The changing locus of decision making in the health care sector

In the 1970s, the health policy debate focused on whether government or the medical profession should control the health care system. This article asserts that that struggle between two forms of centralized control was both less promising and less consequential than the devolution of decision-making authority upon consumers and their agents that is occurring today and that seems likely to continue as competitive forces become stronger and opportunities for meaningful consumer choice increases. What we are witnessing is the simultaneous deprofessionalization and depoliticization of important decisions affecting health care, a decentralization and diversification of the system that is opening new possibilities for translating diverse consumer desires into provider performance. Although covering much familiar ground, this article links a variety of seemingly discrete issues under the sterility of the competition-versus-regulation debate and to show the historical and ethical significance of the major changes that are under way in the health care sector today.     

The current state of medical school education in bioethics, health law, and health economics.

Current challenges in medical practice, research, and administration demand physicians who are familiar with bioethics, health law, and health economics. Curriculum directors at American Association of Medical Colleges-affiliated medical schools were sent confidential surveys requesting the number of required hours of the above subjects and the years in which they were taught, as well as instructor names. The number of relevant publications since 1990 for each named instructor was assessed by a PubMed search. In sum, teaching in all three subjects combined comprises less than two percent of the total hours in the American medical curriculum, and most instructors have not recently published articles in the fields they teach. This suggests that medical schools should reevaluate their curricula and instructors in bioethics, health law, and health economics.     

Special report on health care reform. ERISA preemption, Traveler's and health care reform

Although S. 308 reportedly has some bipartisan support, its passage is by no means certain. ERISA has for years provided employers with the freedom to design their own benefit plans without state interference, as well as the ability to operate such plans in a uniform manner throughout the country. large employers are thus not likely to cede the advantages of ERISA preemption without a battle. When strong business interests are pitted against the states' equally strong interests in enacting health care reforms, the outcome cannot be predicted.     

Behavioral economics and health policy: understanding Medicaid's failure

This Article employs a behavioral economic analysis to understand why Medicaid has failed to improve the health outcomes of its beneficiaries. It begins with a formal economic model of health care consumption and then systematically incorporates a survey of psychosocial variables to formulate explanations for persistent health disparities. This methodology suggests that consulting the literature in health psychology and intertemporal decision theory--empirical sources generally excluded from orthodox economic analysis--provides valuable material to explain certain findings in health econometrics. More significantly, the lessons from this behavioral economic approach generate useful policy considerations for Medicaid policymakers, who largely have neglected psychosocial variables in implementing a health insurance program that rests chiefly on orthodox economic assumptions. The Article's chief contributions include an expansion of the behavioral economic approach to include a host of variables in health psychology, a behavioral refinement of empirical health economics, a behavioral critique of Medicaid policy, and a menu of suggested Medicaid reforms.     

Special report on health care delivery systems. Trends in the integrated delivery of health care and the corporate practice of medicine

The prospects for federal legislation preempting state corporate practice restrictions are unclear. The health care reform bill originally introduced by President Clinton contained a provision that would have preempted "any state law related to the corporate practice of medicine" insofar as it applied to the arrangements between non-fee-for-service health plans and their participating providers. H.R. 3600/S. 1757, 103d Cong., 1st Sess. 1407(b) (1993). Whether and in what form a preemption provision may survive the legislative process and see a Presidential signature remains to be seen. The particular fate of the federal legislation notwithstanding, however, health care executives can nevertheless remain confident that the legal treatment of the "corporate practice" of medicine will continue to be of vital concern as the various forms of health care organizations evolve in the ongoing struggle to deliver quality medicine at affordable prices.     

Emerging parallels in the American health care and legal-judicial systems.

The structure and principal decision-making processes of the American health care system have, in recent years, evolved to closely resemble those of the legal-judicial system. This transformation reflects important common values that underlie both systems, including the values of life and liberty. This Article analyzes quasi-legal features of the health care system and draws conclusions about how those features might be used to address the problem of health care rationing. It concludes that coverage rules, if properly developed, can provide the sort of objective framework necessary to evaluate claims of health care needs. This Article also demonstrates that by defining legitimate health care needs, society can thereby potentially eliminate or forestall the need to ration necessary care. This can be achieved by using carefully developed coverage rules, rather than the informal rules currently in place, in conjunction with already existing due process methods for interpreting and implementing those rules.     

Rationing health care: it's a matter of the health care system's structure

The article examines two primary policy proposals for how the U.S. should allocate its limited health care dollars: a centralized model in which a commission establishes rationing guidelines, and a decentralized model in which rationing decisions are made by health care providers on a case by case basis. The author finds significant advantages with each position, leading the author to assert that a combination of each is key to an effective rationing policy: a centralized control of structure coupled with decentralized physician-level decision making. While mindful that formal rationing guidelines alone are unfeasible to effectuate cost-effective care, the author introduces two decentralized policies to control costs: the limitation of resources at physicians' disposal and elimination of physicians' personal incentive to provide high-cost care.     

Equity,health, and health care

Equity goals, such as equal treatment for equal need or equality of access, commonly take pride of place among the aims of health policy. But do these conceptions, or others derived from more fundamental philosophical systems such as those of the utilitarians or John Rawls, successfully capture the way in which the term equity is generally used? If not, is it possible to find some interpretation that can command a greater consensus? This paper answers no to the first question and yes to the second. It is argued that the standard conceptions of equity ignore the processes by which health states are determined and hence the extent to which they arise from factors beyond individual control. An alternative conception is proposed that directly incorporates these considerations.     

AIDS-related risks in the health care setting: HIV testing of health care workers and patients

Do patients and health care workers have the legal right to know each other's HIV status? Professor Flanagan argues that they do not. Given that with appropriate precautions the risk of transmitting HIV in the health care setting is extremely small and that the discriminatory consequences of HIV disclosure can be extremely high, it is suggested that the right of a patient or a health care worker not to disclose their HIV status must outweigh the other's "right to know."