Health Affairs, 28, no. 1 (2009): 295-296
doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.28.1.295-a
© 2009 by Project HOPE
 
New Online
 * Getting Health Reform Done
 * After the State of the Union
 * Incremental Reform
 * E-Health in Developing World
 * Most-Read Articles in 2009
This Article
* Full Text (HTML)
* Reprint (PDF)
* Submit a response to this article
* Alert me when this article is cited
* Alert me when Comments are posted
* Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
* E-mail this article to a friend
* Similar articles in this journal
* Similar articles in PubMed
* Alert me to new issues of the journal
* Add to My Personal Archive
* Download to Citation Manager
*Reprints & Permissions
Citing Articles
* Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
* Articles by Cannon, M. F.
* Search for Related Content
PubMed
* PubMed Citation
* Articles by Cannon, M. F.

Letters

Regulation In China, India, And The United States


The first 100 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Recent articles on China and India (Jul/Aug 08) share the assumptions that markets for medical care and health insurance require extensive government regulation and that each nation should focus on universal coverage.

I am unfamiliar with the history of regulation in those nations. But the track record of clinician and insurance regulation in the United States is not encouraging. Both have been used by incumbents to block competition, leading to higher costs and lower quality. Gerald Bloom and colleagues worry that unless India imposes clinician licensing, "the natural process of competition is expected to force each insurer to come up . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Michael F. Cannon
Cato Institute, Washington, D.C.


Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati    What's this?