Healthcare in a land called PeoplePower: nothing about me without me.

In a 5-day retreat at a Salzburg Seminar attended by 64 individuals from 29 countries, teams of health professionals, patient advocates, artists, reporters and social scientists adopted the guiding principle of 'nothing about me without me' and created the country of PeoplePower. Designed to shift health care from 'biomedicine' to 'infomedicine', patients and health workers throughout PeoplePower join in informed, shared decision-making and governance. Drawing, where possible, on computer-based guidance and communication technologies, patients and clinicians contribute actively to the patient record, transcripts of clinical encounters are shared, and patient education occurs primarily in the home, school and community-based organizations. Patients and clinicians jointly develop individual 'quality contracts', serving as building blocks for quality measurement and improvement systems that aggregate data, while reflecting unique attributes of individual patients and clinicians. Patients donate process and outcome data to national data banks that fuel epidemiological research and evidence-based improvement systems. In PeoplePower hospitals, constant patient and employee feedback informs quality improvement work teams of patients and health professionals. Volunteers work actively in all units, patient rooms are information centres that transform their shape and decor as needs and individual preferences dictate, and arts and humanities programmes nourish the spirit. In the community, from the earliest school days the citizenry works with health professionals to adopt responsible health behaviours. Communities join in selecting and educating health professionals and barter systems improve access to care. Finally, lay individuals partner with professionals on all local, regional and national governmental and private health agencies.

Crisis, leadership, consensus: the past and future federal role in health.

This paper touches on patterns of federal government involvement in the health sector since the late 18th century to the present and speculates on its role in the early decades of the 21st century. Throughout the history of the US, government involvement in the health sector came only in the face of crisis, only when there was widespread consensus, and only through sustained leadership. One of the first health-related acts of Congress came about as a matter of interstate commerce regarding the dilemma as to what to do about treating merchant seamen who had no affiliation with any state. Further federal actions were implemented to address epidemics, such as from yellow fever, that traveled from state to state through commercial ships. Each federal action was met with concern and resistance from states' rights advocates, who asserted that the health of the public was best left to the states and localities. It was not until the early part of the 20th century that a concern for social well-being, not merely commerce, drove the agenda for public health action. Two separate campaigns for national health insurance, as well as a rapid expansion of programs to serve the specific health needs of specific populations, led finally to the introduction of Medicaid and Medicare in the 1960s, the most dramatic example of government intervention in shaping the personal health care delivery system in the latter half of the 20th century. As health costs continued to rise and more and more Americans lacked adequate health insurance, a perceived crisis led President Clinton to launch his 1993 campaign to insure every American--the third attempt in this century to provide universal coverage. While the crisis was perceived by many, there was no consensus on action, and leadership outside government was missing. Today, the health care crisis still looms. Despite an economic boom, 1 million Americans lose their health insurance each year, with 41 million Americans, or 15% of the population, lacking coverage. Private premiums are going up again as federal programs are capped and the lack of a federal framework for quality assurance leads to growing problems of access and quality that will need to be addressed as we enter the 21st century. What role will government play?

Round table ... management development.

Management development in the NHS has reached a hiatus, yet there are no apparent moves from the centre to address this. The Journal brought together senior figures from the four dedicated management development providers in an informal round table discussion, chaired by Rob MacLachlan, to open the debate.

Managing the unmanageable: public hospital systems.

There are significant challenges to those who work in large public health care delivery systems: political imperatives; resource constraints; sometimes rigid personnel systems; and, the reality that everything occurs in a public forum. The fact that many nations are reviewing and, in some instances, restructuring their national health care systems, has added to the complexity and feeling of continual turbulence experienced by their managers. State run systems like that in the United Kingdom are introducing market forces to increase effectiveness and value for money; while market systems, like that in the United States, are increasing regulatory interventions to achieve the kind of cost control available to countries with large public systems which operate with global budgets. Public hospitals in the United States offer examples of public institutions operating in a highly competitive market environment. A decade of management changes undertaken to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC), the largest public hospital system in the United States, is presented as a case study of public health services and public management in a market environment.

Evaluating self-help support groups for medical students.

Self-help support groups for medical students represent one strategy for dealing with the emotional stresses of medical training and the diminished human sensitivity of students that often accompanies that experience. Support groups at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine were evaluated by 26 students who completed a nine-part questionnaire. The respondents indicated that they were primarily drawn to these groups because of a desire for social affiliation and an opportunity to express their feelings in a "safe" environment. Members shared in the leadership responsibilities of the group and dealt with external personal problems of the students rather than with the internal group dynamics. The gains derived from participation in these groups included opportunities for nonprofessional contact with faculty members, getting help and support from fellow students, and participation in stimulating discussions about the medical field. Students rated the groups as "meaningful" and expressed a desire for more frequent meetings.