Disparities and Inequities in US Health Care: Alive and Sick.

Disparities and inequities based on ethnic and racial differences have been a part of health care in America from the time of its founding. These disparities have persisted through recurrent efforts to reform our health care system. This article brings historical perspective to what has become a systemic part of US health care; examines the extent of disparities today as they impact access, quality, and outcomes of care; and considers what can be done within our polarized political environment to eliminate them. It is hoped that this can help to spark dialogue within our discipline on these matters of critical importance. A single-payer national health insurance program, whereby all Americans can access affordable care based on medical need instead of ability to pay, can help to move our current nonsystem toward health equity. This change can bring improved health care to all Americans with simplified administration, cost containment, and less bureaucracy. It can be financed through a progressive tax system whereby 95% of Americans pay less than they do now and receive more in return. The past is never dead. It's not even past.1-William Faulkner.

Beyond the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Urgent Need to Expand Primary Care and Family Medicine.

The COVID-19 pandemic, together with its resultant economic downturn, has unmasked serious problems of access, costs, quality of care, inequities, and disparities of US health care. It has exposed a serious primary care shortage, the unreliability of employer-sponsored health insurance, systemic racism, and other dysfunctions of a system turned on its head without a primary care base. Fundamental reform is urgently needed to bring affordable health care that is accessible to all Americans. Over the last 40-plus years, our supposed system has been taken over by corporate stakeholders with the presumption that a competitive unfettered marketplace will achieve the needed goal of affordable, accessible care. That theory has been thoroughly disproven by experience as the ranks of more than 30 million uninsured and 87 million underinsured demonstrates. Three main reform alternatives before us are: (1) to build on the Affordable Care Act; (2) to implement some kind of a public option; and (3) to enact single-payer Medicare for All. It is only the third option that can make affordable, comprehensive health care accessible for our entire population. As the debate goes forward over these alternatives during this election season, the likelihood of major change through a new system of national health insurance is becoming increasingly realistic. Rebuilding primary care and public health is a high priority as we face a new normal in US health care that places the public interest above that of corporate stakeholders and Wall Street investors. Primary care, and especially family medicine, should become the foundation of a reformed health care system.

Beyond the Affordable Care Act: Alternate Futures for Family Medicine and Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Changes in the landscape of medical practice in recent years, accelerated since the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010, have led to further fragmentation of primary care and disruption of the doctor-patient relationship for many millions of Americans. Patients face escalating costs of care and restricted choice of physician and hospital in a largely corporatized health care system. The goals of family medicine are compromised by these system trends. The ACA is unsustainable for a number of reasons, including lack of price controls and cost containment, unaffordable costs for patients and taxpayers, widespread underinsurance, and massive administrative waste. Financing reform through single-payer national health insurance will bring a fairer system of universal coverage for comprehensive care of higher quality at less cost, while enabling a renaissance of family medicine and primary care as an expanding base of our health care system.

A five-year assessment of the affordable care act: market forces still trump the common good in U.S. Health care.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was enacted in 2010 as the signature domestic achievement of the Obama presidency. It was intended to contain costs and achieve near-universal access to affordable health care of improved quality. Now, five years later, it is time to assess its track record. This article compares the goals and claims of the ACA with its actual experience in the areas of access, costs, affordability, and quality of care. Based on the evidence, one has to conclude that containment of health care costs is nowhere in sight, that more than 37 million Americans will still be uninsured when the ACA is fully implemented in 2019, that many more millions will be underinsured, and that profiteering will still dominate the culture of U.S. health care. More fundamental reform will be needed. The country still needs to confront the challenge that our for-profit health insurance industry, together with enormous bureaucratic waste and widespread investor ownership throughout our market-based system, are themselves barriers to health care reform. Here we consider the lessons we can take away from the ACA's first five years and lay out the economic, social/political, and moral arguments for replacing it with single-payer national health insurance.

Cost-sharing under consumer-driven health care will not reform U.S. health care.

Various kinds of consumer-driven reforms have been attempted over the last 20 years in an effort to rein in soaring costs of health care in the United States. Most are based on a theory of moral hazard, which holds that patients will over-utilize health care services unless they pay enough for them. Although this theory is a basic premise of conventional health insurance, it has been discredited by actual experience over the years. While ineffective in containing costs, increased cost-sharing as a key element of consumer-driven health care (CDHC) leads to restricted access to care, underuse of necessary care, and lower quality and worse outcomes of care. This paper summarizes the three major problems of U.S. health care urgently requiring reform and shows how cost-sharing fails to meet that goal.

The generalist disciplines in American medicine one hundred years following the Flexner Report: a case study of unintended consequences and some proposals for post-Flexnerian reform.

Abraham Flexner's analysis of U.S. medical education at the turn of the 20th century transformed the processes of student selection and instruction, the roles and responsibilities of faculty members, and the provision of resources to support medical education. Flexner's report also led to the nearly universal adoption of the academic medical center as the focal point of medical school teaching, research, and clinical activities. In this article, the authors describe the effects of the dissemination of this model and how the subsequent introduction of public funding for research and patient care transformed academic health centers and altered the composition of the physician workforce, resulting in the proliferation of specialties. They also describe how these workforce changes, along with the evolution of health care financing during the late 20th century, have led to a system that affords the most scientifically advanced and potentially efficacious care in the world, yet so profoundly fails to ensure affordability and equitable access and quality, that the system is no longer sustainable. The authors propose that both health care system reform and medical education reform are needed now to restore economic viability and moral integrity, and that a key element of this process will be to rebalance the generalist and specialist composition of the physician workforce. They conclude by suggesting that post-Flexnerian reform of medical education should include broadening the scope of criteria used to select medical students and reshaping the curriculum to address the evolving needs of patient care during the 21st century.

Moral hazard and consumer-driven health care: a fundamentally flawed concept.

For more than 30 years, most health care economists in the United States have accepted a conventional theory of health insurance based on the concept of moral hazard: an assumption is made that insured people overuse health care services because they have insurance. The recent trend toward "consumer-driven health care" (CDHC) is advocated by its supporters based on this same premise, assuming that imprudent choices by patients can be avoided if they are held more financially responsible for their health care choices through larger co-payments and deductibles and other restrictions. This article examines how moral hazard-based CDHC plays out in both private plans and public programs. The author identifies seven ways in which this concept fails the public interest, while also failing to control health care costs. Uninsured and underinsured people, now including many in the middle class, underuse essential health care services, resulting in increased morbidity and more preventable hospitalizations and deaths among these groups than their more affluent counterparts. A case is made to reject moral hazard as an organizing rationale for health care, and the author offers some alternative approaches.

Disease management: panacea, another false hope, or something in between?

Disease management is being promulgated by many policy makers, legislators, and a burgeoning new disease management industry as the next major hope, together with information technology and consumer-directed health care, to bring cost containment to runaway costs of health care. Many expect quality improvement as well. The concept is being aggressively marketed to employers, health plans, and government in the wake of managed care's failure to contain costs. There is widespread confusion, however, about what disease management is and what impact it will have on patients, physicians, and the health care system itself. In this article I give a current snapshot of disease management by briefly addressing (1) its rationale and growth, (2) its track record concerning costs and quality of care, and (3) its impacts on primary care.

Myths and memes about single-payer health insurance in the United States: a rebuttal to conservative claims.

Recent years have seen the rapid growth of private think tanks within the neoconservative movement that conduct "policy research" biased to their own agenda. This article provides an evidence-based rebuttal to a 2002 report by one such think tank, the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), which was intended to discredit 20 alleged myths about single-payer national health insurance as a policy option for the United States. Eleven "myths" are rebutted under eight categories: access, cost containment, quality, efficiency, single-payer as solution, control of drug prices, ability to compete abroad (the "business case"), and public support for a single-payer system. Six memes (self-replicating ideas that are promulgated without regard to their merits) are identified in the NCPA report. Myths and memes should have no place in the national debate now underway over the future of a failing health care system, and need to be recognized as such and countered by experience and unbiased evidence.

Privatization of Medicare: toward disentitlement and betrayal of a social contract.

An intense political battle is being waged over the future of U.S. Medicare. The 40-year social contract established with the nation's elderly and disabled is seriously threatened. The basic issue is whether Medicare will remain a universal entitlement program or be privatized and dismantled as an obligation of government. Faced with the growing costs of the Medicare program, changing demographics of an aging population, and long-term federal deficits, conservative interests are promoting further privatization of the program under the guise of increasing beneficiaries' choice and the claimed efficiency of the private marketplace. Following a historical overview of past efforts to privatize Medicare, this article reviews the track record of private Medicare plans over the last 20 years with regard to choice, reliability, cost containment, benefits, quality of care, efficiency, public satisfaction, and fraud. In all of these areas, privatized Medicare has performed less well than original Medicare. Based on the evidence, one has to conclude that privatization of Medicare is detrimental to the elderly and disabled, the most vulnerable groups in our society, and that the only winners in that transformation are private market interests.

Myths as barriers to health care reform in the United States.

The U.S. health care system is deteriorating in terms of decreasing access, increased costs, unacceptable quality, and poor system performance compared with health care systems in many other industrialized Western countries. Reform efforts to establish universal insurance coverage have been defeated on five occasions over the last century, largely through successful opposition by pro-market stakeholders in the status quo. Reform attempts have repeatedly been thwarted by myths perpetuated by stakeholders without regard for the public interest. Six myths are identified here and defused by evidence: (1) "Everyone gets care anyhow;" (2) "We don't ration care in the United States"; (3) "The free market can resolve our problems in health care"; (4) "The U.S. health care system is basically healthy, so incremental change will address its problems;" (5) "The United States has the best health care system in the world"; and (6) "National health insurance is so unfeasible for political reasons that it should not be given serious consideration as a policy alternative." Incremental changes of the existing health care system have failed to resolve its underlying problems. Pressure is building again for system reform, which may become more feasible if a national debate can be focused on the public interest without distortion by myths and disinformation fueled by defending stakeholders.