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.     

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.     

Expertise in law, medicine, and health care

As the practice of science-based medical evidence has challenged the medical profession to consider the scientific bases for its methods and procedures, on a seemingly parallel path, the United States Supreme Court's 1993 decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals has challenged the legal system to consider the science underlying claims of medical expertise. This article examines how the legal system has responded to that challenge and why the response has been more limited than many had expected; the implications of the legal system's approach to scrutiny of claims of medical expertise for the practice of science-based medical evidence; and, the central elements of any meaningful change in legal assessments of expertise in medicine and health care.     

Reform, change, and continuity in Finnish health care

This article describes some essential aspects of the Finnish political and governmental system and the evolution of the basic institutional elements of the health care system. We examine the developments that gave rise to a series of health care reforms and reform proposals in the late 1980s and early 1990s and relate them to changes in health care expenditure, structure, and performance. Finally, we discuss the relationship between policy changes, reforms, and health system changes and the strength of neo-institutional theory in explaining both continuity and change. Much of the change in Finnish health care can be explained by institutional path dependency. The tradition of strong but small local authorities and the lack of legitimate democratic regional authorities as well as the coexistence of a dominant Beveridge-style health system with a marginal Bismarckian element explain the specific path of Finnish health care reform. Public responsibility for health care has been decentralized to smaller local authorities (known as municipalities) more than in any other country. Even an exceptionally deep economic recession in the early 1990s did not lead to systems change; rather, the economic imperative was met by the traditional centralized policy pattern. Some of the developments of the 1990s are, however, difficult to explain by institutional theory. Thus, there is a need for testing alternative theories as well.     

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.     

Antitrust, health care quality, and the courts

Antitrust law represents the principal legal tool that the United States employs to police private markets, yet it often relegates quality and nonprice considerations to a secondary position. While antitrust law espouses the belief that vigorous competition will enhance quality as well as price, little evidence exists of the practical ability of courts to deliver on that promise. In this Article, Professors Hammer and Sage examine American health care as a vehicle for advancing understanding of the nexus among competition, quality, and antitrust law. The Article reports results of a comprehensive empirical review of judicial opinions in health care antitrust litigation between 1985 and 1999, with specific attention to courts' handling of quality and other nonprice concerns. Professors Hammer and Sage conclude that, although antitrust law cannot be expected to serve as the sole oversight mechanism for industries as complex and quality dependent as health care, courts have been successful incorporating some nonprice factors into antitrust analysis.     

Law, autonomy and advance directives

The principle of autonomy underpins legal regulation of advance directives that refuse life-sustaining medical treatment. The primacy of autonomy in this domain is recognised expressly in the case law, through judicial pronouncement, and implicitly in most Australian jurisdictions, through enactment into statute of the right to make an advance directive. This article seeks to justify autonomy as an appropriate principle for regulating advance directives and relies on three arguments: the necessity of autonomy in a liberal democracy; the primacy of autonomy in medical ethics discourse; and the uncontested importance of autonomy in the law on contemporaneous refusal of medical treatment. This article also responds to key criticisms that autonomy is not an appropriate organising principle to underpin legal regulation of advance directives.