In this issue of JAMA Internal Medicine, Ivers et al1 discuss the course of Canada’s “single-payer” (or “Medicare for all”) health insurance system over the last 50 years. The article summarizes the reasons why the Canadian system can seem superior to the insurance system in the United States. Awareness of those differences is one reason why Canadians are especially wary of change; it takes little imagination for them to envision the universal coverage and other features that they could lose. The article also highlights the ways in which the Canadian system is by no means ideal—especially public concerns about constrained access to some medical care and the lack of universal coverage for pharmaceuticals. In the mid-1990s, worries about delayed access to care increased substantially in Canada and were accompanied by decreasing public satisfaction with the system.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
White J. Drawing Lessons From Canada’s Experience With Single-Payer Health Insurance. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(9):1255–1257. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.3707
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: