Constitutional guarantees to health care in Spain

This analysis of the Spanish health care system is one in a series of such studies undertaken by the author, following a grid of factors that influence the delivery and financing of health care. The purpose of the national analyses is to facilitate a comparison of the United States' and other health care systems in terms of anticipated reform of the U.S. system. Analyses of the U.S. and nine other national systems are included in a book that has just been published by the College. Spain and nine additional countries will be studied in a book due for publication later this year. A final book with ten additional national analyses will appear in 1996.     

Study tour examines health care systems in Germany, Holland--Part I: A comparison of three health care systems

In October 1992, the American College of Physician Executives sponsored a study tour to Berlin, Germany, and Amsterdam, Holland. Meetings were held with government officials, third-party payers, and providers, and onsite visits were made at hospitals, clinics, and academic centers. The purpose was to study the health care delivery system in those countries and to share some insights with the countries' hosts on the U.S. system. Beginning in this issue of the journal, 5 of the 10 study tour participants describe their impressions of the tour and of the health care systems in the countries that were visited. This first report compares the health care delivery systems of the United States, Germany, and Holland. In subsequent reports, the German and Dutch health care systems will be described in greater detail and the ability of the United States to adopt European health care systems will be assessed.     

Mirror, mirror on the wall: reflections from failure to establish a truly uniform national health care policy

When the author gazed into the proverbial mirror and asked if the U.S. health care system was the fairest of them all, it shattered. In this article, Thompson tells why the system is broken and what failure to fix it means to physician executives. He suggests that we, as Americans, must reinvent ourselves by realigning our value systems and and stifling our obsession with profit before trying to reinvent health care.     

Physician payment in Canada, Germany, and the United States

As the debate about reforming the U.S. health care system intensifies, interest has focused on three alternative delivery systems: the predominantly private-sector model in the United States, the provincial-government health insurance model of Canada, and the social insurance model of Germany. The organization of physician payment is an important part of all these health care systems. To maintain an affordable system that delivers high-quality care, payment to physicians must be sufficient to attract and maintain an able group of doctors, while not exceeding an amount that the country can afford. In this article, these three systems will be examined, and an attempt will be made to apply the lessons learned from Germany and Canada to the direction of physician payment reform in the United States.     

Equitable Taxation and the Provision of Health Insurance Subsidies

Current U.S. income tax laws allow many taxpayers to exclude from taxable income part or all of the cost of acquiring health insurance through an employer‐sponsored benefit plan. This favorable tax treatment generally applies regardless of whether the employer or employee actually pays the health insurance premiums. We describe the effects of this tax policy on the U.S. tax system's horizontal and vertical equity. We also explain how taxpayers covered by employer‐sponsored plans are significantly subsidized by the government in acquiring health insurance, whereas taxpayers who acquire health insurance by other means or who are not covered by health insurance at all receive no such government assistance. We conclude that any prospective health‐care policy initiatives, including modifications to the 2010 health‐care reforms, should contemplate both the horizontal and vertical equity of the tax treatment of health insurance premiums.     

A new perspective on quality

The U.S. health care sector consumes nearly 13 percent of our nation's gross national product, $800 billion annually. Our nation allocates the highest amount per capita to health care in the world. Yet many measures of health care outcomes from these expenditures are inferior to other developed nations. The American health care system costs too much, excludes too many, fails too often, contains much excessive and inappropriate care, and knows too little about the effectiveness of the things it does. The purpose of this article is to discuss current payers' perspectives on the potential for quality improvement in the U.S. health care system.     

Is the American health care delivery system ready for change?

In October 1992, the American College of Physician Executives sponsored a study tour to Berlin, Germany, and Amsterdam, Holland. Meetings were held with government officials, third-party payers, and providers, and on-site visits were made at hospitals, clinics, and academic centers. The purpose was to study the health care delivery system in those countries and to share some insights with the countries' hosts on the U.S. system. In a series of reports that began in the July issue of the journal, 5 of the 10 study tour participants describe their impressions of the tour and of the health care systems in the countries that were visited. In this final report, the implications of the German and Dutch systems for reform of the U.S. health care system are discussed.     

The health care system should produce health

Reform of the U.S. health care system along the lines to be proposed by the Clinton Administration will not be an easy task, and it will not be accomplished quickly. A fundamental objective of the changes should be a health system whose purpose is improvement in the health of U.S. citizens, and not just the provision of services to all. This column is jointly edited by Kevin M. Fickenscher, MD, and David A. Kindig, MD, PhD, chair and member, respectively, of the College's Forum on National Health Policy. Dr. Fickenscher is participating in various advisory capacities on health care in the Clinton Administration, and Dr. Kindig is Senior Advisor to HHS Secretary Donna Shalala.     

25 Health care trends. What's hot,what's not,and what does the future hold

As we usher in 2003, America's health care system remains in a chaotic state. Will managed care live or die? Will quality improvement efforts pay off? Are we ready for the next bioterrorism attack? Will the shortage of physician soon rival the shortage of nurses? To help gauge where health care stands today and what the future holds, The Physician Executive asked doctors who serve on ACPE's peer review panel to list the hottest health care trends in the U.S right now. Then, we took the list to three respected health care futurists -- Leland Kaiser, PhD, Jeff Goldsmith, PhD, and Russel Coile, MBA -- and asked them for their insights on the trends. Yes, Kaiser, Goldsmith and Coile are opinionated. Yes, they're controversial. But no matter whether you agree or disagree with their views, the three health care futurists' comments could spark discussions that will help shape U.S. health care this year and beyond. The trends are presented in no particular order.     

The Changing Character of Regulation: A Comparison of Europe and the United States

European and U.S. regulatory policies have changed considerably over the past 30 years. In Europe, since the mid-1980s, consumer and environmental regulation has become more politically salient and regulations have by and large become stricter. On the other hand, in the United States consumer and environmental issues have become less salient and contentious, and regulations have not become (comparatively) stricter. This apparent "flip-flop" of regulatory systems has not been analyzed in much detail to date. This perspective is an attempt to analyze some examples in which it has occurred and identifies one possible cause--namely, credibility.     

Reducing health care costs: a case for quality

Today, it is not quality or access but cost that has become the primary motivator for change in the U.S. health care delivery system. Cost, as the driver, has created a frenzy of nationwide activity, searching, examining, and testing any and all ways that offer promise of financial health care stability. And cost, not quality or access, is the principal motivator for the ever accelerating national health care policy debate. But there is a relationship between costs and quality that has to be addressed if quality is to be maintained.     

New management opportunities and the Kentucky River case.

Physicians and other health care workers seeking to unionize may face an uphill battle as a result of a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that essentially defines nurses and physicians as supervisory personnel who can't engage in collective bargaining. Discover what led to the decision and how it affects health care.     

Meet the mandate to measure clinical quality

The mandate for health care organizations to be accountable for quality, as well as price, is now unavoidable. The Joint Commission's ORYX project is requiring every hospital to measure clinical outcomes of a majority of its patients within the next three years. This mandate can be met best with systems of clinical outcomes measurement that provide valid, reliable risk adjustment; yield meaningful information about many different diseases and procedures; and measure more than mortality or cost--all using primarily billing data. New outcomes measurement tools with all of these capabilities are available and have already enabled quality improvement in dozens of hospitals across the U.S.     

Purchasers and the impact of managed care on physicians

In much the same way that demands by managed care organizations are shaping the way physicians practice, health care purchasers impact how managed care organizations operate. Corporations purchase managed health care through their employee benefits programs, and understanding the language, objectives, and limitations of these purchasers is essential to grasping the forces influencing managed care organizations and the modern practice of medicine. The emergence of value-based purchasing as a strategic corporate approach to health benefits programs will dictate the forces on physicians, hospitals, and managed care organizations for years to come. These forces have already led to price reductions, health plan accreditation, employee-directed report cards, outcomes management, and organized systems of care, and they will determine the broad outlines of the emerging U.S. health care system.     

What kind of leaders will be successful?

The U.S. health care system is fundamentally changing. The pace of change is swift but will vary, depending on regional market forces and state legislative mandates. This complex change is leading to rapid market consolidation of providers and insurers into organizations called "integrated health care systems." There is, as yet, no proven role model that will guarantee success. The purpose of this article is two-fold: To help individuals who see an expanding role for themselves in integrated health care management decide if they have what it is going to take to be successful. To identify individual management training needs by use of a self-evaluation tool. Some of the needed skills can be enhanced by education and experience. However, some are personality and style characteristics that may not be changeable.     

Fast forward: a blueprint for the future from the Institute of Medicine

A newly released report from the Institute of Medicine outlines an ambitious program for changing the direction of U.S. health care. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century recommends switching health system priorities from predominantly acute care treatment to focusing on chronic medical conditions. The report also recognizes 15 conditions that it says should take priority for funding and support from all health care agencies. Evidence-based medicine must be fostered and the entire fabric of medical care must become more patient-centered. The IOM report proposes six aims for our 21st Century health care system. The system we should strive for needs to be: (1) safe; (2) effective; (3) patient-centered; (4) timely; (5) efficient; and (6) equitable. This article looks at some of the IOM recommendations and analyzes their strengths and weaknesses. Ultimately, the report advocates an environmental restructuring of health care in the United States.     

The evolving role of the primary care physician

In today's climate of health care reform, the title of this article might more appropriately be "Is the Role of the Primary Care Physician Evolving or Going the Way of the Dinosaur?" According to Koop, primary care is in trouble. Whereas only 29 percent of U.S. physicians are primary care physicians, in Great Britain, 72 percent of physicians are primary care physicians and in Europe and Canada the average is 50 percent. Many U.S. primary care physicians are in the later stages of their careers and nearing retirement age. Unless the supply increases, this number will dwindle further. However, in 1992, only 14 percent of U.S. medical school graduates were headed for primary care careers. Even if the supply of primary care graduates were increased to 50 percent of the graduating medical school class, it would be well into the next century before the ratio of primary care physicians to specialists would be equal. Primary care is at a critical juncture and the next few years will decide the fate of the primary care physician. Given the state of primary care today, I believe that a fundamental look at the assumptions regarding the role of primary care physicians is in order. The current health reform movement has placed a major responsibility on primary care to solve many of the problems in health care delivery today, such as cost, utilization, and prevention. Many health care organizations are planning strategies involving primary care providers, and physician executives can play a key role in these decisions.     

Mandated benefits: a misguided effort

The U.S. Congress is toying with the creation of universally mandated benefits for health care, most specifically in the health care reform proposal offered by the Clinton Administration. The notion of mandated benefits has already become a part of the health care scene in insurance and managed care plans. Instead of benefiting U.S. citizens as a whole, however, mandated benefits are likely to result in a reduction in health care accessibility and quality. The reason is that mandated benefits consume a continuously growing portion of the health care pie. Deming demonstrated that quality brings lower costs, but to obtain quality we must commit adequate resources. The free allocation of resources is negated by mandated benefits.     

Health care enters the real world.

The U.S. health care system is undergoing restructuring as a result of a complex interplay of social, political, and economic forces. Where once the medical profession had a monopoly position in the health care system, its position has been challenged by the Federal Trade Commission under the Sherman Antitrust Act. More and more, the health care field is characterized by entrepreneurialism, a concept that is at odds with the traditional tenets of the medical profession. The restructuring of health care in the U.S. has the potential to allow the entrepreneur to function to the benefit of patients, despite the fact that this is a change resisted by those providing health care services.     

Spirituality and the physician executive

The "s" word can now be spoken without flinching in health care organizations. Spirituality is becoming a common topic in management conferences around the world. Many U.S. corporations are recognizing the role of spirituality in creating a new humanistic capitalism that manages beyond the bottom line. Spirituality refers to a broad set of principles that transcend all religions. It is the relationship between yourself and something larger, such as the good of your patient or the welfare of the community. Spirituality means being in right relationship to all that is and understanding the mutual interdependence of all living beings. Physician executives should be primary proponents of spirituality in their organizations by: Modeling the power of spirituality in their own lives; integrating spiritual methodologies into clinical practice; fostering an integrative approach to patient care; encouraging the organization to tithe its profits for unmet community health needs; supporting collaborative efforts to improve the health of the community; and creating healing environments.