Search

Context: Medicaid plays a critical role in low-income, minority, and medically underserved communities, particularly in states that have expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Yet, the voices of underresourced communities are often unheard in decisions about how to allocate Medicaid's scarce resources, and traditional methods of public engagement are poorly suited to gathering such input. We argue that deliberative public engagement can be a useful tool for involving communities in setting Medicaid priorities., Method: We engaged 209 residents of low-income, medically underserved Michigan communities in discussions about Medicaid spending priorities using an exercise in informed deliberation: CHAT (CHoosing All Together). Participants learned about Medicaid, deliberated in small groups, and set priorities both individually and collectively., Findings: Participants prioritized broad eligibility consistent with the ACA expansion, accepted some cost sharing, and prioritized spending in areas-including mental health-that are historically underfunded. Participants allocated less funding beyond benefit coverage, such as spending on healthy communities. Participants perceived the deliberative process as fair and informative, and they supported using it in the policy-making process., Conclusion: The choices of participants from low-income, medically underserved communities reflect a unique set of priorities and suggest that engaging low-income communities more deeply in Medicaid policy making might result in different prioritization decisions., (Copyright © 2020 by Duke University Press.)

CHAT (Choosing Healthplans All Together) is an exercise in participatory decision making designed to engage the public in health care priority setting. Participants work individually and then in groups to distribute a limited number of pegs on a board as they select from a wide range of insurance options. Randomly distributed health events illustrate the consequences of insurance choices. In 1999-2000, the authors conducted fifty sessions of CHAT involving 592 residents of North Carolina. The exercise was rated highly regarding ease of use, informativeness, and enjoyment. Participants found the information believable and complete, thought the group decision-making process was fair, and were willing to abide by group decisions. CHAT holds promise as a tool to foster group deliberation, generate collective choices, and incorporate the preferences and values of consumers into allocation decisions. It can serve to inform and stimulate public dialogue about limited health care resources.

In response to three articles on managed care by Allen Buchanan, David Mechanic, and Ezekiel Emanual and Lee Goldman (this issue), I discuss doctor-patient and organization-member trust and the moral obligations of those relationships. Trust in managed care organizations (providers of and payers for health care) stands in stark contrast to the current contractual model of health insurance purchase, but is more coherent with consumer expectations and with the provider role of such organizations. Such trust is likely to differ from that between doctors and patients. Financial reimbursement systems for physicians, one example of organizational change in our health system, can be evaluated for their impact on both kinds of trust according to their intrusiveness, openness, and goals. Although involving managed care enrollees in value-laden decisions that affect them is commendable, restrictions on or regulation of physician incentive systems may be better accomplished on a national level.

Assuming that rationing health care is unavoidable, and that it requires moral reasoning, how should we allocate limited health care resources? This question is difficult because our pluralistic, liberal society has no consensus on a conception of distributive justice. In this article I focus on an alternative: Who shall decide how to ration health care, and how shall this be done to respect autonomy, pluralism, liberalism, and fairness? I explore three processes for making rationing decisions: cost-utility analysis, informed democratic decision making, and applications of the veil of ignorance. I evaluate these processes as examples of procedural justice, assuming that there is no outcome considered the most just. I use consent as a criterion to judge competing processes so that rationing decisions are, to some extent, self-imposed. I also examine the processes' feasibility in our current health care system. Cost-utility analysis does not meet criteria for actual or presumed consent, even if costs and health-related utility could be measured perfectly. Existing structures of government cannot creditably assimilate the information required for sound rationing decisions, and grassroots efforts are not representative. Applications of the veil of ignorance are more useful for identifying principles relevant to health care rationing than for making concrete rationing decisions. I outline a process of decision making, specifically for health care, that relies on substantive, selected representation, respects pluralism, liberalism, and deliberative democracy, and could be implemented at the community or organizational level.