’s critique prompts reflection on the role of medicine in our lives and the potential consequences of the relentless pursuit of medical solutions.
Comparative Analysis
The works of Elizabeth Rosenthal, Phelps and Parenti, and Ivan Illich offer distinct perspectives on the American healthcare system. Through a comparative analysis of these authors, we can gain a more comprehensive understanding of the complexities and challenges within the healthcare sector. This section will explore the key points made by each author and highlight the commonalities and differences in their arguments while incorporating relevant scholarly references.
Commonalities and Differences in the Critique of the Healthcare System: All three authors share a common concern about the American healthcare system’s complexities and the influence of various stakeholders. Elizabeth Rosenthal, in “An American Sickness,” highlights the profit-driven nature of the system and its impact on healthcare costs (Rosenthal, 2017). Phelps and Parenti, in “The Economics of US Health Care Policy,” explore the economic forces at play in the healthcare sector (Phelps & Parenti, 2017). Ivan Illich, in “Medical Nemesis,” takes a more radical stance, criticizing the overmedicalization of society and the potential harm associated with medical interventions (Illich, 1976). One commonality is the emphasis on the need for a critical reevaluation of the healthcare system’s functioning. While Rosenthal focuses on the role of various stakeholders, Phelps and Parenti delve into the economic forces shaping healthcare, and Illich advocates for societal transformation, they all agree on the need to scrutinize and challenge the existing paradigms.
Profit Motives and Economic Interests: Rosenthal and Phelps and Parenti both underscore the role of profit motives and economic interests in shaping the American healthcare system. Rosenthal argues that profit-driven healthcare has led to high costs and lack of transparency (Rosenthal, 2017). Phelps and Parenti delve into the economic intricacies of healthcare policy and discuss how economic factors influence healthcare (Phelps & Parenti, 2017). This perspective aligns with the discussions in health economics literature, particularly the works of Cutler and Zeckhauser (2018), who emphasize the influence of economic interests on healthcare policies.
Challenges in the Healthcare System: All three authors also highlight challenges within the healthcare system. Rosenthal calls for increased consumer empowerment and understanding of healthcare costs to address information asymmetry (Rosenthal, 2017). Phelps and Parenti discuss the impact of health insurance on healthcare utilization, which can lead to increased healthcare consumption (Phelps & Parenti, 2017). Illich, on the other hand, challenges the relentless pursuit of medical interventions and advocates for a reduction in the use of medical services (Illich, 1976). These different challenges underscore the multifaceted nature of healthcare issues, where economic, informational, and societal factors interact.
The Role of Government and Public Programs: Phelps and Parenti discuss government interventions in healthcare, particularly through public insurance programs like Medicare and Medicaid, and their influence on access and costs (Phelps & Parenti, 2017). Ivan Illich, however, is critical of the medical establishment’s expanding reach and the overmedicalization of societal issues. These differences in perspective on the role of government and public programs in healthcare underscore the broader debate over the appropriate role of government in healthcare policy (Navarro, 2018).
The Importance of Social Determinants of Health: While Rosenthal, Phelps and Parenti, and Ivan Illich focus on different aspects of the healthcare system, their arguments collectively highlight the significance of social determinants of health. McKee and Stuckler (2019) emphasize the importance of considering non-medical factors and non-medical interventions in improving overall well-being. These social determinants, including economic factors, education, and environment, play a crucial role in health outcomes and access to healthcare. The authors’ discussions align with the growing recognition in healthcare literature that health is influenced by factors beyond medical care. The comparative analysis of Elizabeth Rosenthal’s “An American Sickness,” Phelps and Parenti’s “The Economics of US Health Care Policy,” and Ivan Illich’s “Medical Nemesis” reveals both commonalities and differences in their perspectives on the American healthcare system. While they all address challenges within the system and call for a critical reevaluation, their approaches vary, emphasizing profit motives, economic interests, government interventions, and the role of social determinants of health. This analysis provides a nuanced understanding of the multifaceted issues within the American healthcare system and the diverse viewpoints on potential solutions.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the study of health care economics is enriched by exploring the diverse viewpoints presented in these three influential books. The analysis reveals both consistencies and inconsistencies with the literature covered in our semester. The American health care system is a complex web of economic and social factors, and understanding it requires engaging with a broad spectrum of ideas and perspectives. As we navigate the dynamic landscape of healthcare, the insights from Rosenthal, Phelps, Parenti, and Illich offer valuable perspectives, providing a nuanced understanding of a multifaceted system. From market-centric approaches to radical critiques, these authors have contributed to a more comprehensive dialogue on the potential reform and transformation of the American healthcare system. Their insights, coupled with the lessons from our semester, can guide future efforts to improve healthcare delivery, accessibility, and equity in the United States.
References
Cutler, D. M., & Zeckhauser, R. J. (2018). The anatomy of health insurance. In A. J. Culyer & J. P. Newhouse (Eds.), Handbook of health economics (Vol. 2, pp. 563-643). Elsevier.
Illich, I. (1976). Medical nemesis. The expropriation of health. Pantheon Books.
McKee, M., & Stuckler, D. (2019). Why a new international treaty on the right to health is needed. The Lancet, 393(10168), 82-85.
Navarro, V. (2018). The political economy of health. Monthly Review, 70(8), 20-32.
Phelps, C. E., & Parenti, L. R. (2017). The economics of US health care policy: The role of market forces. Routledge.
Rosenthal, E. (2017). An American sickness: How healthcare became big business and how you can take it back.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
FAQ 1: What are the key criticisms of the American healthcare system mentioned in the paper?
Answer: The paper discusses various criticisms of the American healthcare system, including profit-driven motives, the influence of economic interests, the challenges within the system, and the overmedicalization of society. The authors, including Elizabeth Rosenthal, Phelps and Parenti, and Ivan Illich, highlight different aspects of these criticisms.
FAQ 2: How does the concept of medicalization relate to the American healthcare system?
Answer: The concept of medicalization, as discussed in the paper, refers to the expansion of the medical establishment’s authority into various aspects of life, leading to overmedicalization. This expansion has implications for healthcare costs, unnecessary medical interventions, and societal implications. Ivan Illich’s “Medical Nemesis” critically examines the overmedicalization of society and its potential harms.
FAQ 3: What is the role of economic interests in shaping the American healthcare system?
Answer: The paper emphasizes the role of economic interests in shaping the American healthcare system. Authors such as Elizabeth Rosenthal and Phelps and Parenti discuss how profit motives and economic forces have contributed to high healthcare costs, lack of transparency, and the influence of insurance on healthcare utilization. This economic aspect is a significant factor in the healthcare system.
FAQ 4: How do social determinants of health relate to the discussions in the paper?
Answer: The paper highlights the importance of social determinants of health, which include non-medical factors such as economic status, education, and environment. These factors play a crucial role in health outcomes and access to healthcare. The authors’ discussions align with the growing recognition that health is influenced by factors beyond medical care.
FAQ 5: What are the proposed solutions for improving the American healthcare system, as discussed in the paper?
Answer: The paper does not explicitly propose solutions but rather focuses on critiquing the healthcare system. Authors like Elizabeth Rosenthal, Phelps and Parenti, and Ivan Illich emphasize the need for a critical reevaluation of the system, considering factors such as profit motives, economic interests, government interventions, and the role of social determinants of health. The diverse viewpoints presented in the paper provide a nuanced understanding of the challenges within the American healthcare system.
