Engaging consumers more directly in their care may improve health outcomes and help control the costs of care. This program will focus on the potential for changing consumer behavior to promote the use of effective interventions and discourage unnecessary care.
The experience of other countries may help inform the debate as U. S. policymakers grapple with health reform and the regulatory mechanisms needed to contain costs while improving quality, efficiency and coverage.
Health care access, particularly access to primary care, is on the minds of all who are following health reform efforts in Congress. President Obama has said that expanding access to health care to more Americans is one of the main goals of reform. Democrats and Republicans from both houses agree that any reform plan must increase access. But how can that goal be accomplished, particularly in a time when reducing health care costs and increasing quality are also priorities?
One of the various proposals to expand coverage to the more than 45 million uninsured Americans is referred to as the “public plan option.” Though proposed only as part of a broader effort to expand coverage, the option is viewed in varying lights. Some see it as a tool for providing consumers affordable coverage by stimulating competition on the basis of quality and efficiency. Others see it as unfair competition for private insurers and, in the extreme, as a path to a single-payer system.
Provider payment policy is a hot topic again with the Medicare physician payment system due for a fix and value-based payment and other cost containment/quality schemes on the table as part of the health reform debate. This briefing sponsored by the Alliance and The Commonwealth Fund examined cost containment options in payment reform.
It is widely accepted that the U.S. health care system, although touted by some as the “best system in the world,” has room for improvement. Many people have no regular health care provider. Care is often fragmented and lacks coordination, which compromises quality and efficiency. Incentives for providers have not caught up with the demographics of chronic care. Some 75 percent of Medicare spending is on beneficiaries with five or more chronic conditions – and those people see an average of 14 different physicians a year.
The U.S. health care system is often touted as a model for the rest of the world. We are clearly a leader in costs, but how well are we performing in return for our high investment? How do we do compare to benchmarks of achievable performance? And is performance getting better?
With the health reform discussion in full swing, improving value for the money we spend on health care is an essential part of the debate. Nurses can play a prominent role in improving quality. A growing body of research points to the positive impact of nurses on coordinating care, reducing hospital readmissions and improving clinical outcomes – all with a potential to reduce costs.
Putting the Brakes on Health Care Costs: Would the Candidates’ Plans Work? Are There Better Solutions?
Polls show that health care is the #2 domestic issue facing the next president and Congress. But drilling down, it’s clear that for many consumers, business leaders and government decision-makers, this means: “Reduce my health care costs first, then let’s talk about covering the uninsured.”
Health information technology (IT) wins many honorable mentions. It is viewed by respected analysts and presidential candidates in both parties as a tool with the potential to save lives, improve efficiency and increase the overall quality of our health care delivery system.
Comparative effectiveness research holds out the tantalizing prospect of making it easier for patients and their doctors to choose the best treatment, thus improving quality. At the same time, it could also justify denying or reducing payment for a host of treatments or procedures that may be clinically ineffective or unworthy of their high price.
No matter who wins the White House and control of Congress in November, health reform legislation will likely be a front-burner issue for both House and Senate in 2009. The debates about reform, and the behind-the-scenes meetings, of 1993 and 1994 produced a wealth of knowledge on what should be done differently the next time Congress takes up this issue. What derailed health reform in 1994? What tactical and strategic decisions, in areas such as timing and content, affected the outcome? What part did outside groups play? How should the issue be approached differently the next time around? What are the appropriate roles for congressional and executive branch leadership in getting reform done? This briefing, cosponsored with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, addressed these and related questions.
Health Reform Do’s and Don’ts: Veterans of the Early 90s’ Health Reform Debate Offer Advice to Today’s Reformers
Many of today’s reporters are too young to remember the last time Congress vigorously debated health coverage for all – 1993 and 94. For other reporters, that period feels “like yesterday.” Whichever camp a person is in, that debate produced a wealth of knowledge on what should be done differently the next time Congress takes up national health reform, a time that could be coming soon after the next election.
State Coverage Initiatives: Will Moving Toward Universal Coverage Make the System Work Better for Everyone?
There is mounting evidence that the U.S. system is often financially inefficient and delivers poor quality. There is also research suggesting that having so many people without insurance can adversely affect the quality of care for everyone, even those with insurance. A new report by The Commonwealth Fund sets forth principles for providing universal coverage in ways that could promote a high performance health care system. Several states are already trying to reform their health care systems.
As presidential candidates of both major parties woo the American public, particularly in early caucus and primary states, they are gravitating toward a common public concern: the U.S. health care system. Potential voters are well aware of rising premiums and higher out of pocket costs to families, the impact of high health care costs on America’s economic competitiveness and on federal and state budgets, and the ever-growing number of uninsured – now nearly 45 million. A Kaiser Family Foundation poll released in March shows that health care ranks as the second most important issue that the public would like discussed by presidential candidates for the 2008 election.
There is mounting research highlighting poor quality of care and inefficient spending in our health care system. At the same time, diagnostic and treatment options proliferate at an accelerating pace.