Search

This paper examines the feasibility of achieving U.S. health care reform and prognosis for success. In order to accomplish the task, this paper provides a check list of major problems which emerge continually in the field. In compiling a list of major problems, a tentative list of eight are presented. These problems include the following: unnecessary administrative costs; other major industrial countries can provide adequate health care at a lower rate of the national budget than does the U.S.; increase in malpractice insurance; shortage of primary care physicians in the rural and inner city areas; failure of health insurance; abundance of technology; distribution of care; and increase in health care costs. According to the author, these eight major problems give some indication to the complexity of the issues involved in the health care reform. These problems should be viewed in the context of the five major participant groups in health care: consumers, politicians, physicians and other health care providers, employers, and insurance companies. This paper briefly discusses the affected participants. It also provides a brief review of the proposed solutions to the problem of health care reform.

This paper uses the controversy over the denial of care on futility grounds as a window into the broader issue of the role of cost in decisions about treatment near the end of life. The focus is on a topic that has not received the attention it deserves: the difference between refusing medical treatment and demanding it. The author discusses health care reform and the ethics of cost control, arguing that we cannot achieve universal access to quality care at affordable care without better public understanding of the moral legitimacy of taking cost into account in health care decisions, even decisions at the end of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United States faces tremendous challenges with its healthcare system. By any standard, it is expensive and performs poorly in most measures of health and thus, is in great need of reform. But how do we reform things without making the situation worse? Some of the more fundamental problems arise from the combination of a fee-for-service payment system for physicians with insurance-based financing care. This combination results in conflicts among the interests of patients, physicians and payers. This paper examines this issue from a decision analytic perspective, starting with a definition of the patient-centered view, and an assessment of the practicality of controlling costs by making healthcare more patient-centric. It then illustrates how fee-for-service models corrupt decision-making and other solutions designed to reign in the abuses of the fee-for-service model and also negatively impacts the quality of decision making for individual patients. Whatever the strategies for health reform, the degree of patient-centeredness of care is a benchmark that allows policy makers to understand how far they have had to deviate from optimal to achieve the desired ends of cost control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]