American health policy today faces dual problems of too little health coverage at too high a cost. The mix of public and private financing leaves about one seventh of the population without any insurance coverage. At the same time, the coverage Americans do have costs an ever-larger share of our country's productive capacity. This "paradox of excess and deprivation" results from the incremental approach the U.S. has taken to promoting incompatible policy goals of increasing health insurance coverage (...) and medical quality while trying to control costs, without squarely confronting tradeoffs. This essay examines the record of incremental developments and draws lessons for current efforts at reform. (shrink)

American health policy today faces dual problems of too little coverage at too high a cost. The mix of private and public financing leaves about one seventh of the population without any insurance coverage. At the same time, the coverage Americans do have costs an ever-larger share of our country’s productive capacity. The U.S. pays well above what other countries pay and what many people, health plans, businesses, and governments want to pay. This “paradox of excess and deprivation” (...) results from the incremental approach the U.S. has taken to promoting incompatible policy goals of increasing health insurance coverage and medical quality while trying to control costs, without squarely confronting tradeoffs. This essay examines the record of incremental developments and draws lessons for current efforts at reform. (shrink)

Various kinds of consumer-driven reforms have been attempted over the last 20 years in an effort to rein in soaring costs of health care in the United States. Most are based on a theory of moral hazard, which holds that patients will over-utilize health care services unless they pay enough for them. Although this theory is a basic premise of conventional health insurance, it has been discredited by actual experience over the years. While ineffective in (...) containing costs, increased cost-sharing as a key element of consumer-driven health care leads to restricted access to care, underuse of necessary care, lower quality and worse outcomes of care. This paper summarizes the three major problems of U.S. health care urgently requiring reform and shows how cost-sharing fails to meet that goal. (shrink)

The case for U.S. health system reform aimed at achieving wider insurance coverage in the population and disciplining the growth of costs is fundamentally a moral case, grounded in two principles: (1) a principle of social justice, the Just Sharing of the costs of illness, and (2) a related principle of fairness, the Prevention of Free‐Riding. These principles generate an argument for universal access to basic care when applied to two existing facts: the phenomenon of “market failure” (...) in health insurance and, in the U.S., the existing legal guarantee of access to emergency care. The principles are widely shared in U.S. moral culture by conservatives and liberals alike. Similarly, across the political spectrum, the fact of market failure is not contested (though it is sometimes ignored), and the guarantee of access to emergency care is rarely challenged. The conclusion generated by the principles is not only that insurance for a basic minimum of care should be mandatory but that the scope of that care should be lean, efficient, and constrained in its cost. -/- . (shrink)

There are many reasons for dissatisfaction with current U.S. health care. One-sixth of the population is uninsured, costs are 150-200% of those in other economically advanced nations, and the quality of care, as measured by disease specific mortality and morbidity data, is rarely better and often worse than in others nations’ less costly systems. A case for reform can mirror any or all of these concerns: cover more of the population with insurance, control costs, improve the (...) effectiveness of prevention and treatment. I argue that two of these goals — greater population coverage and more disciplined costs — gain a significant part of their justification from moral beliefs about justice and fairness. (shrink)

This article is guided by principles and practices of bioethics and public health ethics focused on health care reform within the context of promoting Optimal Health. The Tuskegee University National Center for Bioethics in Research and Health Care is moving beyond the traditions of bioethics to incorporate public health ethics and Optimal Health. It is imperative to remember the legacy of the ill-fated research entitled Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the (...) Negro Male. Human participant research and health care must be connected to principles of bioethics and public health ethics if the Affordable Care Act is expected to positively impact on the health of people living in the United States. Optimal Health describes a strategy to achieve individual and population health. Health care reform offers an opportunity to shift from the traditional pathology focus of managing diseases to target disease prevention and health promotion with a new set of tools. Transformational change is possible if the lessons learned from the U.S. Public Health Service Syphilis Study at Tuskegee are considered and strategies in bioethics and public heath ethics are employed. (shrink)

This special issue addresses the legacy of the U.S. Public Health Service Syphilis Study on health reform, particularly the Affordable Care Act. This article offers readers a guide to the themes that emerge in this issue. These themes include individual consent interrelated to consequences in populations issues, need for better government oversight in research and health care, and the need for overhauling our bioethics training to develop a population-level, culturally driven approach to research bioethics. (...) We hope the guidance offered in this issue will help shape a new framework to bioethics that can be integrated into the foundation of health care reform. (shrink)

Policy officials often assert that the U.S. has the best health care system in the world, but a recent scorecard on U.S. health system performance finds that the U.S. achieves a score of only 65 out of a possible 100 points on key indicators of performance in five key domains: healthy lives, access, quality, equity, and efficiency, where 100 represents the best achieved performance in other countries or within the U.S. The U.S. should aim higher by adopting (...) a set of policies that will extend affordable health insurance to all; align financial incentives for health care providers to enhance value and achieve savings; organize the health care system around the patient to ensure that care is accessible and coordinated; meet and raise benchmarks for high-quality, efficient care; and ensure accountable national leadership and public-private collaboration. The incoming president and Congress should aspire to have the best health system in the world — not just assert it — and can do so by learning from examples of excellence within the U.S. and abroad. (shrink)

On the eve of the presidential inauguration, the U.S. health system faces rising costs of care, growing numbers of uninsured, wide variations in quality of care, and mounting public dissatisfaction. Despite spending more on health care than any other country, a recent Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance Health Care System National Scorecard reports that the United States is lagging far behind other major industrialized countries — all of which provide universal (...) class='Hi'>health insurance — in five key domains: healthy lives, access, quality, equity, and efficiency. U.S. national performance is well below benchmarks of top performance set by other countries or high performing states, hospitals, or health plans within the United States, with broad disparities in experience depending on geographic location, income, race/ethnicity, and insurance coverage. National leadership is required to manage the growing health care crisis in the United States and improve care for all Americans. (shrink)

Using interviews with activists and Lisa Sowle Cahill's concept of participatory discourse, this article examines how the Greater Boston Interfaith Organization (GBIO) built solidarity for the 2006 Massachusetts health care reform law. The analysis explores the morally formative connections between GBIO's activist strategies and its public liturgy for reform. The solidarity generated through this interfaith coalition's activities and religious arguments contrasts with two standard types of policy discourse, economics and liberalism. Arguments for health care (...) reform based on economic efficiency or positive rights are hampered by the lack of solidarity in U.S. political culture. GBIO's congregation-based organizing offers a performative model of public argumentation for religious groups committed to achieving affordable, quality health care for all Americans. (shrink)

The U.S. 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act exempts members of health care sharing ministries from the individual mandate to have minimum essential insurance coverage. Little is generally known about these religious organizations and even less critical attention has been brought to bear on them and their ACA exemption. Both deserve close scrutiny due to the exemption’s less than clear legislative justification, their potential influence on the ACA’s policy and ethical success, and their salience to current (...) religious liberty debates surrounding the expansion of religious exemptions from ACA responsibilities for both individuals and corporations. Analyzing documents of the United States’ three largest health care sharing ministries and related material, I examine these organizations and their ACA exemption with particular consideration of their ethical dimensions. Here a thick description of the nature and workings of health care sharing ministries precedes a similar account of the ACA exemption. From these empirical analyses, five ethical and policy concerns emerge: the charity versus insurance status of these ministries; the conflation of two ACA religious exemptions; the tension between the values of religious liberty and of justice; the potential undermining of ACA policy goals; and the questionable compliance of health care sharing ministries with ACA exemption requirements. An accurate and informed understanding of HCSMs is required for policymakers and others to justify the ACA exemption of health care sharing ministry members. A sufficient justification would address at least the five ethical and policy concerns raised here. (shrink)

In considering the challenges medical educators face in addressing the needs of today's health-care system, it is instructive to review the challenges Abraham Flexner (1910) was called upon to address at the turn of the last century. As Flexner surveyed the state of U.S. medical schools 100 years ago, he found a legacy system of medical education that was failing to prepare 20th-century physicians to meet the evolving needs and expectations of patients. That legacy system was based largely (...) on an outmoded apprenticeship model of education, was failing to incorporate the rapidly developing natural sciences, and to make matters worse, was devoid of external scrutiny and uniform standards by which medical schools .. (shrink)

The unsustainable growth in U.S. health care costs is in large part attributable to the rising costs of pharmaceuticals and medical devices and to unnecessary medical procedures. This fact has led health reform advocates and policymakers to place considerable hope in the idea that increased government support for research on the comparative effectiveness of medical treatments will eventually help to reduce health care expenses by informing patients, health care providers, and payers about (...) which treatments for common conditions are effective and which are not. Comparative effectiveness research has shown in some cases that expensive but commonly used treatments are significantly less effective than relatively inexpensive alternatives. Critics warn, however, that CER will homogenize patient care, limit patient choices, and lead to improper health care rationing and even to the denial of lifesaving treatments. (shrink)

Nonprofits are a major part of the U.S. economy and they are not immune from corporate malfeasance controversies. Even Congress has expressed concern about the crisis in nonprofit governance. The nonprofit response to Congress has been a historic initiative recognizing critical challenges to nonprofit governance. In contrast to their for‐profit counterparts, nonprofits are committed to missions serving the public benefit and not to shareholder profits. Accordingly, their missions and financial resources are intrinsic to their very existence, which is built upon (...) the public trust. That trust is rooted in fiduciary responsibility and reflected in best practices. This article traces the history of the nonprofit public trust and fiduciary standards and examines principles of Sarbanes–Oxley and other best practices as they apply to nonprofits. The authors sampled 80 health‐care nonprofit corporation web sites from eight asset classes to determine compliance with Sarbanes–Oxley and identification of fiduciary duty, ethical values, and other best practices. Among the very largest health‐care nonprofits, many comply with Sarbanes–Oxley and identify fiduciary duty, ethical values, and other best practices. However, there are substantial deficiencies in such compliance and identification among all remaining seven asset classes ranging from 99.9 million to less than 100,000. The results appear to corroborate the urgent necessity for reform articulated by the Congress and the nonprofit sector. Nonprofit governance has entered a new era where best practices must be implemented to sustain the public trust. (shrink)

The complex regulatory framework governing the U.S. health care system can be an obstacle to programming that address health-related social needs. In particular, health care fraud and abuse law is a pernicious barrier as health care organizations may minimize or forego programming altogether out of real and perceived concern for compliance. And because health care organizations have varying resources to navigate and resolve compliance concerns, as well as different levels of risk (...) tolerance, fears related to the legal landscape may further entrench inequities in access to meaningful programs that improve health outcomes. This article uses food and nutrition programming as a case study to explore the complexities presented by this area of law and to highlight pathways forward. (shrink)

As this nation embarks on new efforts to reform the U.S. health system, we face a critical unfinished agenda from the mid- 1960s: persistent racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in health and health care. Medicaid, Medicare, and Community Health Centers — public programs with very different legislative histories and financing mechanisms — were the first federally funded, nationwide efforts to improve health care access for low-income and elderly Americans. Members of racial and (...) ethnic minority groups also greatly benefited from these efforts because recipients of federal funds, such as Medicare, were required to comply with the newly passed Civil Rights Act of 1964, which barred racial discrimination. Unquestionably, government played a major role in the gains in health care access that have occurred in the last half century. Yet today all Americans do not have the same opportunities for health, access to care, or quality of care when they receive it. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Managed Health Care: New Ethical Issues for All*Martina Darragh (bio) and Pat Milmoe McCarrick (bio)Changes in the way that health care is perceived, delivered, and financed have occurred rapidly in a relatively short time span. The 50-year period since World War II encompasses enormous growth in medical technology, soaring health care costs, and significant fragmentation of the two-party patient- physician relationship. This relationship (...) first grew to include the third-party payer, the health insurance industry, and now “with great speed and relatively little public awareness, a significant change has occurred in the way some decisions are made about a patient’s medical care” (III, Institute of Medicine 1989).The new means of providing health care bring an increasing number of parties into clinical decision-making processes. With this change, ethical issues that once concerned only health care professionals, the physician or the nurse, have expanded to include the patient and the groups who “manage” care—e.g., health maintenance organizations (HMOs), preferred provider organizations (PPOs), point of service groups (POSs), independent practice associations (IPAs), insurance reviewers, hospital administrators, institutional managers, and, the most recent players, purchasers of group health care who base their decisions on competitive pricing.The term “managed care” refers to a variety of continually adapting and developing arrangements that involve four groups. These groups, which have been labeled by the world of business, not health, are the “consumer” (once the patient), the “provider” (the physician and other health care professionals), the “insurer” (the reimburser for any care), and the “purchaser of care” or the primary buyer of health services (the large employer organization). Capitation is a common way to pay for health services in managed care systems. A certain dollar amount is negotiated for health services for a specified number of patients whether the care is delivered or not; the provider shares with the [End Page 189] insurer any financial risk for the actual cost of care (III, Centers for Disease Control 1995).When the Clinton administration’s health care reform movement failed to gain support in the U.S. Congress, the use of managed care to control rising health care costs accelerated. The literature on managed care and its effect on the patient-physician relationship reflects this shift. During the era of health care reform, “debate centered on how managed care could control costs, on the use of technology and patient satisfaction, [and] on access and barriers to care” (IV, Emanuel and Dubler 1995). When managed care organizations began contracting with physicians to provide health care services subject to the plans’ provisions, these plans became agents in clinical decision making on a wide-spread basis. HMO enrollment grew to 51 million persons by 1994 (III, Centers for Disease Control 1995). This “corporatization” of health care has sparked a plethora of articles about the effects of the marketplace on the physician’s ability to do what is best for the patient, and on the patient’s ability to trust the physician to do so.Many authors make it clear that managed care itself is not the problem, but rather the development of for-profit managed care plans by “corporate conglomerates with billions of dollars in assets that compensate their executives as grandly as basketball players” (V, Kassirer 1995) “in a marketplace that is largely unregulated” (I, Zoloth-Dorfman and Rubin 1995). “Some, mostly older plans that were created when cost containment was an unexpected benefit rather than their central purpose, deliver high-quality care economically. Unfortunately, others cut costs by recruiting the healthiest patients, excluding the sickest, rationing care by making it inconvenient to obtain, and denying care by a variety of mechanisms” (V, Kassirer 1995).These cost-containment features now play an intimate role in clinical practice. When a managed care plan contracts with a physician, the doctor becomes a “double agent” with contractual obligations to the plan to provide a preset amount of services and professional responsibilities to each patient to authorize necessary treatment (V, Angell 1993). This duality can undermine the physician’s fiduciary responsibility to the patient wherein the physician “has power over the affairs of [the patient]...and is required by law to act on that person’s... (shrink)

The ACA shifted U.S. health policy from centering on principles of actuarial fairness toward social solidarity. Yet four legal fixtures of the health care system have prevented the achievement of social solidarity: federalism, fiscal pluralism, privatization, and individualism. Future reforms must confront these fixtures to realize social solidarity in health care, American-style.

The purpose of this study is to compare and contrast the basic ethical values underpinning national health care policies in the United States and Canada. We use the framework of ethical theory to name and elaborate ethical values and to facilitate moral reflection about health care reform. Section one describes historical and contemporary social contract theories and clarifies the ethical values associated with them. Sections two and three show that health care debates and (...) health care systems in both countries reflect the values of this tradition; however, each nation interprets the tradition differently. In the U.S., standards of justice for health care are conceived as a voluntary agreement reached by self-interested parties. Canadians, by contrast, interpret the same justice tradition as placing greater emphasis on concern for others and for the community. The final section draws out the implications of these differences for future U.S. and Canadian health care reforms. (shrink)

From a giant of health care policy, an engaging and enlightening account of why American health care is so expensive -- and why it doesn't have to be. Uwe Reinhardt was a towering figure and moral conscience of health care policy in the United States and beyond. Famously bipartisan, he advised presidents and Congress on health reform and originated central features of the Affordable Care Act. In Priced Out, Reinhardt offers an (...) engaging and enlightening account of today's U.S. health care system, explaining why it costs so much more and delivers so much less than the systems of every other advanced country, why this situation is morally indefensible, and how we might improve it. The problem, Reinhardt says, is not one of economics but of social ethics. There is no American political consensus on a fundamental question other countries settled long ago: to what extent should we be our brothers' and sisters' keepers when it comes to health care? Drawing on the best evidence, he guides readers through the chaotic, secretive, and inefficient way America finances health care, and he offers a penetrating ethical analysis of recent reform proposals. At this point, he argues, the United States appears to have three stark choices: the government can make the rich help pay for the health care of the poor, ration care by income, or control costs. Reinhardt proposes an alternative path: that by age 26 all Americans must choose either to join an insurance arrangement with community-rated premiums, or take a chance on being uninsured or relying on a health insurance market that charges premiums based on health status. An incisive look at the American health care system, Priced Out dispels the confusion, ignorance, myths, and misinformation that hinder effective reform. (shrink)

The obesity epidemic is not only impairing the health of millions of Americans but also giving rise to billions of added dollars in health care spending. Climbing rates of obesity over the past decades are one of the predominant determinants behind the surging progression of health care expenses in the United States. Moreover, the less fit and less productive U.S. workforce has gradually eroded the nation’s industrial competitiveness. Since the early 1970s, adult obesity rates have (...) doubled and childhood obesity rates have more than tripled, while health expenditures have risen two percentage points faster than the Gross Domestic Product, burgeoning from 8.8 percent in 1980 to a projected 17.9 percent in 2011. Studies analyze that greater than a quarter of America’s health care expenses are attributed to obesity. The stunning growth in obesity has been imputed for 20 to 30 percent of the increase in health care costs since the late 1970s. If the proportion of obese population had stayed unchanged, then health care expenditures in America would be approximately 10 percent less on a per capita average than they are today. (shrink)

Based on a qualitative study, this paper explores how United States public health professionals view and think about the existing U.S. healthcare system, while also allowing these study participants to imagine new ways of structuring and practicing public health. Using semi-structured qualitative interviews, I show how public health professionals engage with the concept of “the social” and their personal experiences with public health to question the status quo. By giving public health professionals space in which (...) to imagine changes and different ways of practicing public health, I demonstrate the effectiveness of imagination as a capacity that public health professionals possess to take the lead in creating the changes they hope for. (shrink)

Stark disparities exist in the United States' health care system. Thirty-five million Americans are uninsured, severely impeding their access to necessary health care. Concurrently, others receive health care services that are of unproven necessity and benefit. We assert that this situation is unjust and morally indefensible.

Health care depends on people. It is the health workforce — doctors, nurses, pharmacists, lab technicians, and nursing assistants, to mention a few — that, in large measure, determine the quality and effectiveness of any health enterprise. The nature of the health workforce was integral to the health care reform debates of the early 1990s and will surely be central in proposals to improve the quality, accessibility, and cost of U.S. health (...) care in the future. Therefore, as we enter a new period of health reform deliberations and as we face the inevitability of an aging population, it is important to consider the problems and potential remediation necessary for the health workforce of the future. This article focuses particularly on physicians and nurses while recognizing the importance and frequently parallel concerns that arise across all health care disciplines. Understanding how the composition, capacity, and activities of a health care workforce must change as part of health reform requires an understanding of the context in which health professionals practice. What are the factors that govern health care today, and what are their impact on the health workforce? (shrink)

Tracing the evolution of political conversations about health care spending and their relationship to the formation of policy is a valuable exercise. Health care spending is about science and ethics, markets and government, freedom and community. By the late 1980s the unique upward trajectory of post-Medicare U.S. health care spending had been established, recessions and tax cuts were eroding federal and state budgets, and efforts to harness market forces to serve policy goals were accelerating. (...) From the initial writings on “managed competition,” through the failed Clinton health reform effort in the early 1990s, to the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, the policy narrative of health spending acquired a superficial consistency. On closer examination, however, it becomes apparent that the cost problem has been repeatedly reframed in political discourse even during this relatively brief period. The clearest transition has been from a narrative centered on rationing necessary care to one committed to reducing wasteful care – although the role of accumulated law and regulation in perpetuating waste remains largely unrecognized and the recently articulated commitment to population health seems an imperfect proxy for explicitly developing social solidarity with respect to health and health care in the United States. (shrink)

The United States health care industry is the second largest in the world, expending an estimated 479 million metric tons (MMT) of carbon dioxide per year, nearly 8 percent of the country's total emissions. The importance of carbon reduction in health care is slowly being accepted. However, efforts to “green” health care are incomplete since they generally focus on buildings and structures. Yet hospital care and clinical service sectors contribute the most carbon dioxide (...) within the U.S. health care industry, with structures/equipment and pharmaceuticals ranking as the third and fourth highest emitters in the industry. Given the magnitude of health care carbon emissions—and the paucity of attention to the carbon of hospital care and clinical services—this essay identifies overuse of health care as a health threat with serious ethical implications, offers a data‐driven action plan for carbon reduction in health care, and provides practical suggestions for more sustainable health care delivery in the United States. (shrink)

The paper begins by tracing the historical development of American medicine as practice, profession, and industry from the eighteenth century to the present. This historical outline emphasizes shifting conceptions of physicians and physician ethics. It lays the basis for showing, in the second section, how contemporary controversies about the physician’s role in managed care take root in medicine’s past. In the final two sections, I revisit both the historical analysis and its application to contemporary debates. I argue that historical (...) narratives can function as “master narratives” that suppress or leave out historical facts. I bring to the surface what is covered up by the master narrative approach, and show its relevance to contemporary ethical debates. I conclude by proposing that preserving the integrity of medicine will require modifying the master narratives we tell about physicians. The integrity of medicine also offers new perspectives for thinking about managed care and the broader topic of health care reform. (shrink)

On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law. ACA aims to improve access to care and health outcomes through a number of mechanisms, including requiring most individuals to carry health insurance, prohibiting insurers from denying health insurance coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and creating exchanges through which individuals and families not eligible for employer- or government-sponsored health insurance may purchase coverage. While the Act is aimed primarily (...) at improving individual health by increasing access to health insurance, it also contains a number of provisions targeted directly at improving health at the population level. Most of these provisions, which encompass a variety of disease prevention and access-to-care initiatives, are found in ACA Title IV. (shrink)

On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law. ACA aims to improve access to care and health outcomes through a number of mechanisms, including requiring most individuals to carry health insurance, prohibiting insurers from denying health insurance coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and creating exchanges through which individuals and families not eligible for employer- or government-sponsored health insurance may purchase coverage. While the Act is aimed primarily (...) at improving individual health by increasing access to health insurance, it also contains a number of provisions targeted directly at improving health at the population level. Most of these provisions, which encompass a variety of disease prevention and access-to-care initiatives, are found in ACA Title IV. (shrink)

Through the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, the United States expanded its size by over 800,000 square miles. But neither President Thomas Jefferson nor Congress knew exactly what they had bought until 1806, when Meriwether Lewis and William Clark returned from their famous expedition. One of the most significant contributions of the Expedition was a better perception of the geography of the Northwest. Lewis and Clark prepared approximately 140 maps and filled in the main outlines of the previously blank map of (...) the northwestern United States. Robert I. Field has done much the same for the vast territory of U.S. health care regulation.On the front cover of Fields new book, Health Care Regulation in America: Complexity, Confrontation, and Compromise, is a picture of a giant three-dimensional labyrinth. Rarely is cover art so perfectly appropriate. (shrink)

The most ambitious effort in many years to reform the U.S. health insurance system was signed into law earlier this year in Massachusetts. In the essay below, a health economist who advised the state on the reform describes the plan and how it unfolded. Five commentaries weigh its odds of success and ask whether it can provide a model for the nation.

This essay makes the affirmative case for health reform by expounding on three fundamental points: one moral case for expanding access to coverage and care to all is grounded in scriptural concepts of community and mutual obligation which continue to inform the American pursuit of justice; the structure of PPACA springs from an appreciation of and approach to channeling market forces that was developed and proposed by a coalition of moderate and conservative Republican U.S. senators almost 20 (...) years ago; the most humane path to a better and more sustainable health system lies in implementing PPACA as fast and fully as we can. The purpose of this essay is to articulate why it is not possible to make our health system better, sustainable and serve us all without government playing specific and limited but absolutely crucial catalytic roles. (shrink)

What are the prospects for meaningful reform of U.S. health care? To answer this question requires understanding why previous reform efforts failed—the combination of deep structural biases against large-scale public provision and the inherited constraints posed by the rise of employment-based insurance. Generally, the context is more favorable today than it was fifteen years ago. But the prospects for change hinge on learning the right lesson of history: Politics comes first. Putting politics first means avoiding the (...) overarching mistake of the Clinton reformers: envisioning a grand policy compromise rather than hammering out a real political compromise. It also means addressing the inevitable fears of those who believe they are well protected by our eroding employment-based framework. And it means premising political strategies on the contemporary realities of hyperpolarized politics, rather than wistfully recalled images of the bipartisan politics of old. (shrink)

: Although nothing could be less fashionable today than talk of comprehensive health care reform, the major problems of American health care have not gone away. Only a radical change in the way the U.S. finances health care--specifically, a single-payer system--will permit the achievement of universal coverage while keeping costs reasonably under control. Evidence from other countries, especially Canada, suggests the promise of this approach. In defending the single-payer approach, the author identifies several (...) political and cultural factors that make it difficult for Americans to obtain a clear view of this option. Finally, the author argues that much discussion of rationing is vitiated by bracketing more systemic questions to which the issue of rationing is inextricably linked. (shrink)

Health care reform to provide long-term care supportive services for growing numbers of older Americans presents ethical, cultural, and political challenges. This paper draws lessons from Japan, the world’s oldest nation, to develop an ethical argument in support of enacting public long-term care in the U.S. Despite cultural and political challenges, the paper shows that the ethical case for reform is strong, with broad ethical support from a range of ethical perspectives.

On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a major piece of health care reform legislation. This comprehensive legislation includes provisions that focus on prevention, wellness, and public health. Some, including authors in this symposium, question whether Congress considered public health, prevention, and wellness issues as mere afterthoughts in the creation of PPACA. As this article amply demonstrates, they did not.This article documents the extent of congressional consideration on (...) public health issues based on personal experience working on the framework for health care reform — specifically, my experience as a Fellow for a member of the Health Subcommittee of the Senate Finance Committee from 2008-2009. I also include a review of congressional activity in the United States House of Representatives. Analysis of the congressional meetings and hearings reveals that Congress had a deep understanding about the critical need to reform the U.S. public health and prevention system. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Working on the Clinton Administration's Health Care Reform Task ForceNancy Neveloff Dubler (bio)This narrative is based on my understanding of the elements of the Health Security Act that may have ethical implications. I have reconstructed these elements from my experience on the Health Care Reform Task Force and they are part of the health care plan that the President presented (...) to Congress. (At the time this article went to press, the actual legislation, which should answer my remaining specific questions more clearly, had not yet been released.) I perceive the most important features of the plan to be:• The legislation will create a "right" to health care for all citizens—access to care will be universal;• The plan will involve some form of managed competition in which groups of providers (called Approved or Accredited Health Plans (AHPs)) will offer comparable benefit packages at slightly (or widely) different costs;• The AHPs will negotiate with the Health Alliance (HA) to determine the price that they will charge their consumer-patients;• There will be open enrollment with no barriers to coverage, such as exclusions for pre-existing conditions;• Community rating will be in effect in different localities and enrolled persons in any AHP will pay the same premium;• The coverage for any enrolled person will be portable;• The overall structure will be a cooperative federal/state enterprise in which the states will have quite extensive abilities to fashion variations of the basic plan to meet their particular needs;• Primary care will be encouraged and incentives for physicians to train in primary care specialties provided;• Non-physician providers will be central to the functioning of the health care plans;• Efforts will be made to develop a "person power" pool so that people with an abstract "right" to health care will have real access to providers, in their localities, who can fulfill the promise that the right creates; [End Page 421]• The goal of cost containment will be central to the organization and regulation of the system;• Administrative simplicity and quality protections will be central.Co-chairing the Bioethics Working Group (BWG) of the White House Task Force on Health Care Reform was a unique experience. Approximately 40 Task Force working groups were established by Hillary Rodham Clinton, the President, and the senior Task Force staff. Various members of the President's office and other knowledgeable members of the Executive Branch selected the participants. In our group, appointments were made largely on the recommendations of the co-chairs. The BWG, among the last of the groups formed, carried the official name "The Working Group on the Ethical Foundations of the New System" and was jointly led by me and Marion Gray Secundy, a Professor of Bioethics at Howard University. The fact that the leadership of the Task Force saw fit to establish such a group, thereby confirming that bioethics is a player in the arena of health care policy, was in itself significant and was made no less so by the lack of clarity regarding the group's aims and goals.The working groups of the Task Force were organized into clusters, determined by the relatedness of the somewhat distinct, but always overlapping, content of their investigations. Separate clusters and working groups, for example, looked at mental health, long term care, and the benefit package and coverage for low-income and non-working families. On this last issue there was also a working group that explored health policy initiatives for underserved populations. This multiple focus on related issues proved to be an excellent method for ensuring that the complexity of these topics was sufficiently explored. There was a published schedule for when these groups met together, and members of other groups who had similar or overlapping concerns were invited to attend and to participate.Every week or so, all of the working groups reported to the Task Force leadership, under the direction of Ira Magaziner, in a process called a "tollgate." Prior to the tollgate, the working groups were required to submit formal written analyses of the problems they had most recently been considering. Copies of these documents were placed in a special room so that those who were interested could review... (shrink)

The Catholic Church in the United States provides extensive health care service through its more than 600 health facilities. The Church, on the basis of its moral teaching, sees health care as a basic human right and supports universal coverage. At the same time, the Church considers abortion morally wrong and opposes coverage of abortion as a health service in a national health plan. Mandated coverage of abortion would violate the moral commitments of (...) Catholic hospitals and the consciences of Catholics who would be required to financially support provision of abortion services. Keywords: abortion, Catholic hospitals, Clinton health plan, health care reform CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this? (shrink)

It is generally agreed that the current methods of providing health care in the West need to be reformed. Such reforms must operate within the practical limitations to which any future system of health care will be subject. These limitations include an increase in the demand for costly end-of-life health care coupled with a reduction in the proportion of the population who are working taxpayers (and hence a reduction in the proportionate amount of (...) class='Hi'>health care funding that can be secured through taxation) and the fact that the imposition of bureaucratic regulations on health care systems is costly. Recognizing these limitations should naturally lead one to consider market-based reforms. Yet despite the practical impetus for such reforms, there is still widespread concern that market-based health care is unethical. The purpose of this paper is to address this concern and, in so doing, to pave the way for the market-based reform of health care to proceed. (shrink)

The U.S. health care system is ostensibly market based and therefore at least partially reliant on competition and consumer demand to regulate costs. Yet information about an essential feature of market transactions—costs—is typically obscure to patients until long after treatment. When discussing what must be disclosed for informed consent, the same list of required information is often mentioned regardless of the health care system in question, and information about costs rarely merits a place within this list. (...) However, our assumptions about what a moral principle requires need to be responsive to the realities of the health care system in which the principle is applied.This paper explores the moral foundations of disclosure and informed consent to argue that, in a market‐based system of the sort found in the United States, these same considerations support a requirement to disclose out‐of‐pocket costs before patients receive care. Next, I consider two objections to this view: first, that health care practitioners should focus solely on medical considerations in their encounters with patients and, second, that disclosing out‐of‐pocket costs would be too difficult to be mandated. I argue that medical and financial interests are inseparable within the U.S. health care system. If the difficulties in disclosing costs are deemed insurmountable, then the current system may prove unsustainable, both morally and financially, since we face the same practical impediments to implementing any meaningful consumer‐driven, market‐based health care reform. Finally, I explore some of the consequences of failing to disclose costs. The requirements of disclosing costs can be supported by the principle of respect for autonomy, regardless of the consequences, but in light of the consequences of the decision of whether to disclose, a concern about justice provides further support. (shrink)

U.S. politicians and policymakers have been preoccupied with how to pay for health care. Hardly any thought has been given to what should be paid for—as though health care is a commodity that needs no examination—or what health outcomes should receive priority in a just society, i.e., rationing. I present a rationing proposal, consistent with U.S. culture and traditions, that deals not with “health care,” the terminology used in the current debate, but with (...) the more modest and limited topic of medical care. Integral to this rationing proposal—which allows scope to individual choice and at the same time recognizes the interdependence of the individual and society—is a definition of a “decent minimum,” the basic package of medical treatments everyone should have access to in a just society. I apply it to a specific example, diabetes mellitus, and track it through a person's life span. (shrink)

THERE IS WIDESPREAD DISSATISFACTION WITH THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM in this country. This essay outlines why. It then reviews and evaluates the contributions of the faith community to the discussions of health care reform to assess whether the perspective and contributions of religious actors are distinct from secular approaches. Finally, it proposes different emphases for the religious community's future involvement with health care reform.