The first part is how the homework should be presented, then the other part after the teacher's feedback is my previous work that needed to be revised and improve by adding the requirements listed below.

Description: First present your conclusion; then, you will present your abstract. The following components are requirements of the assignment:

Conclusion:

• Revisit the controversy.
• Emphasize the seriousness of the controversy.
• Answer the "So what?" question.
• Suggest a general solution (optional).
• Call for awareness/action.
• Leave the reader with a final thought.
• Abstract
  • Restatement of the controversy
  • Your thesis
  • Reasons
  • Conclusion sentence
• Present the conclusion and abstract to the rest of your paper so that you are turning in a complete research paper. The paper should include all of the following components (in order):
  • Page title
  • Abstract
  • Introduction
  • Literature review
  • Body paragraphs
  • Conclusion
  • References page.

This last section is my teacher's feedback {You changed your topic again? Each week in this course, we are building on the information we collected the week before. For example, the sources you found in Unit II should be the primary sources you use in your Unit III proposal and Unit IV Literature Review.

In Unit VI, we are building on the Literature Review that we wrote and revised by adding body paragraphs to support the side of the argument we agree with.

The Collaborate Session recordings, posted on our course announcements page, walk through this process. You will also find information in the study guides and in my unit announcement for each course.}

"This work below is my previous annotated bibliography that needs to be improve"

A increasing body of research in the fields of health economics and comparative political economy has pointed to a number of ways in which a single-payer healthcare system could reduce overall healthcare spending. In spite of the rising body of evidence, there has not been a comprehensive empirical investigation into whether or not such an effect exists across different countries over the course of time. The purpose of this study is to serve as the first attempt at determining and calculating the extent to which the implementation of a single-payer system influences the expenditure of money on medical care. I begin by presenting an original dataset for the nations that make up the OECD, one that assesses when and where systems that are eligible to be called single-payer exist, and then I use this dataset to investigate whether or not there are major disparities in the costs of medical care. The findings indicate that there is a considerable gap between the costs incurred by single-payer and multi-payer systems. According to my estimations, the implementation of a single-payer system is linked to a reduction in expenditures that is equivalent to a savings of 0.75 percentage points of a nation's GDP. In a period of ten years, this would result in cost savings for the United States of America of well over $1.5 trillion. Because it would result in higher quality medical care for American individuals, the United States need to switch to a system that is based on a single payer. With a single payer system, the government would have the ability to negotiate cheaper pricing with pharmaceutical firms and hospitals, which would ultimately result in lower costs for individual customers. For instance, because Canada's healthcare system is based on a single-payer model, the federal government has the ability to negotiate prescription prices with private pharmaceutical companies, which ultimately results in reduced costs for individual consumers. This is essential because a decrease in the cost of pharmaceuticals would allow for a greater number of individuals to be in a financial position to purchase the prescriptions they require. One such argument in favor of a single-payer healthcare system is that it would lead to an improvement in the general health of the population as a whole.

Literature Review

Because it would result in higher quality medical care for American individuals, the United States need to switch to a system that is based on a single payer. With a single payer system, the government would have the ability to negotiate cheaper pricing with pharmaceutical firms and hospitals, which would ultimately result in lower costs for individual customers. For instance, because Canada's healthcare system is based on a single-payer model, the federal government has the ability to negotiate prescription prices with private pharmaceutical companies, which ultimately results in reduced costs for individual consumers. This is essential because a decrease in the cost of pharmaceuticals would allow for a greater number of individuals to be in a financial position to purchase the prescriptions they require. One more argument in favor of a single-payer healthcare system is that it would lead to an improvement in the general health of the population as a whole. According to the findings of a research conducted by the Commonwealth Fund, the United States ranks dead last among developed nations in terms of the quality of its healthcare system. According to the findings of the survey, the United States also rated dead last in terms of access to healthcare, with nearly one-third of respondents reporting that they had trouble getting medical treatment. According to the findings of the study, these issues can be traced back to the fact that a greater percentage of people in the United States are either uninsured or underinsured. A single-payer healthcare system would assist to tackle these challenges by providing universal coverage and improving access to care.

Governance and financing-related healthcare admin costs

We have found that the administrative costs associated with governance and financing-related spending at the macrolevel have remained relatively unchanged over the past decade, accounting for slightly more than three percent of overall health spending. The percentage of GDP allocated to health care in Iceland is 1.3%, while the percentage allocated to health care in the United States is 8.3%. In every country, the administrative costs associated with voluntary private health insurance are significantly higher than those associated with mandatory health insurance plans. Multiple payers have much higher administrative spending than single payers do when it comes to compulsory schemes. In the realm of single-payer systems, the ones in which entitlements are determined by domicile have noticeably lower administrative spending than those with single social health insurance, despite the fact that this difference is quite insignificant. These disparities can be explained in part by the fact that multi-payer and voluntary private health insurance schemes require additional administrative duties and enjoy less economies of scale than public health insurance programs do. Studies conducted in hospitals and primary care indicate similar differences in administrative costs across health system typologies at the mesolevel and microlevel of health care delivery. As a result, there should be more research conducted on the total administrative costs incurred by all levels of health systems.

The benefits

There is also support for a single-payer healthcare system due to the economic benefits it offers. According to the findings of a study conducted by the Urban Institute, switching to a healthcare system with a single payer would save the United States $592 billion over the course of ten years. According to the findings of the study, switching to a system with a single payer will cut administrative costs as well as the prices of prescription drugs. According to the findings of the study, a single-payer healthcare system would both boost efficiency and decrease waste. There are several compelling arguments in favor of a healthcare system that is run by a single payer. It would be more cost-effective for the government to implement a system with a single payer, which would also result in better health care for the population as a whole. The U.S. should adopt a single-payer healthcare system in order to improve the quality of life for its citizens. In the political economy and health economics literatures, the argument for cost savings in the single-payer system has been around for some time. However, until now, there has been no large-N empirical evidence on the issue. This was in no small part due to the fact that a comprehensive, longitudinal dataset of health systems' financing schemes did not exist. I propose a new classification system for the OECD countries that will be used to determine when and where healthcare systems that are eligible to be called single-payer exist. (This is my previous work that needed to be improve and follow the criteria for this assignment The topic is Single payer healthcare system)