This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Medical Practice  • Health Policy  • Quality of Care  • Quality of Care, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: The Physicians' Working Group¹ pointed out many potential medical, economic, and societal benefits of NHI. For the estimated 45% of the US population with chronic conditions (21% with multiple chronic illnesses),² those who provide their care, and those who pay for it, there is one more: the administrative data on prevalence and incidence of chronic medical conditions that would result from an NHI system.

It is currently impossible to accurately quantify the burden of chronic illness affecting future Medicare enrollees. Those who receive care do so from a large number of sources, and some do not receive care at all. One by-product of a single-payer system would be more accurate information with which to allocate medical resources for this rapidly growing segment of the population, which will require large amounts of medical services. This type of registry information is already available in many European countries and facilitates . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Elizabeth A. Bayliss, MD, MSPH
Clinical Research Unit
Kaiser Permanente
Denver, Colo

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?