HMO is the most cost-effective health care in the U.S. There are many health care providers, but and HMO provides access to many doctors in different fields that would otherwise be more difficult for individual health care systems. An HMO is a bit more pricier, but it has many more benefits that people could benefit from.
Yes it is more cost-effective and efficient for the U.S. to use HMO. The employers premium costs are lower. HMO requires doctor visits and does not promote going to the emergency room. This is better health wise as a person will go to a doctor before things get worse and more costly.
With ObamaCare slowly creeping into all facets of the healthcare industry, it is hard to define what is the most cost-effective and efficient system anymore. HMO's used to be the best way for medium to high levels of health care. Low level HMO's became restrictive and complicated. Treatment was only allowed at certain hospitals and sometimes only certain doctors within the hospital. These are complications a family could do without when considering health options.
HMO style health care is not the answer. Americans are seeking an answer to how to be able to afford their health care costs currently. With the roll out of Obama care this has been more scrutinized as of late. The answer that we are all seeking is health care savings accounts that we start up when our children our young. Possibly just with catastrophic coverage as well. We need to stop paying these robbers and pay ourselves first!
I don't think the HMO is the most cost-effective and efficient health care coverage in the U.S. If anything, HMOs are much more restrictive and cost more in the end because patients often find their care compromised when they can't access insurance-covered physicians they would like to be treated by. Lawsuits often ensue, and this costs the system an overwhelming amount of money.