| Title |
The Case for a Private Healthcare Insurance Monopoly
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40258-018-0381-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paul E. Orzechowski |
| Abstract |
This article advocates for a regulated private monopoly as an audacious solution to replace Obamacare, help manage Medicare and Medicaid and reform the US healthcare insurance industry. Contemporary economics vilifies monopolies and praises the 'magic wand' of perfect competition without much debate on the merits of these assumptions. The problems with the perfect competition model as applied to healthcare insurance are well established, but exploration of other possible economic models (i.e. monopoly and oligopoly) as a replacement for Obamacare is non-existent. New thinking about the role of monopolies may help achieve public policy goals and make health insurance available to the largest number of people at a reasonable premium while containing medical costs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| New Zealand | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 14 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 3 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 21% |
| Researcher | 2 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 3 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 29% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 April 2018.
All research outputs
#15,504,780
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#555
of 785 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,164
of 329,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#19
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 785 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,530 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.