As a political science major pursuing a correlate in economics, I am deeply interested in the interplay between economic systems and other areas of society. ECON 220: “Health Economics,” taught by health economist Alicia Atwood, has provided me with ample opportunity to explore the influence of economic forces on the American health care system.
The course has changed the way I think about health care in an economic context, unveiling the reality that human health is a valuable stock like any other into which investments can be made. We have looked closely at key pieces of U.S. health care reform over the last century, such as the introduction of Medicare and Medicaid in the ’60s or the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010. All of these laws are central to present-day debates about the future of health care reform in this country. As a policy wonk with aspirations of one day working on some of these issues, I could not get enough.
The course readings focus heavily on academic papers which analyze the effects of various health care policies, both on public health itself and on economic considerations, such as the per capita cost of care. In comparison to other wealthy nations, the United States has exorbitant health care costs, yet subpar health outcomes with markedly worse metrics of life expectancy and maternal mortality. The course allows for both quantitative and qualitative examination of some of the reasons behind this, including the for-profit nature of our health care system and the many race and class disparities that constantly plague it.
We have studied phenomena such as adverse selection and moral hazard, which insurance companies and health care providers account for in the coverage and provision of care, and which policymakers must contend with in their efforts to improve the current system. One of my favorite readings was an essay in The Atlantic titled “The Moral-Hazard Myth” by Malcolm Gladwell, which explained how moral hazard—the idea that insuring people will lead them to be riskier with their health—is overemphasized in political discourse around health care reform, preventing vulnerable populations from getting covered. This was a major factor in the debate over the ACA, which aimed to cover as many uninsured individuals as would prove possible under the day’s political constraints.
Aside from the intrigue of the course material, “Health Economics” has been a pleasant class for its relatively low-stress workload, especially in comparison to other economics courses I have taken. Problem sets are graded on a completion basis, which de-centers the number grade and instead emphasizes the meat of the problems themselves. Lecture slides are always available online, which makes studying for exams much easier. The exams themselves are fairly graded, and they are easy to study for knowing they will closely mirror what we discuss in class. There is also plenty of in-class group work, which I appreciate since it fosters a collaborative atmosphere and good discussion of the topics at hand. I would say all these measures make for an excellent in-class experience that draws focus away from grades or busywork and instead toward the material itself.
I would highly recommend “Health Economics” to anyone interested in the policy behind the U.S. health care system, whether you approach it from a humanities background like myself or a STEM background like many of my classmates. The course is extremely accessible, and Professor Atwood makes the material easy to grasp for all majors, provided you have at least a little introductory economics under your belt. I would choose to take this course again in a heartbeat.