Universal access to health care is still a dream rather than a reality in the United States. This is partly because a rule of rescue, by impelling us to help people in need, urges us to ignore the limits of our health care policies wherever those limits would adversely affect a given individual. As the rule of rescue undermines whatever limits we set on health care entitlements, it can thwart the cost containment so essential to expanding access. Rather than accept (...) unlimited expense, we have thus far declined to universalize health care. The situation is exacerbated by an economic insulation shielding patients and physicians from the costs of care, prompting both to regard health care as free, an unlimited right. To reverse this costly entitlement mentality and place reasonable limits on rescue, patients must exercise greater personal responsibility for the costs of their care by directly experiencing some of the economic consequences of their health care decisions. Several mechanisms are available to accomplish this goal without posing economic barriers to needed care or penalizing people for becoming ill. Keywords: Clinton health plan, rationing, rule of rescue CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this? (shrink)

Several prominent cases have recently highlighted tension between the interests of individuals and those of the broader population in gaining access to health care resources. The care of Helga Wanglie, an elderly woman whose family insisted on continuing life support long after she had lapsed into a persistent vegetative state, cost approximately $750,000, the majority of which was paid by a Medi-gap policy purchased from a health maintenance organization. Similarly, Baby K was an anencephalic infant whose mother, believing that all (...) life is precious regardless of its quality, insisted that the hospital where her daughter was born provide mechanical ventilation, including intensive care, whenever respiratory distress threatened her life. Over the hospital's objections, courts ruled that aggressive care must be provided. Much of Baby K's care was covered by her mother's HMO policy. In the 1993 case of Fox v. HealthNet, a jury awarded $89 million to the family of a woman whose HMO had refused, as experimental, coverage for autologous bone marrow transplant in treating her advanced breast cancer. (shrink)

Responding to mounting public concern about the shift to managed care, legislation to grant patient protections has dominated the health policy agenda over the past two years. Although some policies, such as laws on maternity length of stay, can be easily dismissed as “body part by body part” micromanagement of medical practice, other initiatives offer substantive, new rights to patients across the spectrum of care. At both the state and the federal levels, the right of enrollees to appeal a denial (...) of treatment or to file grievances about other plan decisions has emerged as a centerpiece of patient protection legislation. Grievance and appeal rights have been embraced as a way to empower patients, to enhance access to treatment, and to improve the quality of care by providing an external mechanism to review treatment denials. (shrink)

The increased competition for a share of the market of insured patients, which arose in the wake of failed comprehensive health care reform, has provoked questions about what, if any, standards will govern new “competitive” health care organizations. Managed care arrangements, which typically shift to providers and patients some or all of the financial risk for patient care, are of special concern because they can create incentives to withhold beneficial care from patients. Of course, fee-for-service medical practice creates incentives to (...) provide unnecessary services, and managed care can avoid that type of harm. Still, as Edmund Pellegrino has noted, “managed care, by its nature, places the good of the patient into conflict with … the good of all the other patients served by the plan; the good of the plan and the organization, themselves…; and the self-interest of the physician. (shrink)

The increased competition for a share of the market of insured patients, which arose in the wake of failed comprehensive health care reform, has provoked questions about what, if any, standards will govern new “competitive” health care organizations. Managed care arrangements, which typically shift to providers and patients some or all of the financial risk for patient care, are of special concern because they can create incentives to withhold beneficial care from patients. Of course, fee-for-service medical practice creates incentives to (...) provide unnecessary services, and managed care can avoid that type of harm. Still, as Edmund Pellegrino has noted, “managed care, by its nature, places the good of the patient into conflict with … the good of all the other patients served by the plan; the good of the plan and the organization, themselves…; and the self-interest of the physician. (shrink)

How should medical services be distributed within society? Who should pay for them? Is it right that large amounts should be spent on sophisticated technology and expensive operations, or would the resources be better employed in, for instance, less costly preventive measures? These and others are the questions addreses in this book. Norman Daniels examines some of the dilemmas thrown up by conflicting demands for medical attention, and goes on to advance a theory of justice in the distribution of health (...) care. The central argument is that health care, both preventive and acute, has a crucial effect on equality of opportunity, and that a principle guaranteeing equality of opportunity must underly the distribution of health-care services. Access to care, preventive measures, treatment of the elderly, and the obligations of doctors and medical administrations are fully discussed, and the theory is shown to underwrite various practical policies in the area. (shrink)