The real and the nominal? Making inflationary adjustments to cost and other economic data.
(49/421)
Given the scarcity of cost data for health interventions, there has been substantial use of a relatively small number of existing studies to underpin policy development formulation. Intervention-specific cost and cost-effectiveness data have been used to plan overall budgets, to assess the relative efficiency of different interventions and to consider the resource requirements for programme implementation at both the local and national levels. Cost and cost-effectiveness comparisons have been made between these studies and general sources such as the World Bank's World Development Report 1993. At the same time, information on key health sector variables, such as annual health expenditures, has been systematically compiled for more than two decades. The question of possible inflationary effects is becoming increasingly important as the original data on which these numbers are based ages. For example, cost figures from the mid-1980s require a 60% inflationary adjustment simply to maintain their real value in current dollars. This paper looks at methods to adjust cost data to account for inflation and discusses the difference between real or constant and nominal or current values. These methods are also used to make inflationary adjustments to other types of economic data such as income. (+info)
From service to commodity: corporization, competition, commodification, and customer culture transforms health care.
(50/421)
Corporate medical practice, a market economy, and a consumer culture are transforming health care. The service relationships of doctors with patients are now commodities. The doctor, directed by disease management protocols (to improve outcomes, reduce costs, and standardize care), is, in effect, providing programmed service commodities. In addition, medical-surgical specialties, now "packaged" for the care of body parts and conditions (as Breast, Stroke, Obesity, Aneurysm Centers), are also made service commodities, marketed by newspaper advertisements, TV, radio, and Internet to patient-customers in search of a healthy body. In sum, the promise of corporate practice in a competitive market economy is greater efficiency and productivity to reduce the costs of care that are a burden on industries and the state. Viewed from office encounters with patients, such transformation of services to commodities changes the doctor-patient relationship and the moral mission of care. (+info)
Health sector reform and reproductive health in Latin America and the Caribbean: strengthening the links.
(51/421)
Many countries in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) are currently reforming their national health sectors and also implementing a comprehensive approach to reproductive health care. Three regional workshops to explore how health sector reform could improve reproductive health services have revealed the inherently complex, competing, and political nature of health sector reform and reproductive health. The objectives of reproductive health care can run parallel to those of health sector reform in that both are concerned with promoting equitable access to high quality care by means of integrated approaches to primary health care, and by the involvement of the public in setting health sector priorities. However, there is a serious risk that health reforms will be driven mainly by financial and/or political considerations and not by the need to improve the quality of health services as a basic human right. With only limited changes to the health systems in many Latin American and Caribbean countries and a handful of examples of positive progress resulting from reforms, the gap between rhetoric and practice remains wide. (+info)
"Make or buy" decisions in the production of health care goods and services: new insights from institutional economics and organizational theory.
(52/421)
A central theme of recent health care reforms has been a redefinition of the roles of the state and private providers. With a view to helping governments to arrive at more rational "make or buy" decisions on health care goods and services, we propose a conceptual framework in which a combination of institutional economics and organizational theory is used to examine the core production activities in the health sector. Empirical evidence from actual production modalities is also taken into consideration. We conclude that most inputs for the health sector, with the exception of human resources and knowledge, can be efficiently produced by and bought from the private sector. In the health services of low-income countries most dispersed production forms, e.g. ambulatory care, are already provided by the private sector (non-profit and for-profit). These valuable resources are often ignored by the public sector. The problems of measurability and contestability associated with expensive, complex and concentrated production forms such as hospital care require a stronger regulatory environment and skilled contracting mechanisms before governments can rely on obtaining these services from the private sector. Subsidiary activities within the production process can often be unbundled and outsourced. (+info)
American health care and the law--we need to talk!
(53/421)
The first section of this paper highlights five critical legal developments over the past half-century that, while not reflecting considered policy judgments about how the health care industry should operate, put American health care on some surprising paths. The second part then observes five fundamental policy contradictions discernible in health care law today, each of which reflects severe ambivalence in public attitudes toward health care. Although such confusion in the law is interesting in itself, the main purpose of the paper is to propose, in section three, the creation of a permanent high-level forum, perhaps in the Institute of Medicine, where leaders from the health and legal worlds could meet regularly with a view to helping the legal system resolve some of the policy confusion that exists. (+info)
Crisis, leadership, consensus: the past and future federal role in health.
(54/421)
This paper touches on patterns of federal government involvement in the health sector since the late 18th century to the present and speculates on its role in the early decades of the 21st century. Throughout the history of the US, government involvement in the health sector came only in the face of crisis, only when there was widespread consensus, and only through sustained leadership. One of the first health-related acts of Congress came about as a matter of interstate commerce regarding the dilemma as to what to do about treating merchant seamen who had no affiliation with any state. Further federal actions were implemented to address epidemics, such as from yellow fever, that traveled from state to state through commercial ships. Each federal action was met with concern and resistance from states' rights advocates, who asserted that the health of the public was best left to the states and localities. It was not until the early part of the 20th century that a concern for social well-being, not merely commerce, drove the agenda for public health action. Two separate campaigns for national health insurance, as well as a rapid expansion of programs to serve the specific health needs of specific populations, led finally to the introduction of Medicaid and Medicare in the 1960s, the most dramatic example of government intervention in shaping the personal health care delivery system in the latter half of the 20th century. As health costs continued to rise and more and more Americans lacked adequate health insurance, a perceived crisis led President Clinton to launch his 1993 campaign to insure every American--the third attempt in this century to provide universal coverage. While the crisis was perceived by many, there was no consensus on action, and leadership outside government was missing. Today, the health care crisis still looms. Despite an economic boom, 1 million Americans lose their health insurance each year, with 41 million Americans, or 15% of the population, lacking coverage. Private premiums are going up again as federal programs are capped and the lack of a federal framework for quality assurance leads to growing problems of access and quality that will need to be addressed as we enter the 21st century. What role will government play? (+info)
HMO market penetration and costs of employer-sponsored health plans.
(55/421)
Using two employer surveys, we evaluate the role of increased health maintenance organization (HMO) market share in containing costs of employer-sponsored coverage. Total costs for employer health plans are about 10 percent lower in markets in which HMOs' market share is above 45 percent than they are in markets with HMO enrollments of below 25 percent. This is the result of lower premiums for HMOs than for non-HMO plans, as well as the competitive effect of HMOs that leads to lower non-HMO premiums for employers that continue to offer these benefits. Slower growth in premiums in areas with high HMO enrollments suggests that expanded HMO market share may also lower the long-run growth in costs. (+info)
Socioeconomic differences in Medicare supplemental coverage.
(56/421)
In this study we compare the beneficiaries with various types of Medicare supplemental insurance coverage to examine the impact of socioeconomic characteristics on such coverage. We found that those who are more disadvantaged are less likely to have any coverage, and those who have it are less likely to have it subsidized by a former employer. These findings have direct implications for the fairness of proposed programs to provide prescription drug coverage to Medicare beneficiaries, and for the advisability of various proposals for reforming Medicare, including "premium-support" programs. (+info)