Story by Matthew Kim, photograph by Daan Stevens

Inequality has been in the shadows of American domestic policy for decades since the Civil Rights movement and before (Chokski, 2018). From the divide between the prince and the pauper to imposing racial barriers on the patients whom healthcare is intended to serve, inequality has been and will likely continue to be at the root of the growing healthcare disparity in America. One of the fields most heavily affected by this is cancer treatment (Chokski, 2018). Data from Brigham Young University Hospital, for example, has found that “Black patients were associated with significantly decreased odds of receipt of standard recommended treatment for rectal cancer.” As a result, “Black patients suffer from high rates of mortality.” However, even while excluding this, the same report concludes “survival was worse for Black patients than White patients despite adjustment for receipt of standard care,” meaning that this lack of access to life-saving care is costing families far more than money (Brigham Young University, 2020). It can be argued that Economic inequality in the American healthcare system should be lessened through Senator Sanders’ Medicare for All plan or a similar single-payer healthcare system because it expands free access to healthcare to millions and lowers cancer treatment drug prices by instituting value-based pricing.

Firstly, a single-payer healthcare system expands coverage to every American citizen, enabling the marginalized to access the same resources as their financially more-able counterparts. The Kaiser Family Foundation found that, in 2018, 27.9 million Americans were uninsured with a significant portion identifying as part of a minority ethnic group (KFF, 2020). Thankfully, with the adoption of Medicare for All, these individuals would definitionally gain access to free healthcare. Senator Sanders’ proposed bill also includes coverage for services that are usually omitted in many private insurance plans, incentivizing the switch for prospective patients that are on the fence about a single-payer healthcare system. Acting now is crucial. The same study further mentions that, despite numerous attempts to alleviate the issue, many have made little progress. “Since 2016, the number of people who lack health insurance coverage has grown by 1.2 million.” As Medicare for All is enacted, millions of individuals would gain access to high quality treatment, blooming positive cancer outcomes and saving countless lives.

More importantly, advocating for Medicare for All or a similar single-payer healthcare plan will enable companies to develop drugs at a reduced price through value-based pricing, as is the case with Medicare for All. Cost analysis from Mckinsey & Company found that such systems can save Americans up to $532 billion annually (Shubham, 2016). This is a benefit unique to American markets, as an ever-evolving biomedical sector, safe markets, and increasing innovation develop the perfect breeding ground for influxes of competition. This evidence is crucial as fewer expenditures means more money is kept in Americans’ pockets, which can be used to help pay for life-saving but continuously costly cancer treatment.

Even with such value-based pricing models and increased accessibility to patients, adopting Medicare for All or a similar single-payer healthcare system is vital to reducing unequal access to cancer treatment; it expands access to various complex treatments to every citizen in the United States and implements value-based pricing, which keeps more money in patients’ pockets by reducing the cost of medication. And although the road to a single-payer healthcare system is a rocky one riddled with false U-turns and constant traffic, it’s arguable that the long-term benefits of implementing such a program far exceed any short-term economic downturn or job loss. Particularly in light of a pandemic that has brought far too much death and devastation on local communities, the reformation of a stressed healthcare system is imperative. By no means is Medicare for All a one-stop solution, but these gradual, seemingly minuscule alterations have the unique power to evoke strong, lasting change in our nation.

Works Cited

"Findings from University College Provides New Data about Colon Cancer (Decomposing socio-economic inequality in colorectal cancer screening uptake in England)." Obesity, Fitness & Wellness Week, 2015, p. 465. Gale Health and Wellness, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A419684986/HWRC?u=oakton_e&sid=HWRC&xid=535775e8. Accessed 15 Jan. 2021.

"Medicare for All vs. public option." Modern Healthcare, vol. 50, no. 10, 9 Mar. 2020, p. 0012. Gale Health and Wellness, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A617188857/HWRC?u=oakton_e&sid=HWRC&xid=857e6307. Accessed 5 Mar. 2021.

"National Cancer Institute." National Cancer Institute, 17 Nov. 2020, www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/disparities. Accessed 19 Feb. 2021

Shubham Singhal and Erica Coe. “The next Imperatives for US Healthcare.” Healthcare Systems and Services, Mckinsey & Company, 5 Dec. 2016, https://healthcare.mckinsey.com/sites/default/files/MCK_NextImperatives.pdf. Accessed 5 Mar. 2021.

"Studies from Brigham and Women's Hospital Provide New Data on Rectal Cancer (Racial Disparities In Treatment for Rectal Cancer At Minority-serving Hospitals)." Obesity, Fitness & Wellness Week, 2020, p. 6106. Gale Health and Wellness, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A633341058/HWRC?u=oakton_e&sid=HWRC&xid=1f89d366. Accessed 5 Mar. 2021.

Tolbert, Jennifer. “Key Facts About The Uninsured Population.” KFF, Kaiser Family Foundation, 6 Nov. 2020, https://www.kff.org/uninsured/issue-brief/key-facts-about-the-uninsured-population/. Accessed 5 Mar. 2021.