Challenges and options for increasing the number of Americans with health insurance.

This paper provides an overview of the issues confronting policymakers who want to develop programs to help working Americans obtain health insurance. It sets the stage for the following 10 articles, which detail a variety of proposals to offer subsidies and financial incentives to people so they will purchase health coverage. This paper examines challenges to covering the uninsured, describes principles that should be used in assessing policy proposals aimed at this purpose, and evaluates the main strategies for coverage expansions. The evaluation of proposal categories also provides estimates of the costs and consequences of specific proposals described in the other papers.

Hospital financing and neonatal intensive care.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between hospital financing patterns and hospital resources for the care of babies born at low birthweight in New York City. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: Data on neonatal care beds in New York City hospitals for 1991, obtained from the Greater New York Hospital Association, which were matched to 1991 hospital-specific birthweight and payment distributions from the New York State Department of Health. STUDY DESIGN: Statistical analyses were used to assess the relationship between insurance and beds across all hospitals and across hospitals classified by ownership and teaching status. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: After adjusting for low birthweight and other measures of patient need and for hospital affiliation, the study finds that hospitals with more privately insured patients, especially those with more privately insured low-birthweight newborns, have statistically significantly more neonatal intensive care beds than do those with fewer such patients. This result persists within hospital affiliation categories. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that differences in the care received by privately insured, Medicaid insured, and uninsured low-birthweight babies may stem from differences in the resources available to the hospitals that treat these patients.

Evaluation of Medicaid managed care. Satisfaction, access, and use.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of managed care on Medicaid beneficiaries' satisfaction with, access to, and use of medical care during early implementation of an enrollment initiative. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of a random sample of Medicaid beneficiaries in 5 managed care plans and in the conventional Medicaid program. SETTING: New York, NY. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 18 to 64 years who received Medicaid insurance benefits through Aid to Families With Dependent Children or State Home Relief and had been enrolled in a managed care plan or receiving benefits under conventional Medicaid for at least 6 months. Of the 2500 enrollees in managed care plans and the 600 other beneficiaries in conventional Medicaid whom we surveyed, 1038 enrollees and 410 nonenrollees responded. OUTCOME MEASURES: Beneficiaries' ratings of overall satisfaction and 13 dimensions of satisfaction related to access, interpersonal and technical quality, and cost; reports of access, including regular source (location) of care, waiting time for appointment, waiting time in office, and ability to obtain care; and reports of use, including inpatient, emergency department, and ambulatory visits. RESULTS: Compared with beneficiaries in conventional Medicaid, managed care enrollees in general gave higher ratings of satisfaction. The results were not consistent, however, between the proportion who were extremely satisfied and the proportion who were extremely dissatisfied. Managed care enrollees had significantly greater odds of being extremely satisfied (excellent and very good ratings), but fewer differences were statistically significant for levels of extreme dissatisfaction (fair and poor ratings). With regard to access, managed care enrollees had significantly greater odds of having a usual source of care (odds ratio [OR], 2.33) and seeing the same clinician there (OR, 2.72) and had significantly shorter appointment and office waiting times. Managed care and conventional Medicaid beneficiaries reported no significant differences in obtaining or delays in getting needed care and in inpatient or emergency department use. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid managed care enrollees in New York City reported better access to care and higher levels of satisfaction compared with conventional Medicaid beneficiaries. Differences between these findings and those for privately insured populations highlight the pitfalls of generalizing from other groups to Medicaid for policy purposes. Given growing reliance on consumer satisfaction surveys for clinical and public policy, future research should focus on factors that explain extreme satisfaction vs extreme dissatisfaction. New York State's initiative, which has been associated with careful state and local monitoring, merits continuing evaluation as managed care enrollment grows and may become mandatory.

Innovation under federal health care reform.

Health care reform, which seeks to expand coverage and control spending, contains mixed messages for innovators. Policies that advance reform goals are likely to shift resources away from hospitals, specialists, and expensive procedures and toward areas such as prevention and primary care where innovation may yield greater health improvements per dollar spent. The size of these effects depends critically on the extent of cost containment achieved. Constraining spending will be politically difficult because it requires that consumers forego some possible health benefits in return for lower costs. In a climate of cost containment, systematic evaluation of new technology is vital to identify and expand coverage to worthwhile innovations and to assure a fair hearing for innovators.