Obstacles to dependent health care access in Oregon: health insurance or health care?

In the 1980s, Oregon was one of a handful of "states that could not wait" for national health care reform. Oregon's chosen approach to reform was predicated on two widely accepted assumptions. First, universal access to health care is best achieved by universal access to health insurance. Second, universal access to health care could best be achieved, at least politically, by incrementally building upon the existing health care delivery and insurance system. This article questions both of these assumptions in light of Oregon's decade-long experience in trying to expand access to health care among its dependent population.     

What is the goal of access to health care?

This article first examines the justifications for the goal of access to health care and the variations between health systems in their endorsement of individuals' rights to health care irrespective of income, ethnicity, age and other characteristics. It then examines the meanings of the goal of "access" to health care and considers four key dimensions--service availability ("having" access), service utilisation ("gaining" access), the relevance and effectiveness of services and equity of access. These dimensions provide a common framework that can be applied across countries and health systems and employed to assess the extent to which access to health care is actually achieved.     

Another special relationship? Interactions between health technology policies and health care systems in the United States and the United Kingdom

Confronted with similar challenges, the United States and the United Kingdom have adopted very different health technology policies. In the United States, the focus has been on technology creation, in particular the funding of basic biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health. This both reflects and reinforces an innovation-first culture in the United States, including in health. By contrast, the United Kingdom has been much more heavily committed to applied research and evaluative research, including health-technology assessment. That is, while U.S. policy has focused on technology creation, U.K. policy has been more oriented toward technology diffusion. This article surveys the sources of these differences. We consider the impacts of institutional, cultural, and other factors that may explain them, and emphasize that it is hard to disentangle the separate effects of those factors. We conclude with a discussion of the difficulties in drawing cross-national lessons in health technology policy.     

Family caregivers: a shadow workforce in the geriatric health care system?

Based on two years of fieldwork, conducted between March 2003 and March 2005 in the health care industry of the northeastern United States, this study shows that the work of family caregivers of elders goes far beyond previously recognized care in the home to acknowledge care inside health care facilities and in conjunction with community services. It reveals that family caregivers--untrained, undersupported, and unseen--constitute a "shadow workforce," acting as geriatric case managers, medical record keepers, paramedics, and patient advocates to fill dangerous gaps in a system that is uncoordinated, fragmented, bureaucratic, and often depersonalized. Detailed examination of what family caregivers actually do in traversing multiple domains reveals the extent of their contribution to and the weaknesses in the present geriatric health care system. It suggests that the experiences of family caregivers must be central to the creation of new policies and a more coordinated system that uses the complex work of family caregivers by providing the training and support that they need.     

What prompts health care policy change? On political power contests and reform of health care systems (the case of Canada and Israel)

This article attempts to shed light on the complexity inherent in health care reform policies in the context of political power contests that trigger the changes imposed on the health care system. Rather than being solely a response to financial circumstances, as it is often claimed, we argue that these political contests lead to many of the changes in the systems. Furthermore, changes do not necessarily occur when worrying symptoms appear in the system, but rather when the contest reaches a peak and when neither side involved can emerge from the contest as winner or loser and as defender of the public interest. While in both cases fiscal problems in the health systems are usually brought up in order to justify reform, the trigger for change in Israel has been the power contest between the two main parties--the Labor Party and the Likud Party--with the Likud attempting to impair the financial basis of the former. In Canada, the power contests are between the provinces and the federal government.     

The conflict between the ethics of th individual and the ethics governing public health: practical sustainability of health care in jeopardy?

The "health rights movement" has reconstructed the clinical relationship between health care workers and patients by simultaneously demanding more from traditional medical care and challenging the perceived power differential between doctors and patients by rejecting the paternalistic medical model in favour of an individual patients' rights model. However, the growth in individual expectations of a right to health care creates a potential conflict with the ethics that prioritise public health and guide the rationing of its limited financial and human capital resources. This, in turn, creates a practical dilemma which requires public health institutions to become service orientated while sacrificing their integral role in training and educating the medical workforce and potentially compromising the practical sustainable delivery of public health in Australia. However, the law can play a role in resolving this conflict through legislation, regulations, codes, administrative law and common law in an effort to ensure the quality and future sustainability of public health in Australia.     

Is health care different? Popular support of federal health and social policies

Over the past several years there has been a striking increase in policy-makers' attention to health care reform. This paper explores whether there has been a corresponding shift in popular attitudes and identifies factors that may have changed these attitudes. The first part of the analysis relies on survey data collected between 1975 and 1989 to estimate a set of regression models, relating support for federal involvement in health care, antipoverty programs, and general domestic policies to a set of sociodemographic characteristics.... The second part of this study explores motivations that might account for these patterns. We identify a half dozen ways in which health care may be viewed as "different," that is, more or less appropriate for federal action. Analysis of survey data from 1987 suggests that there are relatively small differences in the attitudes and perceptions that motivate support for federal health initiatives, relative to federal domestic policies in general. However, there are more striking differences between health programs and more overtly redistributive policies.... We suggest that the growing support for federal intervention in health care, relative to other social policies, is in part an inadvertent by-product of ideological positions popularized during the Reagan and Bush administrations. We draw from these results some predictions about the course of the ongoing debate over federal health policies.     

Back to the future? Health benefits, organized labor, and universal health care

The umbrella of employment-based health benefits is growing increasingly threadbare. As a result, health benefits are once again a major arena of labor-management strife, and once again calls for universal health care by many labor leaders mask important differences between them over health care reform. Some labor leaders advocate a bottom-up mobilization in support of a single-payer solution that would dismantle the system of job-based benefits rooted in private insurance. Others stake their health care strategy on wooing key business leaders to be constructive partners in some kind of unspecified comprehensive reform of the health system. Organized labor faces enormous obstacles, both institutional and ideological, to forging an effective united front to fight for comprehensive, high-quality, affordable health care for all. Two entrenched features of the shadow welfare state of job-based benefits, notably the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974 and the union-run health and welfare funds created under the Taft-Hartley Act, remain daunting barriers on the road to reform, exacerbating tensions and differences within organized labor. Moreover, a dramatic ideological schism in the labor movement about its future direction vexes its stance on health care reform. These ideological differences fuel vastly different views within organized labor about how best to confront the unraveling of job-based health benefits and the growing popularity among business leaders, insurers, and public officials of the "individual-mandate" solution, which would penalize people who do not have adequate health insurance.