States and health care reform: the importance of program implementation.

The recent debate on national health care reform marked another case of policy being considered without reference to how--or even if--it could be implemented. The debate revolved around broad issues, such as universal versus partial coverage, mandatory versus voluntary alliances, and the respective roles of government and the market in health care. The ease or even the possibility of successful implementation was not an ingredient in evaluating proposals. The burden of making health care reform work falls to the states. Whether in response to national reform or in implementing their own programs, they must move from a general reform blueprint to an actual program that delivers services. The hands-on role of the states in designing and operating programs makes their implementation duties both unavoidable and critical. This chapter explores implementation issues that should be considered an integral part of planning for health care reform, at both the federal and the state level. The chapter has two goals. First, it makes a case for altering the usual approach to designing reform and recommends paying attention to implementation early in the policy process, rather than treating it as an afterthough. Second, it is intended to help policymakers design implementable programs and anticipate pitfalls. To achieve these goals, it examines the state role in health care reform; state capacity to carry out this role; examples of state health care reform initiatives and lessons for implementation drawn from these efforts; and barriers to successful implementation. The chapter concludes with recommendations for policymakers.

What influences a state's approach to Medicaid reform?

Four states--Arizona, California, New York, and Pennsylvania--undertook major Medicare reforms in the early 1980s based on competition, price negotiation, regulation, and diagnosis related groups. To increase our understanding of what led to these reforms, we analyzed data from interviews with representatives of state executive and legislative branches and from providers and others involved in the reforms, and examined published and unpublished information on the reforms. We identified seven factors influencing choice of Medicaid reform: the crisis that triggered reform, the purposes of reform, the locus of the innovation (legislative versus executive), the power and views of key provider groups, state officials' perception of providers and recipients, the scope of the change implemented, and reform as a reflection of past state practices. We discuss these factors extensively.

Implementing change: lessons for Medicaid reformers.

Major Medicaid reforms initiated in Arizona, California, and New York in the 1980s form the foundation of this study, which explores issues to consider when implementing change in state Medicaid programs. We prepared case studies of these reforms, describing the innovations and assessing the implementation process in each state. These case studies are used to illustrate broad issues and processes of Medicaid reform. Six lessons emerge from our analysis: Expect reform models to change over time; strive for predictability and continuity in the reform; encourage behavior changes through the use of incentives; use special administrative or political channels to simplify the reform; expect reform models to converge over time; and implementation difficulties can be predicted. These lessons should educate decision makers about how to implement possible future solutions to problems like those seen in Medicaid programs at the start of this decade.

Acute care delivery for the geriatric patient: an innovative approach.

As the elderly population and expenditures for health care continue to grow rapidly in the United States, how to provide high-quality, cost-effective geriatric care is becoming a pressing question. To address this question, Choate-Symmes Health Services, Inc, established 10-bed Geriatric Special Care Units (GSCUs) in its two suburban Boston hospitals. Care on the GSCUs is delivered under a primary nursing model and involves comprehensive assessment, development of individual care plans emphasizing independence and activity, an interdisciplinary patient care team, and family participation in care planning. Patients were randomly assigned to either the GSCU or a traditional adult medical/surgical unit; outcomes were studied through questionnaires and medical record data. Researchers anticipated improved functional ability, less frequent use of restraints, fewer complications, shorter lengths of stay, and less frequent readmission to the hospital or admission to nursing homes for GSCU patients. The article presents preliminary results, discusses implementation issues, and describes plans for continued study.