Today, health systems around the world are under pressure to create greater value for patients and society [81, p. 1, 119]; increasing access, improving client orientation and responsiveness, reducing medical errors and safety, restraining utilization via managed care, and implementing priority allocation of resources for high-burden health problems are examples of strategies towards this end. The quality paradigm by virtue of its strategic consumer focus and its methods for achieving operational excellence has proved an effective approach for creating higher value (...) in many sectors. If applied in a deliberate and holistic manner, the quality paradigm can bring about a more cost-effective organization of the health systems. In this article, we apply quality concepts to healthcare in a conceptual format; we characterize the health system’s customers and outputs with their quality dimensions. The product of this effort is a blueprint for a customer-driven health system which identifies six types of customers, nine types of outputs and the associated operations. As a preliminary step, a new analysis and definition of health and disease is provided. Rethinking the structure of health system in this manner and the related conceptual model can guide medical research, health sciences education, and health services policy, and help the practitioner to integrate all modern trends in healthcare delivery. (shrink)

This paper is a reply to an article by Steven Edwards in a previous issue of Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics. In this paper Edwards discusses two types of problems which he finds to be inherent in my theory of disability, mainly as presented in my On the Nature of Health, Kluwer 1995. First, Edwards discerns a tension in my basic definition of health, a tension between my “subjectivistic” and my “objectivistic” aspirations in the definition. Second, he finds that my theory (...) of disability does not allow for a distinction between disability due to illness or injury and disability which has no such (at least not immediate) background. In my answer to Edwards's arguments I claim that his first criticism must be due to a misunderstanding of my intentions. I find his second criticism to be more to the point. It raises important issues in the theory of health which partly concern our interpretation of the notion of illness. Edwards introduces the notion of capacity in order to separate between disability due to illness or injury and disability without such a background. In the last part of my paper I argue that this distinction, however, will not fulfil its purpose. (shrink)