Distributive Justice and Health Care Reform
Underwriting the Social Contract: Distributive Justice & Health Care Reform
The Jam Statement
As health care costs climbed exponentially in the 1980’s, so did the cost of health insurance plans. As a result, employers began to enroll their employees in managed care organizations, and many Americans were forced to leave their aged indemnity type plans. With the advent of the health maintenance organization, there is a financial incentive for the underutilization of care. (Blumstein, 1996; Davis & Shoen, 1996).
In order to chop financial risk, health insurance companies have restricted enrollment to individuals in abominable health. By covering the minimal standards of treatment and excluding high risk groups altogether, major US insurance companies have realized that the health insurance market can a be an extremely respectable industry. The public sector absorbs the cost of unreimbursed care for chronic care in America (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 1996). Based upon these findings, it seems determined that the money being removed from the health care marketplace is fattening the pockets of CEOs and majority stockholders.
Original trend towards localized government leaves individuals without a financial safety win. This is the least efficient manner to handle health care costs, and evades the premise that medical care is a natural fair in a civilized society. Few Americans feel derive within the modern system. The rising costs of medical care contributed to the unusual market changes in both the administration and delivery of health services. The financial incentive to cloak only the healthiest individuals ignores the fact that medical care is a social pleasant.
Health Insurance Portability Act of 1996
Two years after the Clinton Health Belief was defeated in Congress, Senator Ted Kennedy and Nancy Kassebaum introduced the Kennedy-Kassebaum Bill in response to growing concerns about selective enrollment procedures outmoded by health insurance companies in the private sector. In the final version of the Bill, insurance companies must limit preexisting condition clauses to twelve months. It has been estimated that this provision of the Bill will befriend an estimated 150,000 Americans secure health insurance coverage.
There are many levels of the underinsured, including those without any coverage; effective policy must address the needs of the total population without shifting costs from one disadvantaged person to another. Kennedy-Kassebaum fails to address the cost issue—the well-known pain for those at risk for losing their health insurance. It does nothing to serve the uninsured pick up a decent health policy, and then provides no solution to the well-known bellow at hand— cost
Since Kennedy-Kassebaum does nothing to control the cost of health insurance and medical care in America, the Bill fails to acknowledge to the boom of greatest difficulty to the citizens of this country: the cost of medical care. The Bill looks towards the states to acquire consumer protections and weakens the regulatory role of the federal government. The majority of the American public is unaware of the care for footwork fervent with this legislation, and the demographics of the population it is intended to protect. In order to assess the utility of this Bill, it is considerable to identify the populations at risk for loosing health insurance coverage and the underinsured.
Kassebaum-Kennedy focuses on a slim fraction of the uninsured population, and those who would be eligible for COBRA continuation (Consolidated Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1974). Of the 41 million uninsured Americans, only about 150,000 are expected to aid from this legislation. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 is really nothing more than smoke and mirrors since it fails to address the upright negate at hand—the simple fact that the cost of quality health care in America is becoming a privilege that only the wealthy can afford.
The Cost of Care for Pre-existing Conditions
An individual with high blood pressure may objective require prescription medication. Cancer patients in remission may require chemotherapy, and a person suffering with a degenerative disease may be fervent in treatment studies. Each condition requires individualized treatment that cannot be based upon the simple economic/cost-benefit analysis customary in the utilization review process by expansive insurance companies. Clearly, the most effective treatment for one patient may not be the best for another. The time required for utilization review may point to additional health risks and complications to a patient suffering from a chronic health condition.
Twelve months without insurance coverage may be financially devastating to some patients, and 63% of Americans have already forgone some type of medical treatment within the last year due to financial constraints. Publicity surrounding Kennedy-Kassebaum has hailed the bill as the “be all and slay all in progressive legislation, however, in actuality it will only befriend about 150,000 people.
Unique studies have found that the majority of the uninsured population simply cannot afford to pay the premiums (Donelan et. al., 1996; Hoffman & Rice, 1996). According to their data, only 1% of the Uninsured population is due to modern health plot and exclusionary preexisting clauses, yet an overwhelming number of insured respondents reported an inability to receive medical care for chronic conditions. The majority of Americans with chronic illness are covered by some type of insurance, yet they are mild subject to the utilization review process and access problems that explain or delay medically principal treatment (Donelan, et. al., Hoffman & Rice, 1996).
Underwriting the Solidarity Principle
Used forms of insurance underwriting required that the contract explicitly dwelling which illness or services are not covered by the policy, in arrive. If the underwriter did not specifically dwelling a distinct condition in the contract, the insurer was held to the terms of the contract and required to pay for services utilized by the policyholder (Stone, 1994, as cited in Durant, 1996).
Increasing numbers of for-profit and non-profit insurance companies began to control costs by refusing to insure individuals who they felt would use more services. Insurers began to require health discover spot questionnaires (refer to attachment A), and even began implementing AIDS and genetic testing to identify high-risk individuals (Brunetta, as cited in Gutmann & Thompson, 1996). In the 1980s, huge insurance companies began including sexual orientation as a high-risk category, by using actuarial sound criteria. Such criteria concluded that overjoyed men were a higher risk for contracting AIDS virus and refused to write policies for anyone believed to be homosexual, (Stone, 1994 as cited in Durant, 1996).
By limiting enrollment to the healthiest members of society, selective enrollment undermines the solidarity principle of health insurance (Davis & Shoen, 1996; Snow, 1996; Stone, 1994). By eliminating those who were suspect of using more services than their healthier counterparts employ, insurance companies are able to offer rock bottom prices for young, healthy individuals. By excluding preexisting conditions and requiring distinct individuals to consume high-risk policies, the number of uninsured and underinsured Americans continues to grow exponentially (Durant, 1996).
More individuals are choosing not to choose insurance simply because they cannot afford it. Even among those with employer based health coverage, the policies frequently exclude coverage for long-term illness or care of chronic conditions (MSNBC News Forum, 1996). Without a standard definition of preexisting conditions, these clauses wait on as “wildcards” since they allow insurers to divulge coverage for any illness that “manifested itself before the issuing date of the policy (Stone, 1994 as cited in Durant, 1996).
This statement allows insurers to voice treatment for benefits and services for the policyholder for undiagnosed illnesses or conditions of which they were unaware. As a result, the insurers began to inquire medical histories of applicants and their families in order to identify high risk individuals (please refer to attachment A).
Legitimacy of Distributive Justice
While there is a legitimate role of government to distribute scarce resources among the nation’s neediest individuals, sadly this is not the cause for the mismanagement of medical dollars in the United States today. There is a expansive distinction between an individual being denied prescription medication at their local pharmacy due to a cost-effective formulary developed by their Managed Care Organizations (MCOs), than an individual being denied a liver transplant because healthy livers are a scarce resource. While both may have equally devastating consequences, it is more difficult to rationalize a lost life based upon rigid cost aid analysis and utilization decisions made according to formulas and cost-benefit analysis of treatment protocols.
“The political controversy over the distribution of health care in the United States is an instructive predicament in distributive justice. Excellent health is care is principal for pursuing most other things in life. Yet equal access to health care would require the government to not only redistribute resources from the rich, healthy to the unpleasant, and infirm, but also restrict the freedom of doctors and other health care providers. Such redistributions may be warranted, but to what level, and to what extent? ” Gutmann & Thompson (Page 178).
Blendon and his colleagues have reported similar findings in public idea polls from 1992 and 1994 (Blendon et. al., 1992; Blendon et. al., 1994). A original peek by the American Medical Association found cost to be of paramount anguish to an overwhelming number of Americans (Donelan et. aI., 1996). Of the 40 million uninsured Americans, only 1% attributes their failure to derive health insurance coverage to their preexisting conditions. Among the uninsured, cost is cited as the principal obstacle in obtaining health insurance coverage. Only 1% of the uninsured attributes their lack of coverage to a preexisting condition.
Based upon these democratic principles of distributive justice, consistent view polls point to the legitimate role and public desire for government regulation of the health care industry. It has become determined that the federal government must intervene in order to protect natural law rights, the social contract, and the Constitution of the United States. Regulation is needed to protect the individual freedoms, liberty, and the pursuit of “health, happiness, and the American Dream.”
If America is to be the “Land of Opportunity,” then clearly individual health and wellness should be an ideal to advance for. Modern models of distributive justice emphasize public consensus as a legitimate role for government intervention. According to a number of studies by Blendon and his colleagues, the public has reported an overwhelming general anguish about health care in this country, (1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996).
Dwelling civil courts are backed up with cases where HMOs have violated the First Amendment (gag orders), the Fourteenth Amendment (due process), and the rights of protected classes under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Countless examples of “anecdotal” evidence appear as headlines everyday across the country. (Current York Times, 1996; The Current York Daily News, 1996; Long Island Newsday, 1996; LA Times, 1996; Picayne Times, 1996; Columbia Spectator, 1996; Columbia University Describe, 1996; US News & World Reports, 1996; Newsweek 1996; Healthline, 1996; The Tennessean, 1996; The Albany Times, 1996; The Nashville Scene, 1996). In their entirety, these case reports relate the human tragedy that lies beneath the web of the very worst of American capitalism: corporate greed.
Identifying Populations At-Risk
A examine by The Lewison Group in 1996 reveals insight into the private individual health insurance market. Clearly, individuals choosing to seize health insurance policies for several hundred dollars each month interrogate their health care needs and expenditures to exceed that amount Regardless of health location, a young healthy 25 year used who purchases an individual health insurance policy can request to pay well over $300.00 monthly for a health insurance policy with Empire Blue Shield Blue Foul (based upon 1996 rates, modern rates available from the Current York Location Insurance Department).
Since individual policies are not addressed in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPA), an individual policy with Blue Harmful Blue Shield of Tennessee excludes preexisting conditions for 24 months (enrollment booklet available upon inquire). The essential markets in need of reform are the adversely selected individual insurance market, and the state’s most vulnerable populations: children; the elderly; the chronically ill; the uninsured; and the underinsured.
For the millions of individuals who have lost their employer based coverage, the cost of private health insurance is prohibitively expensive. Many individuals opt out of the individual market and apply for public assistance when the need arises. Those who have retained their health insurance coverage through their employers are being moved into managed care despite their efforts to hold their indemnity style plans (Davis & Shoen, 1996; The Lewison Group, 1996).
Access to Medical Care
As routine practice, HMOs scream or delay care for all services that are not outright medically primary. Growing numbers of individuals have suffered irreparable injure, and many have died awaiting approval from their HMO’s (The Recent York Times, 1996; Long Island Newsday, 1996; The Tennessean, 1996; Healthline, 1996). It is hardly a secret that HMOs have fallen short of their promise to provide comprehensive health care for the “whole” individual by emphasizing preventative medicine, using medical management to coordinate care. There is huge evidence that individuals with chronic conditions receive rotten care in HMOs.
A four-year longitudinal peer of medical outcomes found that the elderly, the awful, and persons with chronic conditions were in better health when covered by fee-for-service plans compared with a control group covered in HMOs (Ware et. al., 1996). Recent statistics released in Washington, DC by the American Medical Association and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation revealed the thunder costs of individuals with chronic conditions narrative for 75% of remark medical expenditures in the United States (Hoffman & Rice, 1996; based upon the National Medical Expenditures Survey; raw data available on CD from the Department of Health and Human Services Washington, DC). 45% of the American population suffers from at least one chronic illness.
If managed healthcare has been found to hiss inadequate care to this population, then we are looking at 100 million individuals who are potentially facing personal and financial crisis as they are moved into managed care. The public already accounts for the largest payment of express medical expenditures, which means the millions of dollars being made by for-profit insurance companies are not being circulated into the economy to help in public health costs care. The industry made a 14.8% profit in the 3rd quarter of 1996, however these medical dollars were removed from health care and stale to fatten the pockets of CEO’s and majority stockholders (Healthline, 1996).
Based upon a original characterize from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the announce costs for persons with chronic conditions describe 69.4% of national expenditures in personal health care (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 1996). Their sing medical costs are estimated at $4672.00 annually compared with $817.00 annually for individuals with acute illness (Hoffman & Rice, 1996; based upon National Medical Expenditures Leer 1987, not adjusted for inflation). This population is the most vulnerable to complications in their health and with their source of payment. Gigantic insurance companies only provide adequate coverage for acute illness (Donelan et al., 1996; Hoffman et. al, 1996).
Medicaid Managed Care
Following Tennessee’s lead, many states have enrolled their medically indigent populations in Medicaid Managed Care Organizations (MCOs). In Daniels v. Wadley, (926 F. Supp. 1305), the court held that TennCare violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment since such procedures eliminate lovely hearings and independent medical review of disputes. The court found the pattern of routine denials of care by MCOs participating in the states TennCare program to violate the Medicaid Act since it compounded the jam of institutionalized waiting periods for medical appeals pending independent review by the Medical Review Unit (MRU), (42 U.S.C. § 1396 (a)(8)).
Furthermore, the court ordered federal injunctive protection to participants and beneficiaries because no plot law may preempt federal law by depriving individuals of their constitutional rights. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was ordered to revise its utilization review procedures for TennCare recipients in keeping with the Medicaid Act (42 U.S.C. § 1396 (a) (8)) ensuring due process protections for all covered beneficiaries by requiring “services are provided with ‘reasonable promptness,’” (926 F. Supp. 1305).
This case is one of 543 civil suits pending in the spot courts for violations of the Medicaid Act (based upon a Lexis-Nexis search performed December 26, 1996). With the passing of H.R. 3507 into public law, (The Welfare Reform Bill) private citizens will get cramped reprieve in the federal courts, so any attempts to occupy states accountable for violations of federal law will be primitive at best (Denkeret. al., 1996).
Managed care has shown itself to be a farce of “medical management” in light of all the condemning evidence to the contrary. Timothy Icenogle, a medical doctor in the place of Arizona commented in 1981, “We play sort of an advocacy role. I assume the public demands something more from physicians than to honest be a blob of bureaucrats, and I deem we have to acquire a stand now and then. Our role essentially as patient advocate, is to allege them, well, objective because the insurance company is not going to pay, that is not the ruin of all the resources,” (Icenogle, as cited in Gutmann & Thompson, 1996). Never has this statement been needed more than it is today. Unfortunately, as more insurance companies refuse to pay for medical treatment, fewer resources become available for patients in desperate need of financial assistance. As Contemplate Kessler eloquently stated as she handed down her decision in Salazar v. District of Columbia, No. 93-452, December 11, 1996, “gradual every fact found herein is a human face and the reality of being unpleasant in the richest nation on earth, (936 F. Supp. Meander op. At 3).
Perhaps most distressing is the lack of accountability for mismanaged healthcare and noxious denials of medically significant treatment. HMOs claim immunity under ERISA, and leaving individuals without recourse in a sea contractual language and lengthy court calendars. It is evident that individuals protected under the Medicaid Act are not fundamentally different from other populations entrapped in the maze of managed care. They are simply those who have “had their day in court.”
Due Process Protections
Since all Americans are theoretically entitled to due process protections under the constitution of the United States, it seems the federal courts are long overdue for making such a public statement. We are wasting precious time and losing millions in vital human resources as we await decisions to be handed down from site courts. The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to hear Unusual York’s expect for an ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1985) waiver, making health maintenance organizations liable for medical malpractice in the site of Current York.
When HMOs bellow care from patients, it is ludicrous to gain individual physicians liable for the utilization decisions made by decentralized corporate review boards. It is time to pick a serious perceive at tort reform, and query action by the Supreme Court as they reach the date of Current York’s ERISA hearing. A blanket court ruling upholding Daniels v. Wadley, and Salazar v. District of Columbia is desperately needed to avoid an avalanche of liability suits filed in location courts. The court must uphold Daniels v. Wadley, and Salazar v. District of Columbia if further lives are to be saved in medicine rather than wasted away in the utilization review procedures. While we wait patiently for District of Columbia circuit court to order injunctive relief, the number of individuals suffering irreparable hurt due to the systematic denial of medical care grows larger each day.
The history of Medicaid Managed Care does not provide a very optimistic seek into the future of TennCare recipients and Medicaid beneficiaries in states around the country. Dating support to the implementation of the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) in 1981, there are documented cases where “people reportedly died for lack of medical treatment before their eligibility was certain,” (Varley, as cited in Gutman & Thompson, I 996). This leaves me to wonder why the states continue to enroll their most vulnerable populations into a system of managed care that has proven to be a danger.
Perhaps wonderful of comment is that Arizona is the only residence to have voted Republican in every election since 1948—certainly provides insight into the conservative morale of the place. Although Arizona was the last dwelling to collect the Medicaid cost sharing incentive proposed by the federal government in 1966, it was the first dwelling to force its medically indigent population into managed care in 1981.
Violating Federal Law
Rigid pre-certification requirements and nonspecific utilization review procedures plot strategic barriers to access medical treatment and services in Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). Pre-certification requirements are strategic barriers incorporated into the “sad box” of utilization review that institutionalizes exclusionary waiting periods and routine denials of medically considerable treatment. According to federal law, “care and services are to be provided in a manner consistent with the simplicity of administration and the best interests of recipients,” (42 U.S.C. § I 396a (a) (19)). Clearly, such rigid pre-certification requirements that complicate administrative processing and paperwork on the allotment of the enrolled beneficiaries is a violation of United States Code.
Furthermore, using significant care providers as a mechanism to limit access to specialists not only complicates administrative processing, but limits enrolled beneficiaries choice of health professionals beyond what is available to the general public in the geographic situation (42 U.S.C. § 1 396a (a)(30)(A)). Certainly referral procedures do not “sing that recipients will have their choice of health professionals within the opinion to the extent possible and appropriate,” (42 U.S.C. § 434.29). Under this provision, it seems that any individual, especially those with chronic health conditions or disabilities should be allowed to settle a notable care provider with more expertise than a nurse practitioner. I will argue that a neurologist is more familiar with the novel needs of a patient with Multiple Sclerosis than a nurse practitioner is with exiguous to no knowledge specific to the medical management of degenerative
Under the Medicaid Act of 1966, covered beneficiaries may appeal any utilization review decision which denies care or limits services. The Medicaid Act gives individuals the correct to a lovely hearing in front of an fair independent Medical Review Unit (MRU). Furthermore, the Medicaid Act clearly states that medical services for a Medicaid beneficiary may not be terminated until the said beneficiary receives such a hearing
Conclusion
The country as a whole must realize what Reflect Kessler told her courtroom. Her words are certainly words I will not forget—certainly worth being quoted at length:
“This case is about people—children and adults who are sick, awful, and vulnerable—for whom life, in the memorable words of poet Langston Hughes, “ain’t been no crystal stair”. It is written in the dry and bloodless language of “the Iaw”—statistics, acronyms of agencies and bureaucratic entities, Supreme Court case names and quotes, official governmental reports, periodicity tables, etc. But let there be no forgetting the loyal people to whom this bloodless language gives voice: anxious working parents who are too abominable to earn medications or heart catheter procedures or lead poisoning screening for their children, AIDS patients unable to obtain treatment, elderly persons suffering from chronic conditions like diabetes and heart disease who require constant monitoring arid medical attention. Unhurried every fact found herein is a human face and the reality of being bad in the richest nation on earth. (Hurry op. At 3). -Judge Gladys Kessler, December 11, 1996.
Patients are routinely being denied medical care– and being forced into a system that incorporates long waiting periods into their physician contracts and handbooks (Green, 1996). The private for-profit insurance industry has single-handedly undermined the solidarity principle of health insurance by using strict underwriting techniques, ridiculous treatment protocols; inconsistent definitions of chronic illness and rigid utilization review procedures unavailable to the consumer; and inconsistent definitions of “chronic illness” and “emergency” (Dallek, 1996). It is an industry which justified using sexual orientation to avoid covering AIDS patients, calling such methods “actuarially sound.” The privatization of a public edifying has removed millions of dollars from the healthcare marketplace with “medical loss ratios” of 57% compared to 85% in the dilapidated health insurance market
Although a slim allotment of the general public is unable to procure health insurance coverage due to a preexisting condition, the more well-known scream remains the cost of coverage. The cost of medical care will remain an exclaim since modern legislative efforts evade the notify. Current changes in the delivery of health services is of grave worry and different options must be considered in order to net more effective ways to provide public and private assistance—MANAGED CARE IS NOT THE Acknowledge!!! FOR-PROFIT HEALTH CARE IS NOT THE Reply! PRIVATIZATION IS NOT THE Acknowledge!
References
Blumstein, J. F. (1996). Health care reform and competing visions of medical care: Antitrust and spot provider cooperative legislation. Cornell Law Review,79,1459-1506.
Blumstein, J. F. (1996). The fraud and abuse statute in an evolving health care market Life in the health care speakeasy. American Journal of Law and Medicine,22(2), 205-231.
Bunis, D. (1996, July 16). Sweeping changes for health care: What it means to you. Long Island Newsday, pp. A6, A53.
Chartland, S. (1996, April 28). The changing game of health insurance. The Unusual York Times [On-line. Available: http://www.ny€mes~com/
College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center Office of Public Relations. (1996, July 25) Press Release: Modern York's Ivy League Medical Schools recount first of its kind affiance.
Clymer, A. (1996, August 1). Accord reached on expanding worker's health benefits. The Recent York Times [On-line] Available: http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/pOlitic5/healthbffl.htmI
Consumer Reports. (1996, May 31). Children and health care.
Davis, K., & Shoen, (1996, March). Health services research and the changing health care system. Modern York: The Commonwealth Fund. Available: http://www.cmwf.org
Donelan, K., Blendon, R. J. Hill, C.A., Hoffman, C., Rowland, D., Frankel, M., Altman, D. (1996). Whatever happened to the health insurance crisis in the United States? Journal of the American Medical Association,276(16), 1346-1350.
Durant, E.D. (1996). The Novel York Health Reform Act of 1996: Costs of Exclusion. (Unpublished).
Employee Relieve Research Institute. (1992). Sources of health insurance and characteristics of the uninsured. (Swear Brief No. 123). Washington, DC. Available: http://www.ebri.org
Families USA (1996, July). HMO Consumers at risk: States to the rescue. Washington, DC: Families USA. Available: http://epn.org.families/farisk.html
Families USA (1996, June 7). New York managed care legislation: A model for other states. Washington, DC: Families USA. Available: http://epn.org/families/fastat.html
Families USA (1996, August). Kassebaum-Kennedy health insurance bill clears congress: Medicaid Saving Accounts microscopic to demonstration program. Washington, DC: Families USA. Available: http://epn.org/families/fakeka.html
Fein, E. B. (1996, July 5). For-profit hospitals: Once unthinkable, now probably inevitable. The Fresh York Times, [On-line]. Available: http://www.nytimes.com
Freudenheim, M. (1996, July 16). Grading becomes stricter on health plans. The Original York Times. [On-line]. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/sectionS/bUSiness
Health Care Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-191 (1996).
Hoffman, C., Rice, D.R., & Sung, H.Y., (1996). Persons with chronic conditions: Their prevalence and costs. Journal of the American Medical Association,276,1473-1479.
Holusha, J. (1996, August18). For doctors togetherness is the current intention of life. The Novel York Times [On-line]. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/Cp960818.htfl1l
Levinson, M. (1996, June 26). As Blue Outrageous and Blue Shield head into the for-profit sector, it is helping to originate the biggest gold urge since Sutter’s Mill. U.S.New [On-line]. Available: http:/ / www.usnews.com/
Levy, C. J. (1996, July 2). Current era in Unique York hospital-rate opinion. The Fresh York Times, pp. Al.
Malpractice law evolves under managed care. Paper presented at the conference, Emerging Liability Issues in Managed Care, sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Improving Malpractice Prevention and Compensation Systems (IMPACS) program, October, 1995.
Market competition and the health care safety earn. States of Health, (December, 1996) Washington, DC: Families USA. Available: http://epn.org/families/safeflet/html
Med-Access Search: Hospital Database. Available: http://medaccess.com/cgi/Hospital_basic.eXe
Metcalf, E. (1996, September 6). Columbia and Cornell opinion alliance—2,800 physicians strong.. Columbia University Spectator, p.1.
Metcalf, E. (1996, September 27). Columbia/Cornell MD’s Ally. Columbia University Describe, p. 1.
Nasr, H. (1996, July 31). Major university hospitals to merge. Columbia University Spectator, pp. 1,8.
Current York Health Reform Act of 1996, NY AB 11330.
Pear, R. (1996, May 26). Two trends collide: The rise in proceed and of local HMOs. The Recent York Times [On-line]. Available: http://www.nytimes.com
Perrin, E. C., Newacheck, P., Pless, B. I. Drotar, D., Gortmeaker, Steven, L., Leventhal, I., Perrin, J.M., Stein, R.E., Walker, D.E. Weitzman, M. (1993). Issues interested in the definition and classification of chronic health conditions. Pediatrics, 91(4), 787-793.
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (December 1995). HealthTracking: HMOs and US health care. Available: http://rwjf.org
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (February 1995). Market consolidation, antitrust, and public policy in the health care industry: Agenda for future research. Prepared for the council on the economic impact of health care reform (item: HTO1).
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (December 1995). Health Tracking: HMOs and US health care. Available: http://rwjf.org
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (February 1995). Market consolidation, antitrust, and public policy in the health care industry: Agenda for future research. Prepared for the council on the economic impact of health care reform (item: HTO1).Robinson, R. (1993). Economic evaluation in health care: Cost-effectiveness analysis. [Education & Debate]. The British Medical Journal,307(6907), 793-795.
Robinson, R. (1993). Economic evaluation in health care: Cost-effectiveness analysis. [Education & Debate]. The British Medical Journal,307(6909), 924-926.
Rosenthal, E. (1996, July 2). Two more hospitals race to join forces: Beth Israel-Long Island Jewish Merger to gain far-flung empire. The Unusual York Times, p. B3.
Rosenthal, E. (1996, July 15). Patients say NY 1-IMOs don’t deal well with complex illnesses. The Novel York Times, p. Al.
Schiff, G. S. (1996, March 16). Managed care issues. Physicians for a National Health Opinion. Available: pnhp@aol.com -
Selby, J. V., Fireman, B. H., & Swain, B.E. (1996). Carry Out of a copayment on spend of the emergency department in a health maintenance organization. New England Journal of Medicine, 334,635-641.
Shaw, T. (1996, March 25). Dole’s terrible medicine: health reform conception would raise costs, injure quality. USAToday, [On-line]. Distributed by the National Center for Policy Analysis.
Smolowe, J., Perman, S., & Van Tassel,J. (1996, April 15) A healthy merger? A tremendous deal makes Aetna the country’s largest health-care company. Time Magazine,14(16).
Spragins, E. (1996, September 24). Special Record America’s best 1-IMOs: Rating the top managed care companies. Newsweek, pp.58-63.
Stone, D. A. (Monroe, J. A. & Beilcin, C. S. eds. 1994). The struggle for the soul of health insurance. The Politics of Health Care Reform,27-56.
Taylor, H. (1996, July 16). Health care capitalism remakes a city’s health system. The Albany Times [On-line]
Toim L (1996 July 31) Local 2110 loses its benefits Columbia University Spectator, pp 1-5
Van Duzer, K., & Nasr, H. (1996,July 31). Nurses reject final hospital’s offer, strike possible. Columbia University Spectator, pp. 1,8.
Ware, J.E., Bayliss, M.S., Rogers,W.H., Kosinski, M., Tarlov, A.R. (1996). Differences in 4-year health outcomes for elderly, bad, and chronically if patients treated in HMO and Fee-for-Service systems: Results invent a medical outcomes survey. Journal of the American Medical Association. L 1039-1047.
Williams, R. M. (1996). The cost of visits to emergency departments. New England Journal of Medicine, 334 642-646
Wines, M., & Pear, R. (1996, July 30). The President finds obtain advantage from failure of health-care anxiety. The Current York Times [On-line]. Available: http://www.nytimes.cOm/web/dOcsroot/library/Politics/0730editon.html
Underwriting the Social Contract: Distributive Justice & Health Care Reform
The Quandary Statement
As health care costs climbed exponentially in the 1980’s, so did the cost of health insurance plans. As a result, employers began to enroll their employees in managed care organizations, and many Americans were forced to leave their outmoded indemnity type plans. With the advent of the health maintenance organization, there is a financial incentive for the underutilization of care. (Blumstein, 1996; Davis & Shoen, 1996).
In order to prick financial risk, health insurance companies have restricted enrollment to individuals in unpleasant health. By covering the minimal standards of treatment and excluding high risk groups altogether, major US insurance companies have realized that the health insurance market can a be an extremely agreeable industry. The public sector absorbs the cost of unreimbursed care for chronic care in America (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 1996). Based upon these findings, it seems definite that the money being removed from the health care marketplace is fattening the pockets of CEOs and majority stockholders.
Novel trend towards localized government leaves individuals without a financial safety accumulate. This is the least efficient manner to handle health care costs, and evades the premise that medical care is a natural fair in a civilized society. Few Americans feel regain within the new system. The rising costs of medical care contributed to the unique market changes in both the administration and delivery of health services. The financial incentive to mask only the healthiest individuals ignores the fact that medical care is a social worthy.
Health Insurance Portability Act of 1996
Two years after the Clinton Health Idea was defeated in Congress, Senator Ted Kennedy and Nancy Kassebaum introduced the Kennedy-Kassebaum Bill in response to growing concerns about selective enrollment procedures frail by health insurance companies in the private sector. In the final version of the Bill, insurance companies must limit preexisting condition clauses to twelve months. It has been estimated that this provision of the Bill will attend an estimated 150,000 Americans collect health insurance coverage.
There are many levels of the underinsured, including those without any coverage; effective policy must address the needs of the total population without shifting costs from one disadvantaged person to another. Kennedy-Kassebaum fails to address the cost issue—the indispensable disaster for those at risk for losing their health insurance. It does nothing to wait on the uninsured win a decent health policy, and then provides no solution to the principal negate at hand— cost
Since Kennedy-Kassebaum does nothing to control the cost of health insurance and medical care in America, the Bill fails to acknowledge to the converse of greatest grief to the citizens of this country: the cost of medical care. The Bill looks towards the states to form consumer protections and weakens the regulatory role of the federal government. The majority of the American public is unaware of the admire footwork interested with this legislation, and the demographics of the population it is intended to protect. In order to assess the utility of this Bill, it is essential to identify the populations at risk for loosing health insurance coverage and the underinsured.
Kassebaum-Kennedy focuses on a slim piece of the uninsured population, and those who would be eligible for COBRA continuation (Consolidated Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1974). Of the 41 million uninsured Americans, only about 150,000 are expected to succor from this legislation. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 is really nothing more than smoke and mirrors since it fails to address the accurate philosophize at hand—the simple fact that the cost of quality health care in America is becoming a privilege that only the wealthy can afford.
The Cost of Care for Pre-existing Conditions
An individual with high blood pressure may honest require prescription medication. Cancer patients in remission may require chemotherapy, and a person suffering with a degenerative disease may be alive to in treatment studies. Each condition requires individualized treatment that cannot be based upon the simple economic/cost-benefit analysis extinct in the utilization review process by spacious insurance companies. Clearly, the most effective treatment for one patient may not be the best for another. The time required for utilization review may reveal additional health risks and complications to a patient suffering from a chronic health condition.
Twelve months without insurance coverage may be financially devastating to some patients, and 63% of Americans have already forgone some type of medical treatment within the last year due to financial constraints. Publicity surrounding Kennedy-Kassebaum has hailed the bill as the “be all and slay all in progressive legislation, however, in actuality it will only serve about 150,000 people.
Unusual studies have found that the majority of the uninsured population simply cannot afford to pay the premiums (Donelan et. al., 1996; Hoffman & Rice, 1996). According to their data, only 1% of the Uninsured population is due to novel health space and exclusionary preexisting clauses, yet an overwhelming number of insured respondents reported an inability to receive medical care for chronic conditions. The majority of Americans with chronic illness are covered by some type of insurance, yet they are level-headed subject to the utilization review process and access problems that protest or delay medically significant treatment (Donelan, et. al., Hoffman & Rice, 1996).
Underwriting the Solidarity Principle
Feeble forms of insurance underwriting required that the contract explicitly set which illness or services are not covered by the policy, in reach. If the underwriter did not specifically plot a determined condition in the contract, the insurer was held to the terms of the contract and required to pay for services utilized by the policyholder (Stone, 1994, as cited in Durant, 1996).
Increasing numbers of for-profit and non-profit insurance companies began to control costs by refusing to insure individuals who they felt would employ more services. Insurers began to require health witness state questionnaires (refer to attachment A), and even began implementing AIDS and genetic testing to identify high-risk individuals (Brunetta, as cited in Gutmann & Thompson, 1996). In the 1980s, stout insurance companies began including sexual orientation as a high-risk category, by using actuarial sound criteria. Such criteria concluded that delighted men were a higher risk for contracting AIDS virus and refused to write policies for anyone believed to be homosexual, (Stone, 1994 as cited in Durant, 1996).
By limiting enrollment to the healthiest members of society, selective enrollment undermines the solidarity principle of health insurance (Davis & Shoen, 1996; Snow, 1996; Stone, 1994). By eliminating those who were suspect of using more services than their healthier counterparts consume, insurance companies are able to offer rock bottom prices for young, healthy individuals. By excluding preexisting conditions and requiring positive individuals to remove high-risk policies, the number of uninsured and underinsured Americans continues to grow exponentially (Durant, 1996).
More individuals are choosing not to prefer insurance simply because they cannot afford it. Even among those with employer based health coverage, the policies frequently exclude coverage for long-term illness or care of chronic conditions (MSNBC News Forum, 1996). Without a standard definition of preexisting conditions, these clauses wait on as “wildcards” since they allow insurers to squawk coverage for any illness that “manifested itself before the issuing date of the policy (Stone, 1994 as cited in Durant, 1996).
This statement allows insurers to whine treatment for benefits and services for the policyholder for undiagnosed illnesses or conditions of which they were unaware. As a result, the insurers began to question medical histories of applicants and their families in order to identify high risk individuals (please refer to attachment A).
Legitimacy of Distributive Justice
While there is a legitimate role of government to distribute scarce resources among the nation’s neediest individuals, sadly this is not the cause for the mismanagement of medical dollars in the United States today. There is a sizable distinction between an individual being denied prescription medication at their local pharmacy due to a cost-effective formulary developed by their Managed Care Organizations (MCOs), than an individual being denied a liver transplant because healthy livers are a scarce resource. While both may have equally devastating consequences, it is more difficult to rationalize a lost life based upon rigid cost back analysis and utilization decisions made according to formulas and cost-benefit analysis of treatment protocols.
“The political controversy over the distribution of health care in the United States is an instructive quandary in distributive justice. Pleasant health is care is well-known for pursuing most other things in life. Yet equal access to health care would require the government to not only redistribute resources from the rich, healthy to the dreadful, and infirm, but also restrict the freedom of doctors and other health care providers. Such redistributions may be warranted, but to what level, and to what extent? ” Gutmann & Thompson (Page 178).
Blendon and his colleagues have reported similar findings in public plan polls from 1992 and 1994 (Blendon et. al., 1992; Blendon et. al., 1994). A new perceive by the American Medical Association found cost to be of paramount difficulty to an overwhelming number of Americans (Donelan et. aI., 1996). Of the 40 million uninsured Americans, only 1% attributes their failure to secure health insurance coverage to their preexisting conditions. Among the uninsured, cost is cited as the significant obstacle in obtaining health insurance coverage. Only 1% of the uninsured attributes their lack of coverage to a preexisting condition.
Based upon these democratic principles of distributive justice, consistent belief polls explain the legitimate role and public desire for government regulation of the health care industry. It has become clear that the federal government must intervene in order to protect natural law rights, the social contract, and the Constitution of the United States. Regulation is needed to protect the individual freedoms, liberty, and the pursuit of “health, happiness, and the American Dream.”
If America is to be the “Land of Opportunity,” then clearly individual health and wellness should be an ideal to near for. Novel models of distributive justice emphasize public consensus as a legitimate role for government intervention. According to a number of studies by Blendon and his colleagues, the public has reported an overwhelming general anguish about health care in this country, (1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996).
Plot civil courts are backed up with cases where HMOs have violated the First Amendment (gag orders), the Fourteenth Amendment (due process), and the rights of protected classes under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Countless examples of “anecdotal” evidence appear as headlines everyday across the country. (Current York Times, 1996; The Unique York Daily News, 1996; Long Island Newsday, 1996; LA Times, 1996; Picayne Times, 1996; Columbia Spectator, 1996; Columbia University Characterize, 1996; US News & World Reports, 1996; Newsweek 1996; Healthline, 1996; The Tennessean, 1996; The Albany Times, 1996; The Nashville Scene, 1996). In their entirety, these case reports characterize the human tragedy that lies beneath the web of the very worst of American capitalism: corporate greed.
Identifying Populations At-Risk
A leer by The Lewison Group in 1996 reveals insight into the private individual health insurance market. Clearly, individuals choosing to take health insurance policies for several hundred dollars each month query their health care needs and expenditures to exceed that amount Regardless of health spot, a young healthy 25 year aged who purchases an individual health insurance policy can demand to pay well over $300.00 monthly for a health insurance policy with Empire Blue Shield Blue Outrageous (based upon 1996 rates, unique rates available from the Fresh York Location Insurance Department).
Since individual policies are not addressed in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPA), an individual policy with Blue Despicable Blue Shield of Tennessee excludes preexisting conditions for 24 months (enrollment booklet available upon query). The necessary markets in need of reform are the adversely selected individual insurance market, and the state’s most vulnerable populations: children; the elderly; the chronically ill; the uninsured; and the underinsured.
For the millions of individuals who have lost their employer based coverage, the cost of private health insurance is prohibitively expensive. Many individuals opt out of the individual market and apply for public assistance when the need arises. Those who have retained their health insurance coverage through their employers are being moved into managed care despite their efforts to preserve their indemnity style plans (Davis & Shoen, 1996; The Lewison Group, 1996).
Access to Medical Care
As routine practice, HMOs impart or delay care for all services that are not outright medically distinguished. Growing numbers of individuals have suffered irreparable afflict, and many have died awaiting approval from their HMO’s (The Unusual York Times, 1996; Long Island Newsday, 1996; The Tennessean, 1996; Healthline, 1996). It is hardly a secret that HMOs have fallen short of their promise to provide comprehensive health care for the “whole” individual by emphasizing preventative medicine, using medical management to coordinate care. There is colossal evidence that individuals with chronic conditions receive spoiled care in HMOs.
A four-year longitudinal stare of medical outcomes found that the elderly, the bad, and persons with chronic conditions were in better health when covered by fee-for-service plans compared with a control group covered in HMOs (Ware et. al., 1996). Recent statistics released in Washington, DC by the American Medical Association and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation revealed the express costs of individuals with chronic conditions legend for 75% of whisper medical expenditures in the United States (Hoffman & Rice, 1996; based upon the National Medical Expenditures Survey; raw data available on CD from the Department of Health and Human Services Washington, DC). 45% of the American population suffers from at least one chronic illness.
If managed healthcare has been found to issue inadequate care to this population, then we are looking at 100 million individuals who are potentially facing personal and financial crisis as they are moved into managed care. The public already accounts for the largest payment of command medical expenditures, which means the millions of dollars being made by for-profit insurance companies are not being circulated into the economy to help in public health costs care. The industry made a 14.8% profit in the 3rd quarter of 1996, however these medical dollars were removed from health care and customary to fatten the pockets of CEO’s and majority stockholders (Healthline, 1996).
Based upon a fresh represent from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the content costs for persons with chronic conditions describe 69.4% of national expenditures in personal health care (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 1996). Their assert medical costs are estimated at $4672.00 annually compared with $817.00 annually for individuals with acute illness (Hoffman & Rice, 1996; based upon National Medical Expenditures Observe 1987, not adjusted for inflation). This population is the most vulnerable to complications in their health and with their source of payment. Stout insurance companies only provide adequate coverage for acute illness (Donelan et al., 1996; Hoffman et. al, 1996).
Medicaid Managed Care
Following Tennessee’s lead, many states have enrolled their medically indigent populations in Medicaid Managed Care Organizations (MCOs). In Daniels v. Wadley, (926 F. Supp. 1305), the court held that TennCare violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment since such procedures eliminate ravishing hearings and independent medical review of disputes. The court found the pattern of routine denials of care by MCOs participating in the states TennCare program to violate the Medicaid Act since it compounded the dilemma of institutionalized waiting periods for medical appeals pending independent review by the Medical Review Unit (MRU), (42 U.S.C. § 1396 (a)(8)).
Furthermore, the court ordered federal injunctive protection to participants and beneficiaries because no status law may preempt federal law by depriving individuals of their constitutional rights. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was ordered to revise its utilization review procedures for TennCare recipients in keeping with the Medicaid Act (42 U.S.C. § 1396 (a) (8)) ensuring due process protections for all covered beneficiaries by requiring “services are provided with ‘reasonable promptness,’” (926 F. Supp. 1305).
This case is one of 543 civil suits pending in the situation courts for violations of the Medicaid Act (based upon a Lexis-Nexis search performed December 26, 1996). With the passing of H.R. 3507 into public law, (The Welfare Reform Bill) private citizens will pick up cramped reprieve in the federal courts, so any attempts to beget states accountable for violations of federal law will be traditional at best (Denkeret. al., 1996).
Managed care has shown itself to be a farce of “medical management” in light of all the condemning evidence to the contrary. Timothy Icenogle, a medical doctor in the place of Arizona commented in 1981, “We play sort of an advocacy role. I contemplate the public demands something more from physicians than to honest be a blob of bureaucrats, and I reflect we have to win a stand now and then. Our role essentially as patient advocate, is to philosophize them, well, impartial because the insurance company is not going to pay, that is not the destroy of all the resources,” (Icenogle, as cited in Gutmann & Thompson, 1996). Never has this statement been needed more than it is today. Unfortunately, as more insurance companies refuse to pay for medical treatment, fewer resources become available for patients in desperate need of financial assistance. As Contemplate Kessler eloquently stated as she handed down her decision in Salazar v. District of Columbia, No. 93-452, December 11, 1996, “tedious every fact found herein is a human face and the reality of being dreadful in the richest nation on earth, (936 F. Supp. Sprint op. At 3).
Perhaps most distressing is the lack of accountability for mismanaged healthcare and depraved denials of medically principal treatment. HMOs claim immunity under ERISA, and leaving individuals without recourse in a sea contractual language and lengthy court calendars. It is evident that individuals protected under the Medicaid Act are not fundamentally different from other populations entrapped in the maze of managed care. They are simply those who have “had their day in court.”
Due Process Protections
Since all Americans are theoretically entitled to due process protections under the constitution of the United States, it seems the federal courts are long overdue for making such a public statement. We are wasting precious time and losing millions in notable human resources as we await decisions to be handed down from location courts. The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to hear Original York’s expect for an ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1985) waiver, making health maintenance organizations liable for medical malpractice in the site of Fresh York.
When HMOs disclose care from patients, it is ludicrous to fill individual physicians liable for the utilization decisions made by decentralized corporate review boards. It is time to grasp a serious gape at tort reform, and ask action by the Supreme Court as they come the date of Unique York’s ERISA hearing. A blanket court ruling upholding Daniels v. Wadley, and Salazar v. District of Columbia is desperately needed to avoid an avalanche of liability suits filed in dwelling courts. The court must uphold Daniels v. Wadley, and Salazar v. District of Columbia if further lives are to be saved in medicine rather than wasted away in the utilization review procedures. While we wait patiently for District of Columbia circuit court to order injunctive relief, the number of individuals suffering irreparable wound due to the systematic denial of medical care grows larger each day.
The history of Medicaid Managed Care does not provide a very optimistic perceive into the future of TennCare recipients and Medicaid beneficiaries in states around the country. Dating abet to the implementation of the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) in 1981, there are documented cases where “people reportedly died for lack of medical treatment before their eligibility was sure,” (Varley, as cited in Gutman & Thompson, I 996). This leaves me to wonder why the states continue to enroll their most vulnerable populations into a system of managed care that has proven to be a trouble.
Perhaps marvelous of comment is that Arizona is the only space to have voted Republican in every election since 1948—certainly provides insight into the conservative morale of the position. Although Arizona was the last area to rep the Medicaid cost sharing incentive proposed by the federal government in 1966, it was the first status to force its medically indigent population into managed care in 1981.
Violating Federal Law
Rigid pre-certification requirements and nonspecific utilization review procedures station strategic barriers to access medical treatment and services in Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). Pre-certification requirements are strategic barriers incorporated into the “dark box” of utilization review that institutionalizes exclusionary waiting periods and routine denials of medically essential treatment. According to federal law, “care and services are to be provided in a manner consistent with the simplicity of administration and the best interests of recipients,” (42 U.S.C. § I 396a (a) (19)). Clearly, such rigid pre-certification requirements that complicate administrative processing and paperwork on the piece of the enrolled beneficiaries is a violation of United States Code.
Furthermore, using considerable care providers as a mechanism to limit access to specialists not only complicates administrative processing, but limits enrolled beneficiaries choice of health professionals beyond what is available to the general public in the geographic place (42 U.S.C. § 1 396a (a)(30)(A)). Certainly referral procedures do not “command that recipients will have their choice of health professionals within the opinion to the extent possible and appropriate,” (42 U.S.C. § 434.29). Under this provision, it seems that any individual, especially those with chronic health conditions or disabilities should be allowed to decide a indispensable care provider with more expertise than a nurse practitioner. I will argue that a neurologist is more familiar with the current needs of a patient with Multiple Sclerosis than a nurse practitioner is with petite to no knowledge specific to the medical management of degenerative
Under the Medicaid Act of 1966, covered beneficiaries may appeal any utilization review decision which denies care or limits services. The Medicaid Act gives individuals the apt to a ravishing hearing in front of an honest independent Medical Review Unit (MRU). Furthermore, the Medicaid Act clearly states that medical services for a Medicaid beneficiary may not be terminated until the said beneficiary receives such a hearing
Conclusion
The country as a whole must realize what Mediate Kessler told her courtroom. Her words are certainly words I will not forget—certainly worth being quoted at length:
“This case is about people—children and adults who are sick, abominable, and vulnerable—for whom life, in the memorable words of poet Langston Hughes, “ain’t been no crystal stair”. It is written in the dry and bloodless language of “the Iaw”—statistics, acronyms of agencies and bureaucratic entities, Supreme Court case names and quotes, official governmental reports, periodicity tables, etc. But let there be no forgetting the proper people to whom this bloodless language gives voice: anxious working parents who are too abominable to get medications or heart catheter procedures or lead poisoning screening for their children, AIDS patients unable to accept treatment, elderly persons suffering from chronic conditions like diabetes and heart disease who require constant monitoring arid medical attention. Slow every fact found herein is a human face and the reality of being bad in the richest nation on earth. (Bound op. At 3). -Judge Gladys Kessler, December 11, 1996.
Patients are routinely being denied medical care– and being forced into a system that incorporates long waiting periods into their physician contracts and handbooks (Green, 1996). The private for-profit insurance industry has single-handedly undermined the solidarity principle of health insurance by using strict underwriting techniques, ridiculous treatment protocols; inconsistent definitions of chronic illness and rigid utilization review procedures unavailable to the consumer; and inconsistent definitions of “chronic illness” and “emergency” (Dallek, 1996). It is an industry which justified using sexual orientation to avoid covering AIDS patients, calling such methods “actuarially sound.” The privatization of a public superior has removed millions of dollars from the healthcare marketplace with “medical loss ratios” of 57% compared to 85% in the venerable health insurance market
Although a slim allotment of the general public is unable to win health insurance coverage due to a preexisting condition, the more significant whine remains the cost of coverage. The cost of medical care will remain an thunder since unusual legislative efforts evade the utter. Current changes in the delivery of health services is of grave exertion and different options must be considered in order to secure more effective ways to provide public and private assistance—MANAGED CARE IS NOT THE Retort!!! FOR-PROFIT HEALTH CARE IS NOT THE Reply! PRIVATIZATION IS NOT THE Reply!
References
Blumstein, J. F. (1996). Health care reform and competing visions of medical care: Antitrust and space provider cooperative legislation. Cornell Law Review,79,1459-1506.
Blumstein, J. F. (1996). The fraud and abuse statute in an evolving health care market Life in the health care speakeasy. American Journal of Law and Medicine,22(2), 205-231.
Bunis, D. (1996, July 16). Sweeping changes for health care: What it means to you. Long Island Newsday, pp. A6, A53.
Chartland, S. (1996, April 28). The changing game of health insurance. The Novel York Times [On-line. Available: http://www.ny€mes~com/
College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center Office of Public Relations. (1996, July 25) Press Release: Unique York's Ivy League Medical Schools content first of its kind affiance.
Clymer, A. (1996, August 1). Accord reached on expanding worker's health benefits. The Current York Times [On-line] Available: http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/pOlitic5/healthbffl.htmI
Consumer Reports. (1996, May 31). Children and health care.
Davis, K., & Shoen, (1996, March). Health services research and the changing health care system. Modern York: The Commonwealth Fund. Available: http://www.cmwf.org
Donelan, K., Blendon, R. J. Hill, C.A., Hoffman, C., Rowland, D., Frankel, M., Altman, D. (1996). Whatever happened to the health insurance crisis in the United States? Journal of the American Medical Association,276(16), 1346-1350.
Durant, E.D. (1996). The Fresh York Health Reform Act of 1996: Costs of Exclusion. (Unpublished).
Employee Help Research Institute. (1992). Sources of health insurance and characteristics of the uninsured. (Narrate Brief No. 123). Washington, DC. Available: http://www.ebri.org
Families USA (1996, July). HMO Consumers at risk: States to the rescue. Washington, DC: Families USA. Available: http://epn.org.families/farisk.html
Families USA (1996, June 7). New York managed care legislation: A model for other states. Washington, DC: Families USA. Available: http://epn.org/families/fastat.html
Families USA (1996, August). Kassebaum-Kennedy health insurance bill clears congress: Medicaid Saving Accounts shrimp to demonstration program. Washington, DC: Families USA. Available: http://epn.org/families/fakeka.html
Fein, E. B. (1996, July 5). For-profit hospitals: Once unthinkable, now probably inevitable. The Current York Times, [On-line]. Available: http://www.nytimes.com
Freudenheim, M. (1996, July 16). Grading becomes stricter on health plans. The Unique York Times. [On-line]. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/sectionS/bUSiness
Health Care Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-191 (1996).
Hoffman, C., Rice, D.R., & Sung, H.Y., (1996). Persons with chronic conditions: Their prevalence and costs. Journal of the American Medical Association,276,1473-1479.
Holusha, J. (1996, August18). For doctors togetherness is the current diagram of life. The Novel York Times [On-line]. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/Cp960818.htfl1l
Levinson, M. (1996, June 26). As Blue Contemptible and Blue Shield head into the for-profit sector, it is helping to commence the biggest gold bustle since Sutter’s Mill. U.S.New [On-line]. Available: http:/ / www.usnews.com/
Levy, C. J. (1996, July 2). Novel era in Novel York hospital-rate conception. The Current York Times, pp. Al.
Malpractice law evolves under managed care. Paper presented at the conference, Emerging Liability Issues in Managed Care, sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Improving Malpractice Prevention and Compensation Systems (IMPACS) program, October, 1995.
Market competition and the health care safety secure. States of Health, (December, 1996) Washington, DC: Families USA. Available: http://epn.org/families/safeflet/html
Med-Access Search: Hospital Database. Available: http://medaccess.com/cgi/Hospital_basic.eXe
Metcalf, E. (1996, September 6). Columbia and Cornell conception alliance—2,800 physicians strong.. Columbia University Spectator, p.1.
Metcalf, E. (1996, September 27). Columbia/Cornell MD’s Ally. Columbia University Relate, p. 1.
Nasr, H. (1996, July 31). Major university hospitals to merge. Columbia University Spectator, pp. 1,8.
Novel York Health Reform Act of 1996, NY AB 11330.
Pear, R. (1996, May 26). Two trends collide: The rise in proceed and of local HMOs. The Recent York Times [On-line]. Available: http://www.nytimes.com
Perrin, E. C., Newacheck, P., Pless, B. I. Drotar, D., Gortmeaker, Steven, L., Leventhal, I., Perrin, J.M., Stein, R.E., Walker, D.E. Weitzman, M. (1993). Issues enthusiastic in the definition and classification of chronic health conditions. Pediatrics, 91(4), 787-793.
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (December 1995). HealthTracking: HMOs and US health care. Available: http://rwjf.org
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (February 1995). Market consolidation, antitrust, and public policy in the health care industry: Agenda for future research. Prepared for the council on the economic impact of health care reform (item: HTO1).
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (December 1995). Health Tracking: HMOs and US health care. Available: http://rwjf.org
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (February 1995). Market consolidation, antitrust, and public policy in the health care industry: Agenda for future research. Prepared for the council on the economic impact of health care reform (item: HTO1).Robinson, R. (1993). Economic evaluation in health care: Cost-effectiveness analysis. [Education & Debate]. The British Medical Journal,307(6907), 793-795.
Robinson, R. (1993). Economic evaluation in health care: Cost-effectiveness analysis. [Education & Debate]. The British Medical Journal,307(6909), 924-926.
Rosenthal, E. (1996, July 2). Two more hospitals hurry to join forces: Beth Israel-Long Island Jewish Merger to gain far-flung empire. The Unique York Times, p. B3.
Rosenthal, E. (1996, July 15). Patients say NY 1-IMOs don’t deal well with complex illnesses. The Current York Times, p. Al.
Schiff, G. S. (1996, March 16). Managed care issues. Physicians for a National Health Understanding. Available: pnhp@aol.com -
Selby, J. V., Fireman, B. H., & Swain, B.E. (1996). Achieve of a copayment on utilize of the emergency department in a health maintenance organization. New England Journal of Medicine, 334,635-641.
Shaw, T. (1996, March 25). Dole’s poor medicine: health reform concept would raise costs, afflict quality. USAToday, [On-line]. Distributed by the National Center for Policy Analysis.
Smolowe, J., Perman, S., & Van Tassel,J. (1996, April 15) A healthy merger? A sizable deal makes Aetna the country’s largest health-care company. Time Magazine,14(16).
Spragins, E. (1996, September 24). Special Picture America’s best 1-IMOs: Rating the top managed care companies. Newsweek, pp.58-63.
Stone, D. A. (Monroe, J. A. & Beilcin, C. S. eds. 1994). The struggle for the soul of health insurance. The Politics of Health Care Reform,27-56.
Taylor, H. (1996, July 16). Health care capitalism remakes a city’s health system. The Albany Times [On-line]
Toim L (1996 July 31) Local 2110 loses its benefits Columbia University Spectator, pp 1-5
Van Duzer, K., & Nasr, H. (1996,July 31). Nurses reject final hospital’s offer, strike possible. Columbia University Spectator, pp. 1,8.
Ware, J.E., Bayliss, M.S., Rogers,W.H., Kosinski, M., Tarlov, A.R. (1996). Differences in 4-year health outcomes for elderly, abominable, and chronically if patients treated in HMO and Fee-for-Service systems: Results acquire a medical outcomes glimpse. Journal of the American Medical Association. L 1039-1047.
Williams, R. M. (1996). The cost of visits to emergency departments. New England Journal of Medicine, 334 642-646
Wines, M., & Pear, R. (1996, July 30). The President finds get advantage from failure of health-care exertion. The Original York Times [On-line]. Available: http://www.nytimes.cOm/web/dOcsroot/library/Politics/0730editon.html
