The Republican task force health reform proposal: loyal opposition or bipartisan collaboration?

In the November-December issue of Physician Executive, Drs. Fickenscher and Kindig explored the major elements of the Clinton health reform initiative, the Health Security Act of 1993. Although the Clinton proposal represents one of the major health reform proposals presently before Congress, it is by no means the only proposal. Over the next several issues, this column will provide an overview of other major proposals pending before Congress that will receive serious consideration in the coming months.     

The consumer choice model: a humane reconstruction of the U.S. health care system

"Consumer choice," "defined contribution health programs," "voucher systems," and "health marts" are variations on a theme: employees buying their own health care. This new approach to health care purchasing, which is designed to minimize the role of employers, is being proposed by an array of economists and by both Republican and Democratic legislators as the best way to address the nation's health care ills. Although enabling national legislation is unlikely to pass soon, the debate will nevertheless change the face of health care in America. The prospect is reminiscent of the debate over "Clinton Care" in 1993--although legislation was never passed, managed care rapidly came to dominate the U.S. health care system. As this reform takes hold, beneficiaries will make their own health plan selections but will have more responsibility and may bear more cost. Providers will have to adapt to new, customer-driven requirements for performance, accountability, and communications but will also find opportunities in a marketplace that they will have a major role in shaping. Physicians, health plans, and insurers should understand how these proposals will transform their role in health care.     

National health reform advocates retrench and prepare for Medicare

With the failure of President Truman's efforts to pass compulsory health insurance for all, national health reform (NHR) advocates began to redirect their political attention to a politically powerful group of Americans who were simultaneously vulnerable from a health care point of view--the elderly. This effort culminated in the passage of Medicare under President Johnson. This article will focus on antecedents to passage of Medicare that can be found in the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations. It will also discuss other facets of health reform proposals from the Eisenhower administration. While most proposals never became law, the legislative intent of many of them--outlawing cancellation of policies, a minimum standard health benefit package, establishment of regional health authorities, preference for prepayment plans, and establishment of a reinsurance pool administered by the federal government--is currently under active discussion by the Clinton health reform task forces.     

The rest of the spectrum: alternatives to managed competition

In the November-December 1993 and January 1994 issues of Physician Executive, Kevin Fickenscher, MD, and David A. Kindig, MD, PhD, described the Clinton health reform plan and the Senate Republican Task Force proposals. At either end of the political spectrum are other proposals that are options to the managed competition model. This entry in the column is the last in a series that outlines the major proposals pending before Congress. It and the others are intended to highlight the major elements of the proposals, not their details. "A Matter of Policy" is jointly edited by Drs. Fickenscher and Kindig of the College's Forum on Health Policy.     

Defining the health care product to ensure quality and manage costs

The frenzy of health care reform activity now led by the Clinton Administration's American Health Security Act of 1993 might end in the worst of all possible outcomes: a new government entitlement program financed by business and a global budget. Unbridled entitlement could drive utilization of benefits to the maximum and, with a budget cap, guarantee rationing. So far, the administration has talked about expanding access and controlling costs--not about the health care product. Given the threat that change poses for vested interests, time will undoubtedly lapse before final implementation of a new system. Unless physicians involved in health management seize the opportunity during this window of opportunity to help shape the future of health care delivery, the likelihood of preserving the U.S. health care delivery system as we know it will be dim indeed.     

Medicare and Medicaid: the first successful effort to increase access to health care

The passage of Lyndon Johnson's health care legacy, Medicare and Medicaid, in 1965 represents the last time that health reform legislation expanding access to care was successfully proposed and implemented in the United States. Access, of course, represents only half the pie in health reform, the other part being the organization of the health care system. There has never been any major legislation passed through both houses of Congress and signed by a President that changed the organization and delivery of health services. It seems certain that President Clinton will propose legislation dealing with both access to and organization of our health care system. Though it may not have seemed so at the time, President Johnson had it easy compared to the challenges confronting President Clinton.     

The Clinton health care proposal: reform squandered again!

Unlike the other articles in this series on efforts to reform the American health care system, this article is necessarily somewhat personal. I lived through it--not as a participant in the process but as a very interested bystander. To President Clinton's credit, his proposal was the first comprehensive proposal from a President since at least President Nixon and strictly speaking since President Truman. Yet, in the final analysis, the results were extremely depressing, not merely because of the obvious failure of the effort, but, even more important, because of the impact it has had on Americans' belief in the possibility for significant government role/responsibility in health care or, for that matter, in any significant domestic initiative. This article will trace portions of the failed Clinton health care initiative proposal--not the myriad other proposals that percolated through Congress. Realistically, only a proposal that had the support of the President had any chance of legislative success. This article will trace the development of the proposal and, while focusing on the universal coverage aspect, point to critical decisions that led to its legislative demise.     

The impact of health care reform on group practice

Just two years ago, it would have been very difficult to imagine that reform of the health care system would today be a national domestic priority and that Congress would be considering one of the most significant and far-reaching pieces of legislation in the past 50 years. The issue is still in doubt, but it seems clear that, in this session of Congress or the next, legislation of far-reaching consequences will likely be passed. In fact, change on a widespread scale has already begun. During 1993, every state legislature except those of Nevada and Wyoming considered measures that would alter the way medical care is financed and delivered. Of the states that acted, both last year and in recent legislative sessions, eight have passed laws with the ultimate objective of ensuring access to medical care for all citizens. Government, at both the state and federal level, is clearly taking on the health care issue. The impact of reform on physicians, and thus on group practices, will be substantial. This article outlines the current course of health care reform and addresses its specific implications for the management of group practices.     

What happened, what next?

Many physicians and other health care professionals breathed a collective sigh of relief when the 103rd Congress adjourned without passing the Clinton Health Security Act or any other health care reform legilsation. The ambition of this brief paper is to describe why health care reform did not pass in 1994, the issues that need to be resolved if we are to pass legislation, the political forces that will need to be addressed before legislation is passed, and the type of struggles we can expect to see in the coming session of Congress.     

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.     

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.     

The Nixon years: failed national health reform from both parties

In the November 1991 elections, popular support for national health reform (NHR) enabled Harry Wofford to become a U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania. Since then a bevy of congressional proposals to reform America's health care system have emerged, with even national health insurance, or a single payer system, becoming a prominent contender for the first time in 20 years. National health reform is now a regular feature on the evening news. However, this is not the first time that NHR has attracted national attention. As pointed out in the first article in this series (Physician Executive, March-April 1992, page 23), there have been numerous efforts to enact NHR in the U.S. Each has failed because of strident opposition by interest groups, lack of active presidential interest in the specific legislation, and the absence of strong popular interest.     

Health care reform. Pan American Uni-Care Health Insurance Plan

Something is definitely wrong with the American health care system. Too many citizens are denied health care, and health care costs continue to rise at an uncomfortable and intolerable rate. Ensuring care for all is a paramount goal. There is no way to simultaneously cover everyone; leave the reimbursement of physicians unrestrained; ensure instantaneous access to every imaginable high-technology service; subsidize the world's costliest and least efficient health bureaucracy; and contain costs. Widespread dissatisfaction in all quarters--physicians, hospitals, third-party payers, regulators and consumers--has led to an avalanche of reform proposals. Rapidly changing social, political, and economic environments; rising fiscal pressure; and an evolving understanding of the major determinants of health have also created pressure for changes. There are some new and hopeful signs that America is facing up to the need for changes in the health care delivery system. The Pan American Uni-Care Health Plan that is described in this article may serve as a reasonable balance among these competing priorities.     

Building a vertical provider system

There is probably no geographic area in the United States in which the health care environment is more turbulent than that of Southern California. Long before President Clinton's proposals began serious national debate on health care reform, a massive provider-driven realignment of the system was occurring in that region of the country. Multispecialty medical groups have generally led the way and have acquired ever larger managed care populations through merger and acquisition of other groups and practices. Hospitals, hampered by large fixed capital bases, have struggled to reinvent themselves as cost-effective and primary care-friendly environments in order to be attractive to managed care physicians. Almost ignored in this reconfiguration has been the university teaching hospital. This article discusses one attempt to reconcile contractually an integrated, capitated, and managed care-oriented health care system with an academic medical center in a strategic alliance.     

What will future historians say about the Clinton health reform act

In a series of articles that began in the March-April 1992 issue of Physician Executive, the author has provided historical background on the debate that currently rages on the nature and course of national health reform. In addition to tracing past efforts to expand access to health care for Americans, Dr. Goldfield has provided unique insights into the American political process and into the American psyche. In this final article in the series, Dr. Goldfield provides his personal assessment of what the chances for real reform of the health care delivery system are and his views on what that reform will ultimately look like. He calls himself a skeptic, not a cynic, saying that the likelihood of meaningful change is small, given the numerous proponents of the status quo.     

Care for all: 10 reforms that could save the system

The many problems of medical care in the United States have been stated and restated. These problems have evolved over the years and cannot be attributed to one or even a few causes. Most proposals for change are for single problems and their remedy will not produce meaningful reform, much less stop medical inflation. Today's problems are yesterday's solutions. There are 10 reforms that, if accomplished, could bring fairness, cost accountability, and financial controls to the health care system, while retaining competition and choice.     

Merging medical groups

One of the trends of the past 10 years that has marked the way physicians practice medicine is growth in the size and complexity of group practice. The reasons for these changes (better patient coverage, within-the-group referral, a larger financial base, a collegial environment, shared overhead, professional management, and packaged negotiation) are clear and are certainly valid. This trend shows few signs of slowing and may be accelerating. Indeed, most of the proposals for national health care reform seem likely to put larger groups at a competitive advantage. We have developed a highly effective procedure that helps improve the efficiency and the success of the merger process.     

The mandate for investigational cancer therapies

The heated national health care reform debate of the summer of 1993 has now simmered down, but pieces of the debate are still percolating along at the state level. Within the past year, numerous states have introduced bills that would mandate insurance coverage for investigational cancer therapies--in particular high-dose chemotherapy and bone marrow transplant for breast cancer. The problem with these initiatives, well-intended though they may be, is that they threaten to spread unproven technologies at a rapid rate and at the same time miss the opportunity to collect data that would prove the safety and effectiveness of the methods. The author explores these issues and suggests how managed care companies can play a more aggressive role in parrying the threat.     

Strategic alliances. Partnerships with a purpose

During the past few years, health care providers, managed care companies, and insurers around the country have formed a variety of strategic alliances aimed at stemming runaway costs, broadening referral bases, and generally preparing for the formal arrival of health care reform and the mandates it may carry. The list of such ventures is long and creative, and it grows as major changes in the health care delivery and financing system become more imminent. In interviews with physician executives and others whose organizations have undertaken integration efforts, the author explores some of the arrangements that are already in place or under development.     

Lessons from the Australian system

International experiences are becoming more relevant as the Clinton Administration searches for answers to America's health care problems. While interest is focused on the Canadian and European experiences, a brief look at far away Australia offers some potentially useful insights.