1
Overview of Health Care:A Population Perspective
In recent years, health care, especially its medical or curative aspect, hascaptured as never before the interest of the public, political leaders, and anattentive media. News of medical miracles, breakthroughs, disasters, defi-ciencies, and rising costs attracts a consistently high readership. For many,the fortunes and foibles of health care take on deeply serious meanings.There is a widespread sense of urgency among employers, insurers, con-sumer groups, and other policy makers about the seemingly unresolvableneed to correct problems of access and cost without compromising qualityof care. The last decade’s major economic and social changes in the UnitedStates have altered the way Americans think about the role health careplays in their lives and about the strengths and deficiencies of the complexlabyrinth of health care providers, facilities, programs, and services.
1CHAPTER
fThis chapter provides a general overview of the U.S. health care indus-try, its policy makers, its values and priorities, and its various responsesto health care diseases and problems. A template for understanding thenatural histories of diseases and the levels of medical intervention isillustrated. Major influences in the continuing growth and change of theUnited State’s health services system are briefly described in preparationfor more extensive discussion in subsequent chapters. The conflicts ofinterest and ethical dilemmas resulting from medicine’s technologicadvances and the advent of managed care are also noted.
1
49745_Ch01_001_034.qxd 1/23/08 8:48 AM Page 1© Jones and Bartlett Publishers. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
There is growing concern that health care is a big, unmanageable busi-ness that consumes over 16% of the U.S. gross domestic product andexceeds $1.5 trillion in costs. The corporatization of the health careindustry is creating major opportunities for megamergers and investors.Many health care providers and institutions have become commercialentrepreneurs beyond all expectations and to the concern of many. Thecommercialization of health care has created increasing conflicts betweenproviders on one side and policy makers, managed care organizations(MCOs), and other third-party payers on the other.
Physicians are seeking public support for their concern that managedcare may constrain expenditures without adequate regard for the qualityof care. Policy makers and care managers assert that physicians express-ing concerns over quality is a way to resist scrutiny and accountabilitywithout regard for economic efficiency. Against this contentious back-ground, health care policy debates will likely continue to be unproduc-tive. Recriminations from both sides block attempts at constructivedialogue.
Problems of Heal th Care
Although philosophical and political differences fuel the debates abouthealth care policies and reforms, there is a general agreement that thehealth care system in the United States, as in most other countries, isfraught with problems and dilemmas. In spite of its impressive accom-plishments, the U.S. health care system exhibits inexplicable contradic-tions in objectives; unwarranted variations in performance, effectiveness,and efficiency; and long-standing difficulties in its relationships with thepublic and governments.
The strategies for addressing the problems of cost, access, and qualityover the last 30 years reflect the periodic changes in political philosophies.The government-sponsored programs of the 1960s were designed toimprove access for older adults and low-income populations withoutregard for the inflationary effects on costs. These programs were followedby regulatory attempts to address first the availability and price of healthservices, then the organization and distribution of health care, and then itsquality. In the 1990s, the ineffective patchwork of government-sponsoredhealth system reforms was superseded by the emergence of market-oriented changes, competition, and privately organized MCOs.
2 OV E RV I E W O F HE A LT H CA R E : A PO P U L AT I O N PE R S P E C T I V E
49745_Ch01_001_034.qxd 1/23/08 8:48 AM Page 2© Jones and Bartlett Publishers. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
The failure of government-initiated reforms created a vacuum that wasfilled quickly by the private sector. There is a difference, however, betweenrecent governmental goals for health care reform and those of the market.Although the proposed government programs try to maintain some bal-ance among costs, quality, and access, the primary goal of the market is tocontain costs. As a result, there are serious concerns that market-drivenreforms may not result in a health care system that equitably meets theneeds of all Americans.
As Eli Ginzberg, writing in the New England Journal of Medicine,pointed out, as long as the dominant interest groups—government,employers, the public, and major provider groups—do not agree on howto change the system to accomplish widely desired reforms, the Americanpeople will continue temporizing. They are “unwilling to risk thestrengths of our existing health care system in a radical effort to remedyadmittedly serious deficiencies.”1
Understanding Heal th Care
Health care policy usually reflects public opinion. Finding acceptablesolutions to the perplexing problems of health care will depend on publicunderstanding and acceptance of both the existing circumstances and thebenefits and risks of proposed remedies. Many of the communicationproblems regarding health policy stem from the public’s inadequateunderstanding of health care and its delivery system.
Early practitioners purposely fostered the mystique surrounding med-ical care as a means to set themselves apart from the patients they served.Endowing health care with a certain amount of mystery encouragedpatients to maintain blind faith in the capability of their physicians, evenwhen the state of the science did not justify it. When advances in theunderstanding of the causes, processes, and cures of specific diseasesrevealed that previous therapies and methods of patient management werebased on erroneous premises, physicians were not held responsible.Although the world’s most advanced and proficient health care systemprovides a great deal of excellent care, the lack of public knowledge hasallowed much care to be delivered that was less than beneficial and somethat was inherently dangerous.
Now, however, the romantic naiveté with which health care and itspractitioners were viewed has eroded significantly. Since the revealing
UN D E R S TA N D I N G HE A LT H CA R E 3
49745_Ch01_001_034.qxd 1/23/08 8:48 AM Page 3© Jones and Bartlett Publishers. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
debates over President Clinton’s health care reform proposal of 1993 andthe public’s increasing exposure to the concepts of managed care, attitudestoward health care and its practitioners have changed. Whether it was evertrue, the long-held assumption by both health care providers and patientsthat their dictator–follower relationship was inviolate no longer exists.
Rather than a confidential contract between the provider and the con-sumer, the health care relationship now includes a voyeuristic collectionof insurers, payers, managers, and quality assurers. Providers no longerhave a monopoly on health care decisions and actions. Although theincreasing scrutiny and accountability may be onerous and costly tophysicians and other providers, it represents concerns of those paying forhealth care—governments, insurers, employers, and patients—about thevalue received for their expenditures. That these questions have beenraised reflects the prevailing opinion that those who now chafe under thescrutiny are, at least indirectly, responsible for generating the excesses inthe system while neglecting the problems of limited access to health carefor many.
Cynicism about the health care system has grown as increasing infor-mation about the problems of costs, quality, and access has become pub-lic. People who viewed medical care as a necessity provided by physicianswho adhere to scientific standards based on tested and proven therapieshave been disillusioned to learn that major knowledge gaps contribute tohighly variable use rates for therapeutic and diagnostic procedures thathave produced no measurable differences in outcomes. Nevertheless,recent attempts at system-wide reforms have repeatedly demonstrated theenormously complex issues that underlie the health industry’s problemsand the ineptitude of the system’s leadership in addressing them. Writingin a 2004 issue of Health Affairs, Nichols et al. described the situation asfollows: “The quest for greater efficiency in the delivery of health careservices is eternal in a country that spends far more on health care thanany other, consistently has growth in spending that outstrips that ofincome, is unable to provide insurance coverage to at least 15% of its pop-ulation, and ranks poorly among industrialized countries in system-widemeasures such as life expectancy and infant mortality.”2
Many health care system employees also have become discouraged.Institutional and agency administrators who say they care about patientsbut must reflect overriding budget considerations in every action confuseand demoralize health care workers. Most individuals in health care chose
4 OV E RV I E W O F HE A LT H CA R E : A PO P U L AT I O N PE R S P E C T I V E
49745_Ch01_001_034.qxd 1/23/08 8:48 AM Page 4© Jones and Bartlett Publishers. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
a health occupation not because of the income potential, but because theyhad a sense of caring and social justice. They made trade-offs and sacri-fices for their values only to find that the reality is quite different. Nurses,the largest component of the health care workforce, are especially frus-trated with their current role in hospitals. They feel overworked, unableto meet their own standards of quality care, and stressed to the point ofleaving the profession. It is hoped that when the health care system againbecomes stabilized in a more predictable economic environment thosecontradictory messages from higher administrative levels will cease.
Why Pat ients and Providers Behave the Way They Do
In Chapter 3, the evolution of the U.S. system of hospitals makes clearthe long tradition of physicians and other health care providers behavingin an authoritarian manner toward patients. Hospitalized patients,removed from their usual places in society, were expected to be compliantand grateful to be in the hands of someone far more learned than them-selves. The fact that submissive patient behavior has characterized evenotherwise domineering individuals when they become ill has interestedmany researchers. Because the health beliefs and actions of patients havemuch to do with their timely and appropriate use of the health care sys-tem and their disposition and motivation to cooperate in their treatment,physicians, nurses, and social scientists have studied patient behavior fordecades to try to understand the “sick role.”
In 1951, Talcott Parson suggested that ill individuals in Western-developed nations demonstrate predictable behaviors, and his theories arestill recognized as contributing to the understanding of illness behavior.Frederick Wolinsky stated that Parson’s description of the sick role was“an integral part of the socio-cultural definition of health and illness.”3
Wolinsky reviewed the four major elements of Parson’s assumptions. First,people who are ill believe that they are not solely responsible for theircondition and that it is not within their power to get well. Second, byvirtue of their diminished function, people who are ill are exempt fromnormal personal and social obligations in proportion to the severity oftheir illness. Third, because illness is undesirable, people who are sick areexpected to take appropriate action and enlist the aid of others in getting
WH Y PAT I E N T S A N D PR O V I D E R S BE H AV E T H E WAY TH E Y DO 5
49745_Ch01_001_034.qxd 1/23/08 8:48 AM Page 5© Jones and Bartlett Publishers. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
well. Fourth, people who are sick are obliged to obtain competent assis-tance, usually from a physician, to aid recovery and to comply with thetreatment and advice received.
Parson’s description of the sick role explains why patients often abdi-cate personal responsibility for their condition and recovery to a healthcare system that is more than willing to accept the authority to decidewhat is best for them. More recently, however, recognizing the benefits ofmore proactive roles for patients and the improved outcomes that result,both health care providers and consumers are encouraging significantpatient participation in every health care decision.
Indexes of Heal th and Disease
Although health care providers, researchers, analysts, and others in thehealth services industry have created a detailed and comprehensive tax-onomy of diseases and disabilities, definitions of what constitutes“health” are frustratingly ambiguous. The 1958 World Health Organizationdefinition—“a state of complete physical, mental and social well-beingand not merely the absence of disease”—is hardly measurable and rarelyachievable, certainly not for any extended length of time.4 Thus, much of“health” is so subjective that for all practical purposes, it is determinedclinically by the converse—whether individual physical, physiologic, andlaboratory test values fall within or outside of “normal” parameters.
The body of statistical data about health and disease has grown enor-mously since the late 1960s, when the government began analyzinginformation obtained from Medicare and Medicaid claims and comput-erized hospital and insurance data allowed the retrieval and explorationof huge files of clinical information. In addition, there have been contin-uing improvements in the collection, analysis, and reporting of vital sta-tistics and communicable and malignant diseases by state and federalgovernments.
Data collected over time and international comparisons reveal com-mon trends among developed countries. Birth rates have fallen, and lifeexpectancies have lengthened so that older people make up an increasingproportion of total populations. The percentage of individuals who aredisabled or dependent has grown as the health care professions haveimproved their capacity to rescue moribund individuals.
6 OV E RV I E W O F HE A LT H CA R E : A PO P U L AT I O N PE R S P E C T I V E
49745_Ch01_001_034.qxd 1/23/08 8:48 AM Page 6© Jones and Bartlett Publishers. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
Infant mortality and maternal mortality, the international indicators ofsocial and health care improvement, have continued to decline in theUnited States but have not reached the more commendable levels ofcountries with more demographically homogeneous populations. In theUnited States, the differences in infant mortality rates between inner-cityneighborhoods and suburban communities may be greater than thosebetween developed and undeveloped countries. The continuing inabilityof the health care system to address those discrepancies effectively reflectsthe system’s ambiguous priorities.
Natural His tor ies of Disease and the Levels o f Prevent ion
For many years, epidemiologists and health services planners have used amatrix for placing everything known about a particular disease or condi-tion in the sequence of its origin and progression when untreated; thisschema is called the natural history of disease. Many diseases, especiallychronic diseases that may last for decades, have an irregular evolution andextend through a sequence of stages. When the causes and stages of a par-ticular disease or condition are defined in its natural history, they can bematched against the health care interventions intended to prevent thecondition’s occurrence or to arrest its progress after its onset. Becausethese health care interventions are designed to prevent the condition fromadvancing to the next and usually more serious level in its natural history,the interventions are classified as the “levels of prevention.” Figures 1-1through 1-3 illustrate the concept of the natural history of disease and lev-els of prevention.
The first level of prevention is the period during which the individualis at risk to the disease but is not yet affected. Called the “prepathogenesisperiod,” it identifies those behavioral, genetic, environmental, and otherfactors that increase the individual’s likelihood of contracting the condi-tion. Some risk factors, such as smoking, may be altered, whereas others,such as genetic factors, may not.
When such risk factors combine to produce a disease, the disease usu-ally is not manifest until certain pathologic changes occur. This stage is aperiod of clinically undetectable, presymptomatic disease. Medical sci-ence is working hard to improve its ability to diagnose disease earlier in
NAT U R A L HI S T O R I E S O F DI S E A S E A N D T H E LE V E L S O F PR E V E N T I O N 7
49745_Ch01_001_034.qxd 1/23/08 8:48 AM Page 7© Jones and Bartlett Publishers. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
FIG
UR
E1-
1N
atu
ral
His
tory
of
An
y D
isea
se i
n H
um
ans.
Sour
ce:
Rep
rin
ted
wit
h
perm
issi
on f
rom
H.
R.
Lea
vell
an
d E
. G
. C
lark
, P
reve
ntat
ive
Med
icin
e fo
r th
e D
octo
r in
His
Com
mun
ity:
An
Epi
dem
iolo
gic
App
roac
h,3r
d ed
itio
n,
p. 2
0, ©
196
5, T
he
McG
raw
Hil
l C
ompa
nie
s, I
nc.
8 OV E RV I E W O F HE A LT H CA R E : A PO P U L AT I O N PE R S P E C T I V E
Tis
sue
and
phys
iolo
gic
chan
ges
TH
E N
ATU
RA
L H
ISTO
RY
OF
AN
Y D
ISE
AS
E IN
HU
MA
NS
HO
ST
RE
AC
TIO
N
Inte
ract
ion
of H
OS
T
an
d S
TIM
ULU
S
The
Cou
rse
of th
e D
isea
se in
Hum
ans
Pre
path
ogen
esis
per
iod
Per
iod
of p
atho
gene
sis
in th
e hu
man
H
OS
T
E
arly
pa
thog
enes
is
Dis
cern
ible
early
lesi
ons
Adv
ance
d
dise
ase
Con
vale
scen
ce
Dea
th
Rec
over
y S
timul
us o
r ag
ent b
ecom
es
esta
blis
hed
and
incr
ease
s by
m
ultip
licat
ion
or in
crem
ent
Clin
ical
ho
rizo
n
Sig
ns a
nd s
ympt
oms
Illne
ss
Dis
abili
ty
Def
ect
Chr
onic
sta
te
Inte
rrel
atio
ns o
f the
var
ious
AG
EN
T
H
OS
T
A
ND
E
NV
IRO
NM
EN
TAL
FA
CTO
RS
(kno
wn
and
unkn
own)
that
brin
g ag
ent a
nd h
ost t
oget
her
or
prod
uce
a di
seas
e pr
ovok
ing
ST
IMU
LUS
49745_Ch01_001_034.qxd 1/23/08 8:48 AM Page 8© Jones and Bartlett Publishers. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
NAT U R A L HI S T O R I E S O F DI S E A S E A N D T H E LE V E L S O F PR E V E N T I O N 9
FIG
UR
E1-
2L
evel
s of
App
lica
tion
of
Pre
ven
tive
Mea
sure
s.So
urce
:R
epri
nte
d w
ith
pe
rmis
sion
fro
m H
. R
. L
eave
ll a
nd
E.
G.
Cla
rk,
Pre
vent
ativ
e M
edic
ine
for
the
Doc
tor
in H
isC
omm
unit
y: A
n E
pide
mio
logi
c A
ppro
ach,
3rd
edit
ion
, p.
21,
© 1
965,
Th
e M
cGra
w H
ill
Com
pan
ies,
In
c.
LEV
ELS
OF
AP
PLI
CAT
ION
OF
PR
EV
EN
TIV
E M
EA
SU
RE
S
In
terr
elat
ions
of A
gent
, Hos
t, an
d E
nviro
nmen
tal
Fact
ors
Pro
duct
ion
of S
timul
us
Rea
ctio
n of
the
Hos
t to
the
Stim
ulus
Ear
ly
Pat
hoge
nesi
s D
isce
rnib
le
Ear
ly L
esso
ns
Adv
ance
d
Dis
ease
Con
vale
scen
ce
PR
EPA
TH
OG
EN
ES
IS P
ER
IOD
PE
RIO
D O
F P
ATH
OG
EN
ES
IS
Prim
ary
Pre
vent
ion
Sec
onda
ry P
reve
ntio
n Te
rtia
ry P
reve
ntio
n
H
ealth
Pro
mot
ion
1. H
ealth
edu
catio
n 2.
Goo
d st
anda
rd o
f nut
ritio
n
ad
just
ed to
dev
elop
men
tal
ph
ases
of l
ife
3. A
ttent
ion
to p
erso
nalit
y
de
velo
pmen
t 4.
Pro
visi
on o
f ade
quat
e
ho
usin
g, r
ecre
atio
n, a
nd
ag
reea
ble
wor
king
cond
ition
s 5.
Mar
riage
cou
nsel
ing
and
sex
educ
atio
n 6.
Gen
etic
s 7.
Per
iodi
c se
lect
ive
exam
inat
ions
S
peci
fic P
rote
ctio
n 1.
Use
of s
peci
fic
im
mun
izat
ions
2.
Atte
ntio
n to
per
sona
l
hygi
ene
3. B
y m
eans
of
en
viro
nmen
tal
sa
nita
tion
4. P
rote
ctio
n ag
ains
t
occu
patio
nal h
azar
ds
5. P
rote
ctio
n fr
om
ac
cide
nts
6. U
se o
f spe
cific
nut
rient
s 7.
Pro
tect
ion
from
carc
inog
ens
8. A
void
ance
of a
llerg
ens
E
arly
Dia
gnos
is a
nd
P
rom
pt T
reat
men
t 1.
Cas
e fin
ding
mea
sure
s,
in
divi
dual
and
mas
s 2.
Scr
eeni
ng s
urve
ys
3. S
elec
tive
exam
inat
ions
O
bjec
tives
: 1.
To
cure
and
pre
vent
dise
ase
proc
esse
s 2.
To
prev
ent t
he s
prea
d of
com
mun
icab
le d
isea
ses
3. T
o pr
even
t com
plic
atio
ns
a
nd s
eque
lae
4. T
o sh
orte
n pe
riod
of
d
isab
ility
D
isab
ility
Lim
itatio
n 1.
Ade
quat
e tr
eatm
ent
to
arr
est t
he d
isea
se
pr
oces
s an
d to
prev
ent f
urth
er
co
mpl
icat
ions
and
sequ
elae
2.
Pro
visi
on o
f fac
ilitie
s
to
lim
it di
sabi
lity
and
to
pr
even
t dea
th
R
ehab
ilita
tion
1. P
rovi
sion
of h
ospi
tal a
nd
co
mm
unity
faci
litie
s fo
r
re
trai
ning
and
edu
catio
n fo
r
m
axim
um u
se o
f rem
aini
ng
ca
paci
ties
2. E
duca
tion
of th
e pu
blic
and
indu
stry
, to
utili
ze th
e
re
habi
litat
ed
3. A
s fu
ll em
ploy
men
t as
poss
ible
4.
Sel
ectiv
e pl
acem
ent
5. W
ork
ther
apy
in h
ospi
tals
6.
Use
she
ltere
d co
lony
49745_Ch01_001_034.qxd 1/23/08 8:48 AM Page 9© Jones and Bartlett Publishers. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
FIG
UR
E 1
-3N
atu
ral
His
tory
of
Can
cer.
Sour
ce:
Rep
rin
ted
wit
h
perm
issi
on f
rom
H.
R.
Lea
vell
an
d E
. G
. C
lark
, P
reve
ntat
ive
Med
icin
e fo
r th
e D
octo
r in
His
Com
mun
ity:
An
Epi
dem
iolo
gic
App
roac
h,3r
d ed
itio
n,
p. 2
72–2
73,
© 1
965,
Th
e M
cGra
w H
ill
Com
pan
ies,
In
c.
10 OV E RV I E W O F HE A LT H CA R E : A PO P U L AT I O N PE R S P E C T I V E
Loca
l can
cero
us g
row
th
Res
pons
e m
ay d
epen
d on
indi
vidu
al
fam
ily o
r et
hnic
her
itage
NAT
UR
AL
HIS
TOR
Y O
F C
AN
CE
R
Nat
ural
cou
rse
of c
ance
r
PR
EPA
TH
OG
EN
ES
IS P
ER
IOD
P
ER
IOD
OF
PAT
HO
GE
NE
SIS
Dea
th
Clin
ical
ho
rizo
n
Late
nt
perio
d
Rea
ctio
n of
HO
ST
Rem
ote
met
asta
sis
Reg
iona
l sp
read
Org
an
lo
caliz
atio
n
with
sig
ns a
nd s
ympt
oms
Can
cer
in s
ite:
as
ympt
omat
ic c
ance
r,
tissu
e ch
ange
s po
tent
ially
iden
tifia
ble
Term
inal
st
age C
hron
ic
stat
e
INT
ER
AC
TIO
N O
F
ST
IMU
LUS
AN
D H
OS
T
Fact
ors
cont
ribut
ing
to th
e oc
curr
ence
and
dist
ribut
ion
of c
ance
r
AG
EN
T F
AC
TOR
S:
C
hem
ical
car
cino
gens
(or
gani
c)
and
inor
gani
c
Phy
sica
l car
cino
gens
N
utrit
iona
l
Bio
logi
cal (
schi
stos
ome)
EN
VIR
ON
ME
NTA
L FA
CTO
RS
:
Clim
ate
(inte
nsity
of u
ltrav
iole
t)
Air
and
wat
er q
ualit
y
Soc
ioec
onom
ic
HO
ST
FA
CTO
RS
:
Age
, rac
e, g
ende
r
Her
edity
and
fam
ilial
C
onst
itutio
nal
H
abits
and
cus
tom
s
Pre
canc
erou
s le
sion
s
Inte
ract
ions
prod
uce
the
inci
ting
fact
ors,
th
e S
TIM
ULI
49745_Ch01_001_034.qxd 1/23/08 8:48 AM Page 10© Jones and Bartlett Publishers. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
FIG
UR
E 1
-3(c
onti
nu
ed)
Nat
ura
l H
isto
ry o
f C
ance
r.So
urce
:R
epri
nte
d w
ith
pe
rmis
sion
fro
m H
. R
. L
eave
ll a
nd
E.
G.
Cla
rk,
Pre
vent
ativ
e M
edic
ine
for
the
Doc
tor
in H
isC
omm
unit
y: A
n E
pide
mio
logi
c A
ppro
ach,
3rd
edit
ion
, p.
272
–273
, ©
196
5, T
he
McG
raw
Hil
l C
ompa
nie
s, I
nc.
NAT U R A L HI S T O R I E S O F DI S E A S E A N D T H E LE V E L S O F PR E V E N T I O N 11
LEV
ELS
OF
AP
PLI
CAT
ION
OF
PR
EV
EN
TIV
E M
EA
SU
RE
S A
GA
INS
T C
AN
CE
R
Prim
ary
Pre
vent
ion
Sec
onda
ry P
reve
ntio
n Te
rtia
ry P
reve
ntio
n
Hea
lth P
rom
otio
n E
duca
tion
of c
omm
unity
to c
hang
e at
titud
es
to
war
d ca
ncer
In
crea
sed
inde
x of
susp
icio
n R
ecru
itmen
t and
trai
ning
of s
peci
alis
ts
Env
ironm
enta
l qua
lity
Spe
cific
Pro
tect
ion
Elim
inat
ion
or p
rote
ctio
n
ag
ains
t kno
wn
and
susp
ecte
d ca
rcin
ogen
s D
etec
tion
and
elim
inat
ion
of p
reca
ncer
ous
lesi
ons
Ear
ly D
iagn
osis
and
P
rom
pt T
reat
men
t S
elf e
xam
inat
ion
Can
cer
dete
ctio
n sc
reen
ing
Sel
ectiv
e ex
amin
atio
ns
Rad
iatio
n C
hem
othe
rapy
S
urge
ry
Dis
abili
ty L
imita
tion
Con
vale
scen
t car
e C
ontin
ued
trea
tmen
t S
urgi
cal r
econ
stru
ctio
n P
rost
hese
s
Reh
abili
tatio
n P
hysi
cal a
nd p
sych
olog
ic
su
ppor
t and
reh
abili
tatio
n
49745_Ch01_001_034.qxd 1/23/08 8:48 AM Page 11© Jones and Bartlett Publishers. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
this stage. Because many conditions evolve in irregular and subtleprocesses, it is often difficult to determine the point at which an individ-ual may be designated “diseased” or “not diseased.” Thus, each naturalhistory has a “clinical horizon,” defined as the point at which medical sci-ence becomes able to detect the presence of a particular condition.Because the pathologic changes may become fixed and irreversible at eachstep in the disease progress, preventing each succeeding step of the diseaseis therapeutically important. This concept emphasizes the preventiveaspect of clinical interventions.
Primary prevention, or the prevention of disease occurrence, refers tomeasures designed to promote health (e.g., health education to encouragegood nutrition, exercise, and genetic counseling) and specific protections(e.g., immunization and the use of seat belts).
Secondary prevention involves early detection and prompt treatmentto achieve an early cure, if possible, or to slow progression, prevent com-plications, and limit disability. Most of preventive health care is currentlyfocused on this area.
Sometimes the distinction between primary and secondary preventionis unclear. For instance, screening tests, such as colonoscopy and mam-mography are always considered secondary prevention procedures. But,they also may identify persons with precancerous conditions, which canbe addressed to prevent the further development of cancers. Thus, suchscreening activities may also be considered “primary” as well as, “second-ary” prevention.
Tertiary prevention consists of rehabilitation and maximizing remain-ing functional capacity when disease has occurred and left residual dam-age. This stage represents the most costly, labor-intensive aspect ofmedical care and depends heavily on effective teamwork by representa-tives of a number of health care disciplines.
Figure 1-4 illustrates the natural history and levels of prevention forthe aging process. Although aging is not a disease, it is a condition thatis often accompanied by medical, mental, and functional problems thatshould be addressed by a range of health care services at each level ofprevention.
The natural history of diseases and the levels of prevention are pre-sented to illustrate two very important aspects of the U.S. health care sys-tem. First, it quickly becomes apparent in studying the natural historyand levels of prevention for almost any of the common causes of disease
12 OV E RV I E W O F HE A LT H CA R E : A PO P U L AT I O N PE R S P E C T I V E
49745_Ch01_001_034.qxd 1/23/08 8:48 AM Page 12© Jones and Bartlett Publishers. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
FIG
UR
E 1
-4N
atu
ral
His
tory
of
Agi
ng.
Sour
ce:
Rep
rin
ted
wit
h
perm
issi
on f
rom
H.
R.
Lea
vell
an
d E
. G
. C
lark
, P
reve
ntat
ive
Med
icin
e fo
r th
e D
octo
r in
His
Com
mun
ity:
An
Epi
dem
iolo
gic
App
roac
h,3r
d ed
itio
n,
p. 2
72–2
73,
© 1
965,
Th
e M
cGra
w H
ill
Com
pan
ies,
In
c.
NAT U R A L HI S T O R I E S O F DI S E A S E A N D T H E LE V E L S O F PR E V E N T I O N 13
NAT
UR
AL
HIS
TOR
Y O
F A
GIN
G
PR
EPA
TH
OG
EN
ES
IS P
ER
IOD
PE
RIO
D O
F P
ATH
OG
EN
ES
IS
INT
ER
AC
TIO
N
Chr
onic
phy
sica
l/men
tal
cogn
itive
dis
abili
ty
Chr
onic
dis
ease
s co
gniti
ve d
ysfu
nctio
n
Chr
onic
con
ditio
ns
Dec
reas
ed
body
str
engt
h,
coor
dina
tion,
bal
ance
, de
xter
ity, c
ogni
tion
Phy
sica
l and
/or
men
tal d
eter
iora
tion
illne
ss, a
ccid
ent,
sign
s, s
ympt
oms
CLI
NIC
AL
HO
RIZ
ON
Phy
siol
ogic
and
/or
m
enta
l cha
nges
C
linic
al
D
eath
re
cove
ry
Hea
lth P
rom
otio
n
Hea
lth e
duca
tion
Wel
lnes
s pr
omot
ion
Nut
ritio
nE
xerc
ise
Ade
quat
e ho
usin
gA
void
ance
of a
lcoh
ol,
dr
ugs,
and
toba
cco
Str
ess
redu
ctio
n
Spe
cific
Pro
tect
ion
Imm
uniz
atio
nP
erso
nal h
ygie
neD
river
’s e
duca
tion
Sea
t bel
tsA
ccid
ent p
rote
ctio
nR
educ
tion
of r
isk
fact
ors—
ch
oles
tero
l, w
eigh
t, et
c.
Ear
ly D
iagn
osis
and
Tre
atm
ent
Per
iodi
c ph
ysic
als
Sel
f-ex
amin
atio
nP
rimar
y ca
re c
ente
rs fo
r
olde
r ad
ults
Men
tal h
ealth
cou
nsel
ing
Pre
vent
ive
care
/scr
eeni
ng
ce
nter
sA
cute
car
e
Dis
abili
ty L
imita
tion
Sub
acut
e ca
re
Hea
ring
and
visi
on s
ervi
ces
Con
vale
scen
t car
e P
sych
iatr
ic c
are
Hom
e ca
re
Hom
e-ba
sed
chem
othe
rapy
P
erso
nal e
mer
genc
y
re
spon
se
Hou
sing
for
olde
r ad
ults
Reh
abili
tatio
n P
hysi
cal a
nd p
sych
olog
ical
reha
bilit
atio
n C
ardi
ac a
nd s
trok
e
re
habi
litat
ion
Inpa
tient
and
out
patie
nt
oc
cupa
tiona
l and
phys
ical
ther
apie
s,
sp
eech
, res
pira
tory
ther
apie
s H
ome
care
Long
-Ter
m S
uppo
rt
Soc
ial a
nd m
edic
al m
odel
s A
dult
day
care
C
ongr
egat
e di
ning
In
stitu
tiona
l and
noni
nstit
utio
nal s
kille
d
nu
rsin
g ca
re
Ass
iste
d liv
ing
with
boar
d an
d ca
re
Per
sona
l ser
vice
s fo
r
ac
tiviti
es o
f dai
ly li
ving
H
ome
care
H
ome
deliv
ered
mea
ls,
eq
uipm
ent,
tran
spor
tatio
n,
ho
usek
eepi
ng, s
truc
tura
l
chan
ges,
hem
odia
lysi
s,
re
spira
tory
, etc
.
AG
EN
T F
AC
TOR
SP
hysi
cal—
sunl
ight
r
adia
tion
Car
cino
gens
Bio
logi
cal
EN
VIR
ON
ME
NTA
L FA
CTO
RS
Hou
sing
Phy
sica
l Ris
ks
HO
ST
FA
CTO
RS
Age
, rac
e, g
ende
rH
ered
ity a
nd fa
mili
alC
ultu
reO
ccup
atio
nal
Beh
avio
ral
49745_Ch01_001_034.qxd 1/23/08 8:48 AM Page 13© Jones and Bartlett Publishers. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
and disability that the focus of health care historically has been directed atthe curative and rehabilitative side of the disease continuum. Serious atten-tion has been paid to refocusing the system on the health promotion/disease prevention side of those disease schemas only after the costs ofdiagnostic and remedial care became an unacceptable burden and the lackof adequate insurance coverage for over 40 million Americans became apublic and political embarrassment.
The second important aspect of the natural history concept is its valuein planning community services. The illustration on aging is a goodexample. That natural history and service levels blueprint provides theplanning framework for a multidisciplinary health services planninggroup to identify and match the community’s existing services with thoseproposed in the idealized levels of prevention. Within this framework, thegroup begins to plan and initiate the services necessary to fill the gaps.
Major Stakeholders in the U.S . Heal th Care Industry
It is important to come to an understanding of the health care industryand to recognize the number and variety of its stakeholders. The some-times shared and often conflicting concerns, interests, and influences ofthese constituent groups cause them to shift alliances periodically tooppose or champion specific reform proposals.
The PublicFirst and foremost among health care stakeholders are the patients whoconsume the services. Although all are concerned with the issues of costand quality, those who are uninsured or underinsured have an overridinguncertainty about access. It would be unrealistic to assume that the U.S.public will some day wish to treat health care like other inherent rights,such as education or police protection, but there is general agreement thatsome basic array of health care services should be available to all U.S. cit-izens. If and when the problem of universal access will be addressed polit-ically in that or any other manner is open to conjecture. In the meantime,however, consumer organizations, such as the American Association ofRetired Persons, and disease-specific groups, such as the American Cancer
14 OV E RV I E W O F HE A LT H CA R E : A PO P U L AT I O N PE R S P E C T I V E
49745_Ch01_001_034.qxd 1/23/08 8:48 AM Page 14© Jones and Bartlett Publishers. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
Society, the American Heart Association, and labor organizations, arepolitically active on behalf of various consumer constituencies.
EmployersEmployers constitute an increasingly influential group of stakeholders inhealth care because they not only are paying for a high proportion of thecosts but are also taking more proactive roles in determining what thosecosts should be. Large private employers, coalitions of smaller privateemployers, and public employers now wield significant authority in man-aged care and other insurance plan negotiations. In addition, employerorganizations representing small and large businesses wield considerablepolitical power in the halls of Congress.
ProvidersHealth care professionals are the core of the industry and have the most todo with the actual process and outcomes of the service provided.Physicians, dentists, nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants,pharmacists, podiatrists, chiropractors, and a large array of allied healthproviders working as individuals or in group practices and staffing healthcare institutions are responsible for the quality and, to a large extent, costof the health care system.
Hospitals and Other Health Care FacilitiesMuch of the provider activity, however, is shaped by the availability andnature of the health care institutions in which providers work. Hospitalsof different types—general, specialty, teaching, rural, profit or not-for-profit, and independent or multifacility systems—are central to the exist-ing health care system; however, they are becoming but one component ofmore complex, integrated delivery system networks that also includenursing homes and other levels of care, medical practices, and MCOs.
GovernmentsSince the advent of Medicare and Medicaid, federal and state governments,already major stakeholders in health care, have become the dominant
MA J O R STA K E H O L D E R S I N T H E U.S. HE A LT H CA R E IN D U S T RY 15
49745_Ch01_001_034.qxd 1/23/08 8:48 AM Page 15© Jones and Bartlett Publishers. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
authorities over the system. Governments serve not only as payers but alsoas regulators and providers through public hospitals, state and local healthdepartments, Veterans Affairs medical centers, and other facilities. Inaddition, of course, governments are the taxing authorities that generatethe funds to support the system.
Alternative TherapiesUnconventional health therapies—those not usually taught in establishedmedical and other health professional schools—contribute significantlyto the amount, frequency, and cost of health care. In spite of the scientificlogic and documented effectiveness of traditional, academically basedhealth care, it is estimated that one in three adults uses alternative formsof health interventions each year and that more office visits are made toalternative care providers than to primary care physicians.
It is estimated that over $10 billion per year is spent on such alternativeforms of health care as rolfing, yoga, spiritual healing, relaxation tech-niques, herbal remedies, energy healing, megavitamin therapy, the com-monly recognized chiropractic treatments, and a host of exotic mind–body healing techniques.5
The public’s willingness to spend so much time and money on uncon-ventional therapies suggests a substantial level of dissatisfaction with tra-ditional scientific medicine. The popularity of alternative forms oftherapy also indicates that its recipients confirm the effectiveness of thetreatments by referring others to their practitioners. Whether or not thesemethods can be rationalized scientifically, if people feel better with theiruse and they do not deter individuals with treatable diseases from seekingconventional therapy, the methods serve a beneficial purpose. Insurancecompanies and MCOs are now considering alternative therapies as lessexpensive and probably equally effective options for keeping their benefi-ciaries feeling well.
In January 1995, the Wall Street Journal reported that several of thelargest individual health insurance companies, including Mutual ofOmaha and Prudential Insurance Company of America, began paying forselected unconventional therapies for heart disease and other chronic con-ditions.6 In addition, the National Institutes of Health has established anOffice of Alternative Medicine to fund studies of the efficacy of such ther-apies. Thus, as a somewhat paradoxical development, some of the most
16 OV E RV I E W O F HE A LT H CA R E : A PO P U L AT I O N PE R S P E C T I V E
49745_Ch01_001_034.qxd 1/23/08 8:48 AM Page 16© Jones and Bartlett Publishers. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
ancient concepts of alternative health care are gaining broader recognitionand acceptance in an era of the most innovative and advanced high-technology medicine.
More for monetary than therapeutic reasons, a number of hospitals arenow offering their patients some form of alternative medicine. Accordingto an American Hospital Association survey, over 15% of U.S. hospitalshad opened alternative or complimentary medicine centers by the year2000. With a market estimated to be over $27 billion and patients willingto pay cash for alternative medicine treatments, hospitals are willing torationalize the provision of several “unproven” services.7
Managed Care Organizations and Other InsurersThe insurance industry has long been a major stakeholder in the healthcare industry and probably has had more to do with defeating the Clintonhealth care reform plan than any other group. Although the traditional,indemnity-type plans such as Blue Cross and Blue Shield are beingreplaced rapidly by managed care plans, they still are very much in evi-dence. Managed care plans may be owned by insurance companies just asthe indemnity plans are, or they may be owned by hospitals, physicians,or consumer cooperatives. MCOs and the economic pressures they canapply through the negotiation of capitated fees have produced much ofthe change that has occurred in the regional systems of health care duringthe last few years.
Long-Term CareThe aging of the U.S. population will be a formidable challenge to thecountry’s systems of acute- and long-term care. Nursing homes, homecare services, other adult care facilities, and rehabilitation facilities willbecome increasingly important components of the nation’s health caresystem as they grow in number, size, and complexity. The creation ofseamless systems of care that permit patients to move back and forthamong ambulatory care offices, acute-care hospitals, subacute-care ser-vices, home care, and nursing homes within a single, integrated networkof facilities and services will provide a continuum of services required forthe more complex care of aging patients.
MA J O R STA K E H O L D E R S I N T H E U.S. HE A LT H CA R E IN D U S T RY 17
49745_Ch01_001_034.qxd 1/23/08 8:48 AM Page 17© Jones and Bartlett Publishers. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
Mental HealthThe mental health component of health care is often neglected in thedebates on system reforms. Nevertheless, psychiatric hospitals, commu-nity mental health facilities, and community-based ambulatory servicesserve large segments of the population and are critically important to theeffectiveness of the health care system. Mental health and physical healthare contiguous conditions and should, but do not, generate the same con-cern and unprejudiced funding.
Voluntary Facilities and AgenciesVoluntary not-for-profit facilities and agencies provide significantamounts of health counseling, care, and follow-up and research supportand should be considered major stakeholders in the health care system. Itis interesting that although the voluntary sector traditionally has notreceived the recognition it deserves for its contribution to the nation’shealth care, it is now suggested as the safety net to replace the services tobe eliminated in cost-cutting proposals.
Health Professions Education and Training InstitutionsSchools of public health, medicine, nursing, dentistry, pharmacy, optome-try, allied health, and other health care professions have a significantimpact on the nature, quality, and costs of health care. As they prepare gen-eration after generation of competent health care providers, these schoolsalso inculcate the values, attitudes, and ethics that will govern the practicesand behaviors of those providers as they function in the health care system.The influences of these schools, particularly as they contribute to the lead-ership of academic health care centers, are addressed in Chapter 5.
Professional AssociationsNational, state, and regional organizations representing health care pro-fessionals or institutions have considerable influence over legislative pro-posals, regulation, quality issues, and other political matters. Thelobbying effectiveness of the American Medical Association, for example,is legendary. The national influence of the American Hospital Associationand the regional power of its state and local affiliates are also impressive.
18 OV E RV I E W O F HE A LT H CA R E : A PO P U L AT I O N PE R S P E C T I V E
49745_Ch01_001_034.qxd 1/23/08 8:48 AM Page 18© Jones and Bartlett Publishers. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
Other organizations of health care professionals, such as the AmericanPublic Health Association, the Group Health Association of America,American Nurses Association, and the American Dental Association, playsignificant roles in health policy decisions.
Other Health Industry OrganizationsThe size and complexity of the health care industry encourage theinvolvement of a great number of commercial entities. Several, such as theinsurance and pharmaceutical enterprises, are major industries themselvesand have significant organizational influence. The medical supplies andequipment business and the various consulting and information andmanagement system suppliers also are important players.
Research CommunitiesIt is difficult to separate much of health care research from the educa-tional institutions that provide for its implementation. Nevertheless, thenational research enterprise must be included in any enumeration ofstakeholders in the health care industry. Government entities, such as theNational Institutes of Health and the Agency for Healthcare Research andQuality, and not-for-profit foundations, such as the Robert WoodJohnson Foundation and the Pew Charitable Trusts, exert tremendousinfluence over health care research and practice by encouraging investiga-tions that serve policy decision making and defining the kinds of researchthat will be supported.
Development of Managed Care
Managed care refers to arrangements that link health care financing andservice delivery and allows payers to exercise significant economic controlover how and what services are delivered. Common features in managedcare arrangements are:
• Provider panels. Specific physicians and other providers are selectedto care for plan members.
• Limited choice. Members must use the providers affiliated with theplan or pay an additional amount.
DE V E L O P M E N T O F MA N A G E D CA R E 19
49745_Ch01_001_034.qxd 1/23/08 8:48 AM Page 19© Jones and Bartlett Publishers. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
• Gatekeeping. Members must obtain a referral from a case managerfor specialty or inpatient services.
• Risk sharing. Providers bear some of the health plan’s financial riskthrough capitation and withholds.
• Quality management and utilization review. The plan monitorsprovider practice patterns and medical outcomes to identify devia-tions from quality and efficiency standards.
Health plans with these features are called MCOs. The most commonMCOs are health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and preferredprovider organizations. MCOs may directly employ medical staff, as in astaff model, or contract with independent providers or individual practiceassociations, or any combination of arrangements in between. Whateverthe arrangement, however, in managed care, the provider is always eco-nomically accountable to the payer. Managed care is discussed at length inChapter 7.
Rural Heal th Networks
Rural health systems are often incomplete, with shortages of various serv-ices and duplications of others. Federal and state programs have addressedthis situation by promoting the development of rural health networks.Although relatively new, most of these networks strive to provide localaccess to primary, acute, and emergency care and to provide efficient linksto more distant regional specialists and tertiary-care services. Ideally, ruralhealth networks should assemble and coordinate a comprehensive array ofservices that include dental, mental health, long-term care, and otherhealth and human services. Realistically, many of those services are lack-ing, and rural communities sometimes offer various incentives to attract orgain access to specific providers. When successful, however, rural healthnetworks are a significant advantage to their communities. With sufficientstructure and administrative capability, the networks can control thedevelopment of their service systems and negotiate effectively with MCOs.
With costs increasing and populations declining in many rural com-munities, it has been difficult for rural hospitals to continue their acuteinpatient care services; nevertheless, these hospitals are often criticallyimportant to their communities. Because a hospital is usually one of the
20 OV E RV I E W O F HE A LT H CA R E : A PO P U L AT I O N PE R S P E C T I V E
49745_Ch01_001_034.qxd 1/23/08 8:48 AM Page 20© Jones and Bartlett Publishers. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
few major employers in rural communities, its closure has economic andhealth care consequences. Communities lacking alternative sources ofhealth care within reasonable travel distance not only lose payroll andrelated business, but also lose physicians, nurses, and other health person-nel and suffer higher morbidity and mortality rates among those mostvulnerable, such as infants and older adults.8
Some rural hospitals have remained viable by participating in someform of multi-institutional arrangement that permits them to benefitfrom the personnel, services, purchasing power, and financial stability oflarger facilities. Many rural hospitals, however, have found it necessary toshift from inpatient to outpatient or ambulatory care. The developmentof ambulatory care services by rural and urban hospitals is a strong healthcare system trend, as is the increased use of less expensive ancillary per-sonnel. In many rural communities, the survival of a hospital depends onhow quickly and effectively it can replace its inpatient services with a pro-ductive constellation of ambulatory care, and sometimes long-term care,services.
These rural hospital initiatives have been supported by federal legislationsince 1991. This legislation provided funding to promote the essential-access community hospital and the rural primary care hospital. Both arelimited-service hospital models developed as alternatives for hospitals toosmall and geographically isolated to be full-service acute-care facilities.Regulations regarding staffing and other service requirements are relaxedin keeping with the rural settings9 and include allowing physician’s assis-tants, nurse practitioners, and clinical nurse specialists to provide primaryor inpatient care without a physician in the facility if medical consultationis available by phone.
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 included a Rural Hospital FlexibilityProgram that replaced the essential-access community hospital/rural primary-care hospital model with a critical-assess hospital (CAH) model. Any statewith at least one CAH may qualify for the program, which exempts CAHsfrom strict regulation and allows them the flexibility to meet small, ruralcommunity needs by developing criteria for establishing network relation-ships. Although the new program maintains many of the same featuresand requirements as its predecessor, it adds more flexibility to limited ser-vice hospitals by increasing the number of allowed occupied inpatientbeds from 6 to 15 and the maximum length of stay before required dis-charge or transfer from 72 to 96 hours. The new program also allows
RU R A L HE A LT H NE T W O R K S 21
49745_Ch01_001_034.qxd 1/23/08 8:48 AM Page 21© Jones and Bartlett Publishers. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
maintenance of up to 25 total beds, with a swing bed program that allowsflexibility in their use. The goal of the CAH program is to enable small,rural hospitals to maximize reimbursement and meet community needswith responsiveness and flexibility.
The Balanced Budget Act also serves rural hospitals by providing Medi-care reimbursement for “telemedicine” and other video arrangements thatlink isolated facilities with clinical specialists at large hospitals. Advances intelemedicine technology make it possible for a specialist to be in directvisual and voice contact with a patient and provider at a remote location.
Rural health care organization networks have been formed in responseto market changes. They may be formally organized as not-for-profit cor-porations or informally linked for a defined set of mutually beneficial pur-poses. Typically, they advocate at local and state levels on rural health careissues, cooperate in joint community outreach activities, and seek opportu-nities to negotiate with MCOs to provide services to enrolled populations.
Prior i t ies o f Heal th Care
Certainly, the priorities of health care—the emphasis on dramatic tertiarycare, the costly and intensive efforts to fend off the death of terminalpatients for a few more days or weeks, the heroic and often futile attemptsto save extremely premature infants at huge expense while thousands ofwomen go without the prenatal care that would decrease prematurity—contribute to the obvious mismatch between the rising costs of healthcare and the failure to improve the measures of health status in the UnitedStates. It is difficult to rationalize the goals of a system that invests in themost sophisticated and expensive neonatal services to save premature,high-risk infants while cutting back on the relatively inexpensive andeffective prenatal services that would have prevented many of those poorbirth outcomes in the first place.
If health care were to be governed by rational policies, the benefits tosociety of investing in early prenatal care that is unquestionably cost-effective would be compared with trying to salvage extremely low-weight,high-risk infants who often need prolonged care because they are inade-quately developed, dysfunctional human beings. Clearly, current prioritiesfavor heroic medicine over the more mundane, far less costly preventivecare that results in measurable economic and human benefits.
22 OV E RV I E W O F HE A LT H CA R E : A PO P U L AT I O N PE R S P E C T I V E
49745_Ch01_001_034.qxd 1/23/08 8:48 AM Page 22© Jones and Bartlett Publishers. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
The Tyranny of Technology
In many respects, the health care system has done and is doing a remark-able job. Important advances have been made in medical science thathave brought measurable improvements in the length and quality of life.The paradox is, however, that as our technology gets better and moreexpensive, more people are being deprived of its benefits. Health careproviders can be so mesmerized by their own technological ingenuity thatthings assume greater value than persons. For example, hospital adminis-trations and medical staffs commonly dedicate their most competentpractitioners and most sophisticated technology to the care of terminalpatients while allocating far fewer resources to primary and preventiveservices for ambulatory clinic patients and other community populationsin need of basic medical services. Some community hospitals are recog-nizing this disparity by conducting outreach and education programs forthe medically underserved. As long as reimbursement policies continueto favor illness intervention rather than prevention, however, most insti-tutions will find it difficult to initiate and maintain prevention initiativesand allocate staff to the potentially more productive care of ambulatoryclinic populations.
No better example of the pervasive influence of technology exists thanthat of the continuing advances in diagnostic imaging. Although clini-cians still depend on the long-established and relatively simple radiographtechnology, they now have at their disposal several new and highly sophis-ticated computer-assisted imaging techniques that vastly expand theircapability to visualize body structures and functions. The total spent onnew imaging procedures in the United States is in the billions of dollarsand is rising annually.
The recurring theme among health services researchers assessing thevalue of technologic advances is a series of generally unanswered ques-tions, such as the following:
1. How does the new technology benefit the patient?2. Is it worth the cost?3. Are the new methods better than previous methods, and can they
replace them?4. Is treatment planning enhanced?5. Is the outcome from disease better, or is the mortality rate
improved?
TH E TY R A N N Y O F TE C H N O L O G Y 23
49745_Ch01_001_034.qxd 1/23/08 8:48 AM Page 23© Jones and Bartlett Publishers. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
Although many of the latest advances have gained great popularity andwidespread acceptance, the rigorous assessments that address these basicquestions have yet to be conducted.
Much of the philosophy underlying the values and priorities of thehealth care system today can be attributed to the unique culture of U.S.medicine. That philosophy owes much to the aggressive “can do” spirit ofthe frontier. The U.S. physicians want to do as much as possible. Theyorder more diagnostic tests than their colleagues in other countries, pre-scribe drugs frequently and at relatively higher doses, and are more likelyto resort to surgery whenever possible. Patients and their physicians regardthe body as a machine, like a car, which helps explain their enthusiasm forannual checkups and devices such as pacemakers and artificial hearts.Diseases are likened to enemies to be conquered. Physicians expect theirpatients to be aggressive, too. Those who undergo drastic treatments inorder to “beat” cancer are held in higher regard than patients who resignthemselves to the disease. Some physicians and nurses feel let down whendying patients indicate that they do not want to be resuscitated or stipu-late restrictions to palliative care only.
The treatment-oriented rather than prevention-oriented health carephilosophy was encouraged by an insurance system that before managedcare rarely paid for any disease prevention other than immunization. It isalso understandable in an era of high-technology medicine that there ismuch more satisfaction and remuneration from saving the lives of theinjured and diseased than in preventing those occurrences from happen-ing in the first place.
The capitation concept and HMOs evolved from the expectation thathealth care could be improved if the financial incentives could bereversed. Rather than allowing providers to profit from treating sickness,managed care concepts reward providers for keeping patients well; how-ever, the treatment orientation so pervades U.S. health care that even thewidespread development and acceptance of HMOs have yet to result in asignificant and effective national effort to accomplish health maintenanceand disease prevention.
Socia l Choices of Heal th Care
The emphasis on cure also has disinclined the health care professions toaddress those situations over which they have had little control. Acquired
24 OV E RV I E W O F HE A LT H CA R E : A PO P U L AT I O N PE R S P E C T I V E
49745_Ch01_001_034.qxd 1/23/08 8:48 AM Page 24© Jones and Bartlett Publishers. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
dependence on cigarettes, alcohol, and drugs must be counted among thesignificant causes of impaired health in our population. The future effectson health and medical care associated with these addictions probably willexceed all expectations. Similarly, the AIDS epidemic is as much a socialand behavioral phenomenon as it is a biological one. Nevertheless, out-side of the public health disciplines, the considerable influence and pres-tige of the health care professions has been noticeably absent in steeringpublic opinion and governmental action toward an emphasis on health.Similarly, by comparison with resources expended on treatment after ill-ness occurs, relatively little attention is given to changing high-risk behav-iors even when the consequences are virtually certain and nearly alwaysextreme.
The Aging Populat ion
The aging of the U.S. population is of major significance among thehealth care system’s emerging issues. It will increasingly affect every aspectof health care. The rate of aging is five times that of overall populationgrowth. By the year 2050, it is estimated that 30% of the U.S. populationwill be over the age of 65 years. The number of persons over 85 years oldwill double, but the under-35 population will decline by 10%.
The growth of the population 65 years old and older presents a seriouschallenge to health care providers and policy makers. Those 85 years oldand older are the fastest growing segment of the aging population.Projections by the U.S. Census Bureau suggest that the population 85years old and older will grow from about 4 million in 2000 to 19 millionin 2050 (Figure 1-5).10 The size of this age group is especially demandingof the health care system because these individuals tend to be in poorerhealth and require more services than the younger elderly.
The sheer magnitude of the “baby boom” that followed World War IIand the recent levels and composition of immigration to the United Statesare important factors in the growth and diversity of the aging population.Seventy-five million babies were born in the United States between 1946and 1964, which is 70% more than during the preceding 2 decades.
Uwe Reinhardt, the James Madison Professor of Political Economy atPrinceton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public Health andInternational Affairs and a highly respected prognosticator of health care’seconomic prospects, disagrees with what he calls “the popular myth” that
TH E AG I N G PO P U L AT I O N 25
49745_Ch01_001_034.qxd 1/23/08 8:48 AM Page 25© Jones and Bartlett Publishers. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
the baby boom increase in the proportion of older people in the total U.S.population will be a major contributor to the demand for health care andto total health care spending. Although he considered it “not a trivial mat-ter in health policy,” he considered the change in age distribution of thetotal population too gradual to have dramatic impact and other factors,such as technology development and workforce shortages, more impor-tant in contributing to health care cost increases.11
Although the current population of older adults is predominatelywhite, there will be more racial diversity and more persons of Hispanicorigin within U.S. older population in the coming years. There were rela-tively large population gains among older adults of Asian and Hispanicorigin between 1980 and 1990, and those gains will increase substantiallyin subsequent decades.12
The older Hispanic population is projected to almost triple between2000 and 2050. The older Hispanic population is growing much fasterthan the older black population. The number of older Hispanics wasabout two thirds that of the black population in 2000. In 2050, olderHispanics will exceed the number of older blacks by 25%. A similar surgein the number of non-Hispanic Asian and Pacific Islanders is also pro-jected during the period. The proportion of the non-Hispanic white pop-ulation will drop significantly from 83.5% to 64.2% (Table 1-1).13
Although the older adults of the future will stay more active after retir-ing and be better educated, the burden of incurable chronic diseases of
26 OV E RV I E W O F HE A LT H CA R E : A PO P U L AT I O N PE R S P E C T I V E
FIGURE 1-5 Total Number of Persons 65 or Older, by Age Group.Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, decennial census data and populationprojections.
1900 1950 2000 2050
60
80
40
20
0
65 or older
85 or older
Total number of persons age 65 or older, by age group,1900 to 2050, in millions
49745_Ch01_001_034.qxd 1/23/08 8:48 AM Page 26© Jones and Bartlett Publishers. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
later life will be an enormous challenge to the health care system. As med-ical advances find more ways to maintain life, the duration of chronicillness and the number of chronically ill patients will increase. Conse-quently, the need for personal support will increase even more. The inten-sity of care required by frail older adults has the potential of affectingworker productivity. It is common for women to leave the workforce or towork part-time in order to care for frail relatives at a time when theywould like to build retirement benefits for their own old age.
The increased number of older persons with chronic physical ailmentsand long-term cognitive disorders raises significant questions about thecapability of the U.S. health care system. Much has yet to be learned bypractitioners serving the aged. Health care professionals are just beginningto recognize and gradually respond to the need to focus health care forolder adults away from medications or other quick-fix remedies. The sys-tem is slowly acknowledging that the traditional medical service model isinappropriate to the care of those with multiple chronic conditions.Chronically ill older patients need a multidisciplinary mix of services thatmust meet a broad spectrum of physical, medical, and psychosocial needs.This challenge will require a large increase in the number of health careproviders trained in the special philosophies and skills of geriatric healthcare. The provisions of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that institution-alized the program of all-inclusive care for the older population in therevised Medicare reimbursement scheme symbolize growing acceptanceof innovative ways to meet the needs of the older Americans.
The growing number of older adults faces serious gaps in financialcoverage for long-term care needs. Unlike the broad Medicare program
TH E AG I N G PO P U L AT I O N 27
Table 1-1 Projected Population Age 65 and Older by Race and HispanicOrigin, 2000 and 2050
Year 2000 Year 2050
Total 100.0 100.0Non-Hispanic White 83.5 64.2Non-Hispanic Black 8.1 12.2Non-Hispanic American and Alaska Native 0.4 0.6Non-Hispanic Asian and Pacific Islander 2.4 6.5Hispanic 5.6 16.4
Note: Data are middle series projections of the populations. Hispanics may be of any race.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Projections of the United States by Age, Sex, Race,Hispanic Origin, and Nativity: 1999 to 2100. Published January 2000.http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/natproj.html.
49745_Ch01_001_034.qxd 1/23/08 8:48 AM Page 27© Jones and Bartlett Publishers. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
coverage for the acute health care problems of older Americans, the long-term care services needed to cope with the chronic disability and func-tional limitations of aging are largely unaddressed by either Medicare orprivate insurance plans. With the exception of the relatively small num-ber of individuals with personal long-term care insurance, the major costsof long-term care services are borne by the individual older adults andtheir caregivers.
As a last resort, the Medicaid program has become the major publicsource of financing for nursing home care. Medicaid eligibility, however,requires that persons of means “spend down” their personal resources tomeet the means-test criteria. For those disabled older adults who seek carein the community outside of nursing homes, Medicaid offers limitedassistance. Thus, the health policy issues associated with the multidisci-plinary long-term care needs of older adults mount with every year’sincrease in the proportion of aged Americans and every upturn in thecosts of health care.
Access to Heal th Care
Much attention has been paid to the economic problems of health care,and considerable investments of research funds have been made to addressthe issues of health care quality. The third major problem, however—thatof limited access to health care among the estimated 47 million uninsuredor underinsured Americans—continues to confound decision makers.The issue, of course, is more a moral than economic one. Unlike mostother developed nations, the United States has yet to decide on the ethicalprecepts that should underlie the distribution of health care. Althoughreferences frequently are made to those millions of citizens, includingchildren, who are virtually locked out of the system, only a few profes-sionals have had the courage to address this troublesome issue in opendebate.
Polar positions have been taken by those who have addressed the ques-tion of whether society in general or governments in particular have anobligation to ensure that everyone has the right to health care andwhether the health care system has a corresponding obligation to makesuch care available. Consider these opposing viewpoints by P. H. Elias andR. M. Sade, respectively.
28 OV E RV I E W O F HE A LT H CA R E : A PO P U L AT I O N PE R S P E C T I V E
49745_Ch01_001_034.qxd 1/23/08 8:48 AM Page 28© Jones and Bartlett Publishers. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
Physicians who limit their office practice to insured and paying patients declarethemselves openly to be merchants rather than professionals. The mercantileapproach has several consequences. First, it demeans the individual physicianand cheapens the profession. Second, it puts the third-party payer, as a servicepurchaser, in a position of greater importance than the patient. Third, it fostersthe myth that physicians as a group are greedy and self-serving rather than ded-icated and altruistic. And most important, it deprives a large segment of ourfellow humans of care. Physicians who value their professionalism should treatoffice patients on the basis of need, not remuneration.14
The concept of medical care as the patient’s right is immoral because it deniesthe most fundamental of all rights, that of a man to his own life and the free-dom of action to support it. Medical care is neither a right nor a privilege: it isa service that is provided by doctors to others who wish to purchase it. It is theprovision of this service that a doctor depends upon for his livelihood. . . . If theright to health care belongs to the patient, he starts out owning the services of adoctor without the necessity of either earning them or receiving them as a giftfrom the only man who has the right to give them; the doctor, himself.15
Although health care providers debate their individual and personalobligations to provide uncompensated care, the system itself finessed theproblem for a long time by shifting the costs of care from the uninsured tothe insured. This unofficial but practical approach to indigent care wasethically tolerable as long as the reimbursement system for paying patientswas so open ended that the cost of treating the uninsured could easily bepassed on to paying patients. The cost shifting that worked under retro-spective reimbursement, however, was not feasible under prospective pay-ment and diagnostic reimbursement guidelines. Under the currentprice-competitive market pressures, health care providers are in theuncomfortable position of having to apply some kind of governmentintervention to address the problems of health care access.
Thus, the shifting winds of health care reform only underscore theconfusion of the health policy of the United States. At the same time,U.S. health policy makers would like to assure the public that the healthcare system provides all citizens with comparable access to health carewhile maintaining the freedom of the providers from government inter-ference in decisions about service production and delivery—and add forgood measure that the system exercises budgetary and cost controls in theprocess.
It is obvious that these goals are contradictory and that attainment ofany two leaves the third uncontrolled. Thus, policy makers have been
AC C E S S T O HE A LT H CA R E 29
49745_Ch01_001_034.qxd 1/23/08 8:48 AM Page 29© Jones and Bartlett Publishers. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
forced to choose among pairs of these goals or fail to achieve all three. Inthe 1990s, the government chose to let providers and insurers work outwhat care would be delivered and how, as long as they met governmentrequirements for budgetary and cost controls. The third goal, equitableaccess, seems to have been deferred indefinitely. The achievement of somekind of universal coverage that ensures that all Americans have access to abasic level of health care will not be resolved effectively until the system’sstakeholders and the supporting public can formulate and reach consen-sus on the fundamental values underlying the problem.
Qual i ty o f Care
Another health care system problem area relates to variations in the qual-ity and appropriateness of medical care. The uncertainty that pervadescurrent clinical practice is far greater than most people realize. Problemsin the quality and appropriateness of many diagnostic and therapeuticprocedures impact heavily on costs.
Since the November 1999 report of the Institute of Medicine that esti-mated that medical errors take from 44,000 to 98,000 lives per year,Congress, the president, medical institutions, and the public have beenstirred to respond to a problem that has existed for years. The increasingcomplexity of the health care system, the potency of its pharmaceuticals,the dangers inherent in invasive surgical procedures, and the potential forerror in the many information transfers that occur during hospital carecombine to put patients at serious risk. The strategies proposed to copewith these problems, as well as the physician report cards, clinical guide-lines, and other mechanisms designed to address inexplicable variations inthe provision of medical care, are discussed in subsequent chapters.
It is important, however, to recognize the seriousness of the medicalerror problem. Health care errors are the leading cause of preventabledeaths in the United States. Deaths resulting from medical mishaps inacute-care hospitals alone are between the fifth and eighth leading causesof all deaths in the United States. The overall burden on society is muchgreater when both fatal and nonfatal events are counted and when med-ical mishaps in medical offices, ambulatory centers, and long-term carefacilities are considered.16
30 OV E RV I E W O F HE A LT H CA R E : A PO P U L AT I O N PE R S P E C T I V E
49745_Ch01_001_034.qxd 1/23/08 8:48 AM Page 30© Jones and Bartlett Publishers. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
Conf l ic ts o f Interest
One of the greatest advantages of the high-technology health care systemsthat serve most metropolitan areas in the United States is the ability ofphysicians and patients to benefit from referrals to a broad range of highlyspecialized clinical, laboratory, rehabilitation, and other services. Thearray of comprehensive diagnostic and therapeutic resources available inmost communities greatly enhances the clinical capability of health careproviders and the care of their patients.
In recent years, however, more and more providers have begun toinvest in laboratories, imaging centers, medical supply companies, andother health care businesses. In many cases, these are joint ventures withother institutions that conceal the identity of the investors. When healthcare providers refer patients for tests or other services to health care busi-nesses that they own or in which they have a financial stake, there is a seri-ous potential for conflicts of interest. In fact, for the last several years, thisreferral for profit has been a sensitive medical issue during congressionaldebates. Both federal and state governments and the American MedicalAssociation have conducted studies that confirm that physician-ownedlaboratories, for example, perform more tests per patient at higher chargesthan those in which physicians have no investments. These conflicts ofinterest undermine the traditional professional role of physicians and sig-nificantly increase health care expenditures. Government attempts tolimit self-serving entrepreneurial activities of physicians are driven by eco-nomic concerns. The ethical implications should be of concern to themedical profession. A major contribution would be made to the code ofconduct for health care providers if the American Medical Associationprovided physicians with a few clear guidelines regarding the growingencroachment of commercialism on medical practice.17
Heal th Care’s Ethica l Di lemmas
Once almost an exclusive province of physicians and other health careproviders, moral and ethical issues underlying provider/patient relation-ships and the difficult decisions resulting from the vast increase in treat-ment options are now in the domains of law, politics, journalism, health
HE A LT H CA R E ’S ET H I C A L DI L E M M A S 31
49745_Ch01_001_034.qxd 1/23/08 8:48 AM Page 31© Jones and Bartlett Publishers. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
institution administrations, and the public. Since the 1970s, the list ofethical issues has expanded as discoveries in genetic identification andengineering, organ transplantation, a mounting armamentarium ofhighly specialized diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, and advancesin technology have allowed the lives of otherwise terminal individuals tobe prolonged. In addition, an energized health care consumer movementadvocating more personal control over health care decisions, economicrealities, and the issues of the most appropriate use of limited resourcesare but a few of the topics propelling values and ethics to the top of thehealth care agenda. There is a social dimension to health care that neverexisted before and that the health professions, their educational institu-tions, their organizations, and their philosophical leadership are justbeginning to address.
Clearly, the rapid pace of change in health care and the resulting issueshave outpaced U.S. society’s ability to reform the thinking, values, andexpectations that were more appropriate to a bygone era. Legislative ini-tiatives are, correctly or not, filling the voids. The 1997 decision of theU.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals permitting physician-assisted suicidefor competent, terminally ill adults in the state of Oregon is an unprece-dented example. New York State’s 1990 passage of health care proxy legis-lation that allows competent adults to appoint agents to make health caredecisions on their behalf if they become incapacitated is another. Livingwills that provide advance directives regarding terminal care are now rec-ognized in all 50 states.
Issue by issue, the country is trying to come to grips with the ethicaldilemmas that modern medicine has created. The pluralistic nature of thissociety, however, and the Judeo-Christian concepts about caring for thesick and disabled that served so well for so long make sweeping reforma-tion of the ethical precepts on which health care has been based veryunlikely.
As Americans continue to live longer and new technologies vastlyimprove the treatment of disease, a new generation of health plans willevolve. The basic issues of cost, quality, and access, however, willundoubtedly persist, joined by a host of new concerns. How to improveAmericans’ health behaviors, how to involve consumers more effectivelyin health care decisions, and how to determine responsibility for medicalmanagement are among the challenges of this decade.
32 OV E RV I E W O F HE A LT H CA R E : A PO P U L AT I O N PE R S P E C T I V E
49745_Ch01_001_034.qxd 1/23/08 8:48 AM Page 32© Jones and Bartlett Publishers. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
References1. Ginzberg E. Health care reform: why so slow? N Engl J Med. 1990; 32:
1464–1465.2. Nichols LM, Ginsburg, BA, Christianson, U et al. Are market forces strong
enough to deliver efficient health care systems? Confidence is waning. HealthAffairs. 2004;23:8–21.
3. Wolinsky F. The Sociology of Health Principles, Practitioners and Issues. 2nd ed.Belmont, CA: Wadsworth; 1988.
4. World Health Organization. The World Health Organization: A Report on theFirst Ten Years. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press; 1958.
5. Blumberg DI, et al. The physician and unconventional medicine. AlternaTher. 1995;1:31–35.
6. Carton B. Health insurers embrace eye-of-newt therapy. Wall Street Journal.January 30, 1995:B1.
7. Abelson R, Brown PL. Alternative medicine is finding its niche in nation’shospitals. The New York Times. April 13, 2002:B1, B3.
8. Fickenscher K, Voorman ML. An overview of rural health care. In: ShortellSM, Reinhardt UE, eds. Improving Health Policy and Management: NineCritical Research Issues for the 1990s. Ann Arbor, MI: Health AdministrationPress; 1992:111–149.
9. Fickenscher V. An overview of rural health care. 111–149. Annals of InternalMedicine March 1995;Vol 122, Issue 5.
10. Federal Interagency Forum. Available from http//www.agingstats.gov/chartbook2000/population.html (September 8, 2000). Accessed September 15, 2002.
11. Reinhardt UE. Does the aging of the population really drive the demand forhealth care. Health Affairs. 2003;22:27–39.
12. U.S. Bureau of the Census. U.S. Population Estimates by Age, Sex, Race andHispanic Origin: 1980–1991, Current Population Reports. Washington, DC:Government Printing Office; 1993:15-10955, Table 1.
13. Available from http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/natproj.html. Accessed January 24, 2004.
14. Elias PH. Letter to editor. N Engl J Med. 1986;314:391.15. Sade RM. Medical care as a right: A refutation. N Engl J Med. 1971;
285:1281, 1289.16. Kizer KW. Patient safety: a call to action: a consensus statement from the
national quality forum. National Quality Forum for Health Care Measure-ment and Reporting. Available from www.qualityforum.org. AccessedSeptember 16, 2002.
17. Relman AS. Self referral: what’s at stake. N Engl J Med. 1992;327:1522–1524.
RE F E R E N C E S 33
49745_Ch01_001_034.qxd 1/23/08 8:48 AM Page 33© Jones and Bartlett Publishers. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
49745_Ch01_001_034.qxd 1/23/08 8:48 AM Page 34© Jones and Bartlett Publishers. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION