← ireadpaper · 顶刊中的公共政策研究

为何美国没有国家健康保险? 美国医学会的政治角色

Why Doesn’t the United States Have National Health Insurance? The Political Role of the American Medical Association
Quarterly Journal of Economics · 2026 · [{"name": "Marcella Alsan", "affiliation": ["National Bureau of Economic Research", "Stanford University"]}, {"name": "Yousra Neberai", "affiliation": ["Harvard University Press"]}]

中文摘要

摘要 本文考察美国医学会(AMA)如何在二战后这一关键时期帮助塑造美国健康保险体系的发展。AMA 与政治公关公司 Campaigns, Inc. 合作, 发起了一场全国性运动, 通过将国民健康保险定性为"社会化医疗"来削弱公众对其的支持, 同时将民众吸纳进私人健康保险计划, 以使需求从公共替代方案转移开。基于新整理的档案数据, 我们发现, 对该运动更高的接触程度可以解释私人健康保险参保增长的约 20%, 以及公众对全国性方案支持度的相近幅度下降。该运动似乎还通过协调一致的信息传播、公民组织通过的决议、国会言论和政治捐款影响了政策制定。这些发现表明, 美国私人健康保险的兴起并非仅由宏观经济力量或集体谈判所致; 相反, 它也得益于一项由利益集团出资、旨在塑造公民观念并影响政策的战略性努力。

Abstract

Abstract This article examines how the American Medical Association (AMA) helped shape the development of the U.S. health insurance system in the critical period after World War II. Working with the political public relations firm Campaigns, Inc., the AMA launched a nationwide campaign to weaken support for national health insurance by framing it as “socialized medicine,” while simultaneously enrolling people in private health insurance plans to shift demand away from a public alternative. Drawing on newly assembled archival data, we find that greater exposure to the campaign explains about 20% of the rise in private health insurance enrollment and a comparable decline in public support for a national program. The campaign also appears to have influenced policy making through coordinated messaging, resolutions passed by civic organizations, congressional rhetoric, and political donations. These findings suggest that the rise of private health insurance in the United States was not solely due to macroeconomic forces or collective bargaining; rather, it was also enabled by a strategic, interest group–financed effort to shape citizen views and influence policy.
在 ireadpaper 查看全部 →