Building blocks for U.S. health insurance policy
本文以辩论形式呈现了Einav和Finkelstein主张的免费全民基本保险加可选补充方案，与Furman强调成本分摊重要性的回应，为美国健康保险改革提供了专家评估。
What does the evidence—from the U.S. and elsewhere—tell us about how to improve the current patchwork U.S. health insurance system? What are the key building blocks and the ultimate goals? This issue of Point/Counterpoint features an exchange between Liran Einav and Amy Finkelstein, who lay out the central arguments of their recent book, We've Got You Covered: Rebooting American Health Care, and Jason Furman, who responds with reflections grounded in both the literature and lessons drawn from recent policy experience. Einav and Finkelstein argue for free universal basic coverage—with an optional supplement. While theory suggests that co-pays make sense, they argue that they are neither sustainable nor cost effective—and are at odds with universal coverage. Furman challenges their proposal on multiple fronts, arguing for the importance of some form of cost sharing (to avoid unacceptable limitations on coverage), and that a feasible proposal must address implementation and two key barriers: vested interests, and the “attraction of the status quo.” This exchange is striking for the points of consensus as well as disagreement, and for the discussion of the interplay between policy proposals and politics. It provides expert assessment of some of the building blocks for U.S. health insurance reform, and makes it clear why this is destined to be an ongoing focus for policy analysis and reform.