Tension, compression, and shear: directions, stresses, and outcomes of health care cost control

"Control" of health care costs is often portrayed as a struggle between external, "natural" forces pushing costs up and individuals, groups, and societies trying to resist the inevitable. This picture is false. Control includes strenuous efforts by some to raise costs, and by others to resist those increases, and/or to transfer costs to someone else. But all such forces originate in the purposes and interests of individuals and groups. Health care cost control is a struggle among conflicting interests over the priorities of a society, and claims of "inevitability" are simply part of the political rhetoric of that struggle. International experience supports certain conclusions. First, there is no basis for the claim that limits on expenditure growth must threaten the health of (some members of) a society. Second, there is a substantial variety of experience with cost control. Failure in the United States is often presented as evidence of the impossibility of control, but most other countries have succeeded. Finally, control requires the direct confrontation of interests, with substantial build-up of stress. Advocates of expansion are more successful if they can transform compressive forces into efforts to shift the burden onto someone else. Pressures from providers in every country for "privatization" and/or payment by users reflect this recognition of economic interest.     

"False confessions" and identification with the aggressor: another forensic misuse of a psychiatric concept

Some psychiatrists misuse theoretical concepts beyond their generally accepted dimensions in an attempt to support a conclusion favorable to a litigant or defendant. In the case presented, the concept of identification with the aggressor was used in an attempt to eliminate or minimize the effect of a confession and to buttress the claim that the confession itself was false. Quotations from the actual reports and testimony are used to reflect both this tactic and the context in which these issues were pursued, including a rather startling admission by the psychiatrist dealing with the thoroughness of his professional effort. A brief history of "identification with the aggressor" is presented, a history which contrasts with its application to rather routine police questioning. Similarly, skepticism is clearly merited when a psychitrist testifies as to truthfulness or falsity of a statement.