New federalism and health care policy: states and the old questions

The New Federalism that evolved under the Reagan administration tends to grant states more discretion in the implementation of health care programs. It thereby rekindles old concerns about the commitment, capacity, and progressivity of the states. This paper reviews recent policy developments and reconsiders state performance from the vantage point of the mid-1980s. While hard evidence remains elusive, a plausible case exists that any gap between the states and Washington on commitment, capacity, and progressivity has diminished. State administrative capacity in particular has probably increased. The continued presence of substantial variation among the states needs to be underscored, however. Moreover, the relentless imperative of economic development, or migration, theory sets severe limits on how far states can go in adopting redistributive measures to assure adequate medical care for the poor. Given current federal laws, the most optimistic, plausible scenario envisions the rise of a technical politics of efficiency in the states. In spite of state limitations, health policy reformers need to pay increased attention to their potential role.     

Courts and health policy: judicial policy making and publicly funded health care in Canada

The 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provided political actors with the opportunity to make rights-based challenges to public policy decisions. Two challenges launched by providers and consumers of health care illuminate the impact of judicial review on health care policy and the institutional capacity of courts to formulate policy in this field. The significant impact of rights-based claims on cross-jurisdictional policy differences in a federal regime is noted.     

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.     

Regulatory policy and information deficiencies in the market for mental health services

This paper addresses issues related to the regulation of the delivery of mental health services. The focus is primarily on regulations that are aimed at dealing with the consequences of imperfect information in the marketplace. The paper reviews and assesses what is known about the impact of regulations on efficiency and equity. One conclusion is that we know a fair amount about impacts of regulation on prices for mental health service and very little about effects on quality of care. A research agenda is proposed based on the knowledge available in 1988.     

Market-oriented health care reforms and policy learning in the Netherlands

In this article we analyze the evolution of market-oriented health care reforms in the Netherlands. We argue that these reforms can be characterized as policy learning within and between competing policy programs. Policy learning denotes the process by which policy makers and stakeholders deliberately adjust the goals, rules, and techniques of a given policy in response to past experiences and new information. We discern three distinctive periods. During the first period (1988-1994), the prevailing corporatist and etatist policy programs were seriously challenged by the proponents of a new market-oriented program. But when it came to political decision making and implementation, the market-oriented program soon lost its impetus because it was technically too complex and could not provide short-term solutions to meet the urgent need for cost containment. During the second period (1994-2000), the etatist program regained its previously dominant position. In parallel to a strengthening of supply and price controls, however, the government also persevered in creating the technical and institutional preconditions for regulated competition. Moreover, public discontent over waiting lists and the call for more autonomy by individual providers and insurers strengthened the alliance in favor of regulated competition. This led to the revival of the market-oriented program in a 2001 reform plan. We conclude that the odds of these new post-2001 reforms succeeding are substantially higher than in the first period due to the technical and institutional adjustments that have taken place in the past decade.     

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.     

The labor impacts of policy change in health care: how federal policy transformed home health organizations and their labor practices

Health care organizations are highly labor-intensive; policies designed to stimulate organizational change are likely to have labor impacts. This paper examines the labor effects of policy change in home health care. Major federal home care policy trends since 1980 have spurred the evolution of the typical home care provider toward greater organizational and market rationality. Greater managerial sophistication has introduced changes in management/labor relations. Survey data from the 1986 DRG Impact Study are used to show how the pressure of cost-containment policies has pushed agencies to cut labor costs by increasing workloads, managerial supervision, and control of the work process. Research on the effects of recent policy change in health care has to date focused primarily on potential client effects. Labor impacts are rarely examined and are poorly understood at the time that policy is made. Findings in this article suggest that these issues deserve greater, more systematic attention, because unanticipated labor impacts may prove to be significant impediments to the realization of intended policy goals.     

Why some market reforms lack legitimacy in health care

Market-oriented health policy reforms in the 1980s and 1990s generally included five kinds of proposals: increased cost sharing for patients through user fees, the separation of purchaser-provider functions, management reforms of hospitals, provider competition, and vouchers for purchasing health insurance. These policies are partly derived from agency theory and a model of managed competition in health insurance. The essay reviews the course of reform in five countries that had a national health service model in place in the late 1980s: Italy, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Special consideration is given to New Zealand, where the market model was extensively adopted but short lived. In New Zealand, surveys and polls are compared to archival records of reformers' deliberations. Voters saw health care differently from elites, and voters particularly felt that health care was ill suited to commercialization. There are similarities across all five countries in what has been adopted and rejected. Some market reforms are more legitimate than others. Reforms based on resolving principal-agent problems, including purchaser-provider splits and managerial reforms, have been more successful, although cost sharing has not. Competition-based reforms in financing and to a lesser extent in provision have not gained legitimacy. Most voters in these countries see health care as different from other parts of the economy and view managerial reforms differently from policies that try to make health care more like other sectors.     

Nonprofit and for-profit medical care: shifting roles and implications for health policy

The contemporary expansion of investor-owned health care facilities has stimulated much controversy but little response from policymakers. We believe this results from the apparently ambiguous relationship between ownership and socially valued outcomes. In our assessment, this ambiguity occurs largely because the effects of ownership are mediated in complex ways by characteristics of the services being delivered and the training of health care providers. Reviewing both the history and current performance of nonprofit and for-profit health care facilities, we identify some of the more important of these mediating factors. Taking these into account, there is a consistent influence of ownership on the delivery of health services. On the basis of this analysis, we discuss appropriate policy responses to the future growth of investor-owned health care organizations.     

Reform and remembrance: the place of the private sector in the future of health care policy

Although the nation failed during the past decade to enact large-scale, structural change in government health policy, it has seen health care in the private sector remodeled dramatically during the same period. In this article I argue that a new round of equally significant changes is quite possible, this time at the hands of the national government. More specifically, I argue that for a variety of reasons, both enduring and more recently born, support for the private sector and the market in health care is relatively weak: that given likely trends in costs, demographics, and inequalities, it is likely to get even weaker; and that in the potential coming crisis of the health care system. there will be a real opportunity for seizing the agenda and winning policy battles on the part of would-be reformers pushing large-scale, public sector-oriented changes that go well beyond the recent reform efforts directed at managed care and HMOs.