Incentivizing professionals and patients: a consideration in the context of the United Kingdom and the United States

We are at the beginning of an era in which the pressure to secure the biggest possible "bang" for the health care "buck" is perhaps higher than it ever has been, on both sides of the Atlantic, and within the health policy discourse, incentives, for both professionals and patients, are occupying an increasingly prominent position. In this article, we consider issues related to motivating the professional and the patient to perform targeted actions, drawing on some of the evidence that has thus far been reported on experiences in the United Kingdom and the United States, and we present an admittedly somewhat speculative taxonomy of hypothesized effectiveness for some of the different methods by which each of these two broad types of incentives can be offered. We go on to summarize some of the problems of, and objections to, the use of incentives in health and health care, such as those relating to motivational crowding and gaming, but we conclude by positing that, following appropriate consideration, caution, and methodological and empirical investigation, health-related incentives, at least in some contexts, may contribute positively to the social good.     

Policymaking cycles in mental health: critical examination of a conceptual model

Analysts have frequently used the concept of a cycle to describe the historical development of mental health policy in the United States. According to the "cyclical" perspective, the mental health system alternates between crests of high policy and program activity and troughs of stagnation and decline. Analysts also observe that past policy themes are periodically rediscovered, only to eventually lose favor and recede into the background once again. This article critically examines the cyclical model of mental health policymaking, placing it within a context of broader theoretical work on the dynamics of public policy formation. The purpose is to organize in a conceptually coherent way what has emerged as the leading theoretical approach to understanding the evolution of the mental health system; to identify major issues and ambiguities in the application of the cyclical framework to mental health policy analysis; and to derive some general insights about problems and possibilities in modeling policy change.     

Invisible hand or fatherly hand? Problems of paternalism in the New Perspective on health

This article examines the charge that the "New Perspective" on health (as exemplified by the Lalonde Report in Canada, by Prevention and Health in the United Kingdom) represents an abandonment of liberal principles in favor of a collectivist and paternalistic role for the state. It looks first at the problems confronting modern health policy, and at the reasoning behind the New Perspective's approach. It then explores whether and how the charge of paternalism applies to that approach, and just what such a charge implies. The article concludes with a discussion of the "liberal paternalist" viewpoint towards health policy, a viewpoint that combines respect for individual liberty with an interest in taking effective public action to improve the health status of modern populations.     

State autonomy, policy paralysis: paradoxes of institutions and culture in the French health care system

In this article, we assess the recent performance of the French state at containing costs in health care using political science concepts such as path dependency and incentives, which are central to an economic approach. The article focuses on institutional capacities and cultural immobilism and attempts to lay bare the tensions at play in seizing (or not) opportunities for structural change. In particular, we attempt to delineate what constitutes real change in this policy arena (big reforms versus the accumulation of many small policy movements) and to understand the variables at play in the coming together of conjunctures that provide for the big, as well as the underlying structures that allow the accumulation of the small. Except in cases of favorable conjuncture, the analysis bodes very ill for nonincremental reform and, indeed, for significant change over the long term.     

Foul weather friends: big business and health care reform in the 1990s in historical perspective

Existing accounts of the Clinton health reform efforts of the early 1990s neglect to examine how the change in big business reform interests during the short period between the late 1980s and 1994 might have altered the trajectory of compulsory health insurance legislation in Congress. This article explores evidence that big employers lost their early interest in reform because they believed their private remedies for bringing down health cost inflation were finally beginning to work. This had a discouraging effect on reform efforts. Historical analysis shows how hard times during the Great Depression also aligned big business interests with those of reformers seeking compulsory social insurance. Unlike the present case, however, the economic climate did not quickly improve, and the social insurance reform of the New Deal succeeded. The article speculates, therefore, that had employer health expenditures not flattened out, continuing and even growing big business support might have neutralized small business and other opposition that contributed heavily to the failure of reform. Thus in light of the Clinton administration's demonstrated willingness to compromise with business on details of its plan, some kind of major reform might have succeeded.     

The changing process and politics of health policy in Korea

Korea recently introduced three major health care reforms: in financing (1999), pharmaceuticals (2000), and provider payment (2001). In these three reforms, new government policies merged more than 350 health insurance societies into a single payer, separated drug prescribing by physicians from dispensing by pharmacists, and attempted to introduce a new prospective payment system. This essay compares the three reforms in Korea and draws important lessons about the country's changing process and politics of health care policy. The change of government, the president's keen interest in health policy, and democratization in the public policy process toward a more pluralist context opened a policy window for reform. Civic groups played an active role in the policy process by shaping the proposals for reform-a major change from the previous policy process that was dominated by government bureaucrats. The three reforms also showed important differences in the role of interest groups. Strong support by the rural population and labor unions contributed to the financing reform. In the pharmaceutical reform, which was a big threat to physician income, the president and civic groups succeeded in quickly setting the reform agenda; the medical profession was unable to block the adoption of the reform but their strikes influenced the content of the reform during implementation. Physician strikes also helped block the implementation of the payment reform. Future reform efforts in Korea will need to consider the political management of vested interest groups and the design of strategies for both scope and sequencing of policy reforms.     

A policy transformed by politics: the case of the 1973 Australian Community Health Program

During an era of health policy reform in Australia, community health advocates believed that community health centers (CHCs) could form a solid foundation for a new system of health care delivery. Instead, a proposal for national health insurance (Medibank) emerged as the predominant structural reform. Community health proposals were not abandoned, however, and a policy designed to give federal grant assistance for the establishment of CHCs was implemented in 1973. The historical account of how the 1973 Australian Community Health Program (CHP) was developed in the early 1970s is relevant to dilemmas faced by contemporary policy makers. Specifically, how did the CHP "survive" even though government leaders had moved away from traditional direct service models, choosing to focus more attention on indirect insurance reimbursement?     

Why institutions are not the only thing that matters: twenty-five years of health care reform in New Zealand

The literature on the causes of health care reform is dominated by institutionalist accounts, and political institutions are among the most prominent factors cited to explain why change takes place. However, institutionalist accounts have difficulty explaining both the timing and the content of reforms. By applying a range of explanatory approaches to a case study of health reform in New Zealand since the 1970s, this article explores some of the theories of reform beyond institutionalism, particularly those that take into account problem pressure, policy ideas, and the more agency-centered factor of partisan ideology. The aim is not to dismiss institutionalism but to try to fill some of the gaps that cannot be addressed with institutionalist theories alone. The detailed analysis shows that various factors played a role in conjunction, namely, problem pressure, policy ideas, and the ideology of parties in government. Partisan ideology, in particular, has perhaps been prematurely ignored by health care scholars.     

Harry and Louise and health care reform: romancing public opinion

The question whether the "Harry and Louise" campaign ads, sponsored by the Health Insurance Association of America (HIAA) during the 1993-1994 health care reform debate, influenced public opinion has particular relevance today since interest groups are increasingly choosing commercial-style mass media campaigns to sway public opinion about health policy issues. Our study revisits the issue of the Harry and Louise campaign's influence on public opinion, comparing the ad campaign's messages to changes in opinion about health care reform over a twenty-six-month period in Oklahoma. Looking at the overall trends just prior to the introduction of the Harry and Louise campaign, public opinion was going in the "wrong" direction, from the HIAA perspective. Moreover, public opinion continued in the wrong direction until the mid-point of the campaign. However, in either the turning point of the campaign in terms of message content and tone or in the lag period following it, public opinion reversed on each health reform issue and returned to pre-campaign levels. It appears from these findings that the campaign captured public opinion when support for issues that were unfavorable to HIAA members was increasing and turned public opinion back to pre-campaign levels. The campaign may result in many more such marriages of political interest groups and commercial advertisers for the purpose of demobilizing public support for health policy initiatives that are unfavorable to special interests.     

Mental health services in New Zealand

The development and reorganization of mental health services in New Zealand is underpinned by a national strategy, with increased funding from the government, and is occurring on a background of radical change in health service policy and delivery. The major challenge will be to sustain the developments to date, and increase the quality and quantity of services in a climate of ongoing change. A more integrated form of service delivery and funding would potentially enhance the development of population-based mental health services, which will allow the alignment of targeting specialty service to the 3% of the population with the highest need, with a more comprehensive approach to overall mental health service through the primary sector.     

Mental health policy in the liberal state: the example of the United States

Mental health policy arises out of the interaction of many different variables. These include (but are not limited to) the composition of the population of persons with severe mental illnesses; the means of dealing with disease and dependency; concepts of the etiology and nature of mental disorders; the organization and ideology of psychiatry; funding mechanisms; and existing popular, political, cultural, and professional values. But an often neglected but crucial factor in shaping policy is the very structure of the American political system, which played a crucial role in shaping mental health policy. Rather than emphasizing the neo-liberal theory and its accompanying hostility toward "unsuccessful" people and disdain of welfare, this article suggests that an understanding of mental health policy in the latter half of the twentieth century is better served by an examination of what actually happened. Theory, however attractive, rarely can encompass the messy data of reality.     

The patient protection and affordable care act: the victory of unorthodox lawmaking

The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was a major legislative achievement of the 111th Congress. This law structurally reforms the US health care system by encouraging universal health care coverage through regulated competition among private insurance companies. When looking at the process for reform, what strikes an observer of US health care policy in the first place is that the Democratic majority was able to enact something in a political field characterized by strong resistance to change. This article builds on that observation. Arguments concentrate on the legislative process of the reform and support the idea that it may be partly explained by considering an evolution of US legislative institutions, mostly in the sense of a more centralized legislative process. Based on approximately one hundred semidirected interviews, I argue that the Democratic majority, building on lessons from both President Bill Clinton's health care reform attempt and the Republicans' strategy of using strong congressional leadership to pass social reforms, was able to overcome institutional constraints that have long prevented comprehensive change. A more centralized legislative process, which has been described as "unorthodox lawmaking," enabled the Democratic leadership to overcome multiple institutional and political veto players.     

Risk,response, and mental health policy: learning from the experience of the United Kingdom

Policy makers in the United States and the United Kingdom recognize that mentally disordered offenders present special challenges to law enforcement, mental health, and social service systems, as well as the community. Although various policy initiatives have advanced over the past twenty years to improve the management of mentally disordered offenders, mental health policy has chronically failed in both countries. Because safety concerns have emerged as the mental health system has been "deinstitutionalized," debate is growing about whether the community-care approach works-for the community. This study argues that mental health policy fails because policy makers focus on the wrong risks and design policies that manage these risks in ways that increase the possibility of adverse clinical and economic outcomes. The argument made here uses the case of persons with severe mental illness in the United Kingdom as an example of the complex relationship between risk and policy making in democratic governance. Emphasis is on the nature of risk in mental health policy and how government responds to policy and political risks. Mental health policy in Britain is then analyzed in terms of its response to and management of risks. Mental health policy has historically mismanaged the risk issue in the United Kingdom and as such has set in motion the growing community-care backlash. The path to a better outcome lies in the responsible management of the right risks. Lessons from the United Kingdom experience can be usefully applied to mental health issues in many industrial democracies.     

Policy change and health care research

Explaining policy change is one of the most central tasks of contemporary policy analysis. Reacting to overly rigid institutionalist frameworks that emphasize stability rather than change, a growing number of scholars have formulated new theoretical models to shed light on policy change. Focusing on health care reform but drawing on the broader social science literature on policy and politics, this article offers critical perspectives on the institutionalist and ideational literatures on policy change while assessing their relevance for analyzing change in contemporary health care systems. The last section sketches a research agenda for studying policy change in health care.     

Therapeutic jurisprudence: A framework for evidence-informed health care policymaking

Translation of evidence-based practice (EBP) into health care policy is of growing importance, with discussions most often focused on how to fund and otherwise promote EBP through policy (i.e., at system level, beyond the bedside). Less attention has been focused on how to ensure that such policies - as enacted and implemented, and as distinguished from the practices underlying policies - do not themselves cause harm, or at least frustrate accomplishment of "therapeutic" goals of EBP. On a different front, principles of therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ) in law have been developed, most prominently in certain areas of law (e.g., mental health and family law), to support more collaborative, less traumatic advocacy and conflict resolution. This paper draws on current applications of TJ and translates such into a therapeutic approach to health care policymaking that moves beyond promotion of EBP in policy. Health care policy itself may be viewed as an intervention that impacts health, positively or not. The goal is to offer a framework for health care policymaking grounded in TJ principles that does not focus on which evidence is "right" for policy use, but rather how we can better understand how consequences of policy, intended or not, affect the well-being of populations. Such framework thus moves policymaking from an either/or debate to a data- and human-driven process. Utilizing TJ framing questions, policies can be developed and evaluated through open dialogue among diverse voices at the table, including - like interventions - the "patients" or, here, targets of such policies. Collectively, they clarify how ends sought - to enhance (or at least not impair) health - can best be achieved through policy when needed, recognizing that as an intervention, there are limits to and boundaries on the usefulness of policy.     

Playing fair: fairness beliefs and health policy preferences in the United States

Conventional wisdom suggests that the best way to persuade Americans to support changes in health care policy is to appeal to their self-interest - particularly to concerns about their economic and health security. An alternative strategy, framing problems in the health care system to emphasize inequalities, could also, however, mobilize public support for policy change by activating underlying attitudes about the unfairness or injustice of these inequalities. In this article, we draw on original data from a nationally representative survey to describe Americans' beliefs about fairness in the health domain, including their perceptions of the fairness of particular inequalities in health and health care. We then assess the influence of these fairness considerations on opinions about the appropriate role of private actors versus government in providing health insurance. Respondents believe inequalities in access to and quality of health care are more unfair than unequal health outcomes. Even after taking into account self-interest considerations and the other usual suspects driving policy opinions, perceptions of the unfairness of inequalities in health care strongly influence respondents' preferences for government provision of health insurance.