By NextBestFitRaises spending or loosens control over it
The path costs more to run, or removes a limit on prices, spending, or use. This matters most when budgets are tight and the added care brings little benefit, and less when the extra spending buys care that is worth it.
Who's affected
- Taxpayers and public budgets: Public budgets pay the added spending.
None identified.
Under your mix of paths
Caused or worsened by these paths
A cost these paths share. Each path's page says how it applies there.
Covering older people first raises spending because their coverage costs the most per person.
Making care free increases use and spending, as found in the RAND experiment.
Universal provider access removes insurers' ability to steer patients toward cheaper or higher-quality providers.
Full national inclusion raises federal spending substantially relative to current federal Medicaid spending in Puerto Rico.
Authorization exemptions remove an insurer cost-control tool.
Insurers may increase total spending to enlarge their permitted overhead.
Expanded public research and trial funding costs taxpayers.
Premiums for reliable manufacturers and long-term supply contracts raise generic drug prices.
Drug buffer stocks are expensive, and expiring drugs must be rotated.
Cost-covering dispensing fees and additional underserved-area payments raise dispensing costs.
Paying labor units for readiness rather than per birth is expensive per birth.
Free training tied to service is costly per clinician placed.
Covering rides and ambulances for everyone adds costs.
Budget funding for ambulances shifts costs to local budgets.
Funding additional residency positions is costly per slot.
Public funding of medical tuition is costly.
Physician-supervised team roles involve supervision fees that add costs.
Raising payment rates for therapists and psychiatrists is costly.
Smaller care homes cost more per resident.
Including dental care in the standard benefit is expensive.
Removing charges for preventive services raises costs as use increases.
Running redundant public claims infrastructure with an offline fallback is costly.
Paying extra for procedures beyond baseline volume can increase spending.
Automatic budget growth with costs, population, and age mix weakens spending control.
Supplemental coverage for extras can drive up use of care.
Eliminating charges for covered services increases use of care.
Covering effective treatments without cost-per-QALY thresholds raises spending and weakens negotiating leverage.
Increasing budgets in response to demand weakens cost control.
Paying per case above a baseline can lead to growing procedure volume.
Minimum prices or longer-term supply contracts require paying more.
Immediate coverage for all residents adds cost.