Health reforms in the United States: The outlook after Biden's first 100 days.

The November 2020 election of Joe Biden, coupled with the election of a Congress controlled by the Democratic Party, has the potential to dramatically alter the direction of health policy in the United States. Donald Trump failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) but he managed to whittle down aspects of coverage protection. Historically, the first 100 days of a presidency are a bellwether of accomplishments to come. During this period Biden reversed several of Trump policies through both executive orders and a large economic stimulus bill. The stimulus bill substantially increased premium subsidies to encourage people to purchase health insurance coverage, albeit with funding guaranteed only for a two-year period. Larger accomplishments, such as making these enhanced premium subsidies permanent, reining in prescription drug spending, enacting a public health insurance option to compete with private insurers, and improving public health and health equity, will require further legislation. The political environment in the U.S. is now extraordinarily contentious. Each of these proposed initiatives faces major political hurdles and the window of opportunity for enacting each of these goals very well may be brief.

United States: Health System Review.

This analysis of the US health system reviews the developments in organization and governance, health financing, healthcare provision, health reforms and health system performance. The US health system has both considerable strengths and notable weaknesses. It has a large and well-trained health workforce and a wide range of high-quality medical specialists, as well as secondary and tertiary institutions, a robust health sector research programme and, for selected services, among the best medical outcomes in the world. But it also suffers from incomplete coverage of its citizenry, health expenditure levels per person far exceeding all other countries, poor measures on many objective and subjective measures of quality and outcomes, and an unequal distribution of resources and outcomes across the country and among different population groups. It is difficult to determine the extent to which deficiencies are health-system related, though it is clear that at least some of the problems are a result of poor access to care. The adoption of the Affordable Care Act in 2010 resulted in greatly improved coverage through subsidies for the uninsured to purchase private insurance, expanded eligibility for Medicaid (in some states), and greater protection for insured persons. Furthermore, primary care and public health received increased funding, and quality and expenditures were addressed through a range of measures such as financial rewards for providing higher-value care. At the same time, a change in political administration resulted in subsequent efforts to scale back the legislation. Many key issues remain, including further reducing the number of uninsured people, alleviating some of the burdensome patient cost-sharing requirements, and considering some new cost-containment methods such as allowing the government to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical manufacturers. The direction of future health policy will almost certainly depend on which political party is in power.

Revisiting out-of-pocket requirements: trends in spending, financial access barriers, and policy in ten high-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Countries rely on out-of-pocket (OOP) spending to different degrees and employ varying techniques. The article examines trends in OOP spending in ten high-income countries since 2000, and analyzes their relationship to self-assessed barriers to accessing health care services. The countries are Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. METHODS: Data from three sources are employed: OECD statistics, the Commonwealth Fund survey of individuals in each of ten countries, and country-specific documents on health care policies. Based on trends in OOP spending, we divide the ten countries into three groups and analyze both trends and access barriers accordingly. As part of this effort, we propose a conceptual model for understanding the key components of OOP spending. RESULTS: There is a great deal of variation in aggregate OOP spending per capita spending but there has been convergence over time, with the lowest-spending countries continuing to show growth and the highest spending countries showing stability. Both the level of aggregate OOP spending and changes in spending affect perceived access barriers, although there is not a perfect correspondence between the two. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for better understanding the root causes of OOP spending. This will require data collection that is broken down into OOP resulting from cost sharing and OOP resulting from direct payments (due to underinsurance and lacking benefits). Moreover, data should be disaggregated by consumer groups (e.g. income-level or health status). Only then can we better link the data to specific policies and suggest effective solutions to policy makers.

Universal coverage reforms in the USA: From Obamacare through Trump.

Since the election of Donald Trump as President, momentum towards universal health care coverage in the United States has stalled, although efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in its entirety failed. The ACA resulted in almost a halving of the percentage of the population under age 65 who are uninsured. In lieu of total repeal, the Republican-led Congress repealed the individual mandate to purchase health insurance, beginning in 2019. Moreover, the Trump administration is using its administrative authority to undo many of the requirements in the health insurance exchanges. Partly as a result, premium increases for the most popular plans will rise an average of 34% in 2018 and are likely to rise further after the mandate repeal goes into effect. Moreover, the administration is proposing other changes that, in providing states with more flexibility, may lead to the sale of cheaper and less comprehensive policies. In this volatile environment it is difficult to anticipate what will occur next. In the short-term there is proposed compromise legislation, where Republicans agree to provide funding for the cost-sharing subsidies if the Democrats agree to increase state flexibility in some areas and provide relief to small employers. Much will depend on the 2018 and 2020 elections. In the meantime, the prospects are that the number of uninsured will grow.

The 2013 cholesterol guideline controversy: Would better evidence prevent pharmaceuticalization?

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death globally. A class of medications, known as statins, lowers low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, which are associated with CVD. The newest 2013 U.S. cholesterol guideline contains an assessment of risk that greatly expands the number of individuals without CVD for whom statins are recommended. Other countries are also moving in this direction. This article examines the controversy surrounding these guidelines using the 2013 cholesterol guidelines as a case study of broader trends in clinical guidelines to use a narrow evidence base, expand the boundaries of disease and overemphasize pharmaceutical treatment. We find that the recommendation in the 2013 cholesterol guidelines to initiate statins in individuals with a lower risk of CVD is controversial and there is much disagreement on whether there is evidence for the guideline change. We note that, in general, clinical guidelines may use evidence that has a number of biases, are subject to conflicts of interest at multiple levels, and often do not include unpublished research. Further, guidelines may contribute to the "medicalization" or "pharmaceuticalization" of healthcare. Specific policy recommendations to improve clinical guidelines are indicated: these include improving the evidence base, establishing a public registry of all results, including unpublished ones, and freeing the research process from pharmaceutical sector control.

Challenges facing the United States of America in implementing universal coverage.

In 2010, immediately before the United States of America (USA) implemented key features of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), 18% of its residents younger than 65 years lacked health insurance. In the USA, gaps in health coverage and unhealthy lifestyles contribute to outcomes that often compare unfavourably with those observed in other high-income countries. By March 2014, the ACA had substantially changed health coverage in the USA but most of its main features--health insurance exchanges, Medicaid expansion, development of accountable care organizations and further oversight of insurance companies--remain works in progress. The ACA did not introduce the stringent spending controls found in many European health systems. It also explicitly prohibits the creation of institutes--for the assessment of the cost-effectiveness of pharmaceuticals, health services and technologies--comparable to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Haute Autorité de Santé in France or the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in Australia. The ACA was--and remains--weakened by a lack of cross-party political consensus. The ACA's performance and its resulting acceptability to the general public will be critical to the Act's future.

En 2010, juste avant que les États-Unis d'Amérique aient mis en œuvre les principales caractéristiques de la loi Affordable Care Act (ACA, loi sur les soins abordables), 18% des résidents des États-Unis d'Amérique âgés de moins de 65 ans de disposaient d'aucune assurance-maladie. Aux États-Unis d'Amérique, les insuffisances dans la couverture maladie et les modes de vie malsains contribuent aux résultats qui sont souvent comparés de manière défavorable avec les résultats observés dans les autres pays à revenu élevé. En mars 2014, l'ACA a considérablement modifié la couverture maladie aux États-Unis d'Amérique, mais il reste encore beaucoup à faire concernant la plupart de ses caractéristiques principales - échanges d'assurance-maladie, développement du Medicaid, création d'organisations de soins responsables et surveillance accrue des compagnies d'assurances. L'ACA n'a pas introduit les contrôles rigoureux des dépenses qui existent dans de nombreux systèmes de santé européens. Elle interdit également explicitement la création d'instituts ­ pour l'évaluation du rapport coût-efficacité des produits pharmaceutiques, des services et des technologies de santé ­ comparables au National Institute for Health and Care Excellence du Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du Nord, à la Haute Autorité de Santé en France ou au Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee en Australie. L'ACA était ­ et reste ­ affaiblie par le manque de consensus entre les partis politiques. La performance de l'ACA et son acceptabilité par le grand public seront déterminantes pour l'avenir de la loi.

En 2010, inmediatamente antes de que los Estados Unidos aplicaran características clave de la Ley de Cuidado de la Salud Asequible (ACA, por sus siglas en inglés), el 18 % de los residentes de Estados Unidos menores de 65 años carecían de seguro de salud. En los E.E.U.U., las brechas en la cobertura de salud y los estilos de vida insanos contribuyen a unos resultados que a menudo son peores que los observados en otros países con ingresos altos. En marzo de 2014, la ACA modificó sustancialmente la cobertura de salud en los Estados Unidos, pero la mayoría de sus características principales, es decir, el intercambio de seguros médicos, la expansión de Medicaid, el desarrollo de organizaciones de atención médica responsable y la mayor supervisión de las compañías de seguros son aún tareas pendientes. La ACA no introdujo controles de gastos estrictos como los presentes en muchos sistemas de salud europeos. Además, prohíbe explícitamente la creación de institutos para la evaluación de la rentabilidad de productos farmacéuticos, servicios y tecnologías de la salud, similares al Instituto Nacional de Salud y Excelencia Clínica en el Reino Unido de Gran Bretaña e Irlanda del Norte, la Haute Autorité de Santé en Francia o el Comité Asesor de Beneficios Farmacéuticos en Australia. La aplicación de la ACA era (y sigue siendo) insuficiente por la falta de consenso político entre todos los partidos. El cumplimiento de la ACA y su aceptación consiguiente por la población general serán decisivos para el futuro de la ley.

United States of America: health system review.

This analysis of the United States health system reviews the developments in organization and governance, health financing, health-care provision, health reforms and health system performance. The US health system has both considerable strengths and notable weaknesses. It has a large and well-trained health workforce, a wide range of high-quality medical specialists as well as secondary and tertiary institutions, a robust health sector research program and, for selected services, among the best medical outcomes in the world. But it also suffers from incomplete coverage of its citizenry, health expenditure levels per person far exceeding all other countries, poor measures on many objective and subjective measures of quality and outcomes, an unequal distribution of resources and outcomes across the country and among different population groups, and lagging efforts to introduce health information technology. It is difficult to determine the extent to which deficiencies are health-system related, though it seems that at least some of the problems are a result of poor access to care. Because of the adoption of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, the United States is facing a period of enormous potential change. Improving coverage is a central aim, envisaged through subsidies for the uninsured to purchase private insurance, expanded eligibility for Medicaid (in some states) and greater protection for insured persons. Furthermore, primary care and public health receive increased funding, and quality and expenditures are addressed through a range of measures. Whether the ACA will indeed be effective in addressing the challenges identified above can only be determined over time.

United States of America: health system review

This analysis of the United States health system reviews the developmentsin organization and governance, health financing, health care provision,health reforms and health system performance. The United States health systemhas both considerable strengths and notable weaknesses. It has a large andwell trained health workforce, a wide range of high-quality medical specialistsas well as secondary and tertiary institutions, a robust health sector researchprogramme and, for selected services, among the best medical outcomes in theworld. But it also suffers from incomplete coverage of its citizenry, healthexpenditure levels per person far exceeding all other countries, poor measureson many objective and subjective measures of quality and outcomes, anunequal distribution of resources and outcomes across the country and amongdifferent population groups, and lagging efforts to introduce health informationtechnology. It is difficult to determine the extent to which deficiencies arehealth-system related, though it seems that at least some of the problems are aresult of poor access to care. Because of the adoption of the Affordable CareAct (ACA) in 2010, the United States is facing a period of enormous potential change.Improving coverage is a central aim, envisaged through subsidies for theuninsured to purchase private insurance, expanded eligibility for Medicaid (insome states) and greater protection for insured persons. Furthermore, primarycare and public health receive increased funding, and quality and expendituresare addressed through a range of measures. Whether the ACA will indeed beeffective in addressing the challenges identified above can only be determined over time.

United States-Mexico cross-border health insurance initiatives: Salud Migrante and Medicare in Mexico.

While U.S. health care reform will most likely reduce the overall number of uninsured Mexican-Americans, it does not address challenges related to health care coverage for undocumented Mexican immigrants, who will remain uninsured under the measures of the reform; documented low-income Mexican immigrants who have not met the five-year waiting period required for Medicaid benefits; or the growing number of retired U.S. citizens living in Mexico, who lack easy access to Medicare-supported services. This article reviews two promising binational initiatives that could help address these challenges-Salud Migrante and Medicare in Mexico; discusses their prospective applications within the context of U.S. health care reform; and identifies potential challenges to their implementation (legal, political, and regulatory), as well as the possible benefits, including coverage of uninsured Mexican immigrants, and their integration into the U.S. health care system (through Salud Migrante), and access to lower-cost Medicare-supported health care for U.S. retirees in Mexico (Medicare in Mexico).

United States-Mexico cross-border health insurance initiatives: Salud Migrante and Medicare in Mexico / Iniciativas transfronterizas de seguro de salud entre México y los Estados Unidos: Salud Migrante y Medicare en México

While U.S. health care reform will most likely reduce the overall number of uninsured Mexican-Americans, it does not address challenges related to health care coverage for undocumented Mexican immigrants, who will remain uninsured under the measures of the reform; documented low-income Mexican immigrants who have not met the five-year waiting period required for Medicaid benefits; or the growing number of retired U.S. citizens living in Mexico, who lack easy access to Medicare-supported services. This article reviews two promising binational initiatives that could help address these challenges-Salud Migrante and Medicare in Mexico; discusses their prospective applications within the context of U.S. health care reform; and identifies potential challenges to their implementation (legal, political, and regulatory), as well as the possible benefits, including coverage of uninsured Mexican immigrants, and their integration into the U.S. health care system (through Salud Migrante), and access to lower-cost Medicare-supported health care for U.S. retirees in Mexico (Medicare in Mexico).

Aunque la reforma del sector sanitario de los Estados Unidos muy probablemente reducirá el número global de ciudadanos estadounidenses de origen mexicano sin cobertura de atención de la salud, esta reforma no afronta los problemas relacionados con esta cobertura para los inmigrantes mexicanos indocumentados, quienes seguirán sin tener seguro aun tras la aplicación de las medidas de la reforma; para los inmigrantes mexicanos documentados de bajos ingresos que no han cumplido el período de espera de cinco años requerido para recibir las prestaciones de Medicaid; o para el número cada vez mayor de ciudadanos estadounidenses jubilados que viven en México y no pueden acceder con facilidad a los servicios de Medicare. En este artículo se analizan dos iniciativas binacionales prometedoras que podrían ayudar a afrontar estos retos: Salud Migrante y Medicare en México. Se tratan además sus futuras aplicaciones dentro del contexto de la reforma del sector sanitario de los Estados Unidos y se señalan los posibles retos para su ejecución (legales, políticos y reglamentarios), al igual que las posibles prestaciones, como la cobertura de los inmigrantes mexicanos no asegurados y su integración en el sistema de atención de la salud de los Estados Unidos (mediante Salud Migrante), y el acceso a atención de la salud de bajo costo, con el apoyo de Medicare, para los jubilados estadounidenses residentes en México (Medicare en México).

Managing pay for performance: aligning social science research with budget predictability.

Managers and policymakers are seeking practical guidelines for assessing the outcomes of emerging pay-for-performance (P4P) programs. Evaluations of P4P programs published to date are mixed-some are confusing-and methodological problems with them are common. This article first identifies and summarizes obstacles to implementing effective P4P programs. Second, it describes results from social science research going back several decades to support evidence-based P4P best practices. Among the findings from this research, the zero-sum and "earn it back" P4P incentive systems have important drawbacks and may be counterproductive, neither reducing health system costs nor improving quality. The research suggests that punishing participants for low performance may further reduce individuals' performance, especially when involvement is required. We suggest that optimal P4P systems are those that reward all participants for performance improvements. Third, the article links P4P design to budgetary considerations. P4P program designs that provide incentives while improving quality and reducing costs are critical if budget neutrality is a priority for the organization and its resources are limited. In these types of P4P designs, cost calculations are straightforward: The greater the participation, the higher the savings. The article concludes by recommending an evidence-based P4P approach for practitioners that can be implemented without large upfront investment. More research on this topic is also advised.

Ownership, financing, and management strategies of the ten largest for-profit nursing home chains in the United States.

This study examined the ownership, financing, and management strategies of the 10 largest for-profit nursing home chains in the United States, including the four largest chains purchased by private equity corporations. Descriptive data were collected from Internet searches, company reports, and other sources for the decade 1998-2008. Since 1998, the largest chains have made many changes in their ownership and structure, and some have converted from publicly traded companies to private ownership. This study shows the increasing complexity of corporate nursing home ownership and the lack of public information about ownership and financial status. The chains have used strategies to maximize shareholder and investor value that include increasing Medicare revenues, occupancy rates, and company diversification, establishing multiple layers of corporate ownership, developing real estate investment trusts, and creating limited liability companies. These strategies enhance shareholder and investor profits, reduce corporate taxes, and reduce liability risk. There is a need for greater transparency in ownership and financial reporting and for more government oversight of the largest for-profit chains, including those owned by private equity companies.

Switching health insurance plans: results from a health survey.

The study is designed to provide an informal summary of what is known about consumer switching of health insurance plans and to contribute to knowledge about what motivates consumers who choose to switch health plans. Do consumers switch plans largely on the basis of critical reflection and assessment of information about the quality, and price? The literature suggests that switching is complicated, not always possible, and often overwhelming to consumers. Price does not always determine choice. Quality is very hard for consumers to understand. Results from a random sample survey (n = 2791) of the Alkmaar region of the Netherlands are reported here. They suggest that rather than embracing the opportunity to be active critical consumers, individuals are more likely to avoid this role by handing this activity off to a group purchasing organization. There is little evidence that consumers switch plans on the basis of critical reflection and assessment of information about quality and price. The new data reported here confirm the importance of a group purchasing organizations. In a free-market-health insurance system confidence in purchasing groups may be more important for health insurance choice than health informatics. This is not what policy makers expected and might result a less efficient health insurance market system.

Evaluation of rational use of medications in the United States.

Rational medication use means taking medication appropriately for curing and relieving the symptoms of disease on the basis of evidence and sound judgment. We compare US policy experience on rational use of medications with the World Health Organization (WHO) list of interventions designed to promote such use. Current US performance and educational, managerial, and regulatory interventions to improve it are discussed. We conclude that, while most of the WHO guidelines for rational medication use are practiced in some form in one or more of the various US health care subsystems today, overall performance based on outcomes is not comparable with that of other industrialized countries. This is due to the absence of a national drug policy, the presence of a few strong stakeholders with committed policy preferences, and the altogether fragmented character of the US state and federal health systems. Practical suggestions are offered as to how the US could improve its overall less-than-optimal policies on rational medication use.

U.S. pharmacy policy: a public health perspective on safety and cost.

A public health perspective based on social justice and a population health point of view emphasizes pharmacy policy innovations regarding safety and costs. Such policies that effectively reduce costs include controlling profits, establishing profit targets, extending prescription providers, revising prescription classification schemes, emphasizing generic medications, and establishing formularies. Public education and universal programs may reduce costs, but co-pays and "cost-sharing" do not. Switching medications to over-the-counter (OTC) status, pill splitting, and importing medication from abroad are poor substitutes for authentic public health pharmacy policy. Where policy changes yield savings, public health insists that these savings should be used to increase access and improve population health. In the future, pharmacy policies may emphasize public health accountability more than individual liberty because of potential cost savings to society. Fear of litigation, as an informal mechanism of focusing manufacturer's attention on safety, is inefficient; public health pharmacy policy regarding safety looks toward a more active regulatory role on the part of government. A case study of direct-to-consumer advertising illustrates the complexity of public health pharmacy policy.

Demand-driven care and hospital choice. Dutch health policy toward demand-driven care: results from a survey into hospital choice.

In the Netherlands, current policy opinion emphasizes demand-driven health care. Central to this model is the view, advocated by some Dutch health policy makers, that patients should be encouraged to be aware of and make use of health quality and health outcomes information in making personal health care provider choices. The success of the new health care system in the Netherlands is premised on this being the case. After a literature review and description of the new Dutch health care system, the adequacy of this demand-driven health policy is tested. The data from a July 2005, self-administered questionnaire survey of 409 patients (response rate of 94%) as to how they choose a hospital are presented. Results indicate that most patients did not choose by actively employing available quality and outcome information. They were, rather, referred by their general practitioner. Hospital choice is highly related to the importance a patient attaches to his or her physician's opinion about a hospital. Some patients indicated that their hospital choice was affected by the reputation of the hospital, by the distance they lived from the hospital, etc. but physician's advice was, by far, the most important factor. Policy consequences are important; the assumptions underlying the demand-driven model of patient health provider choice are inadequate to explain the pattern of observed responses. An alternative, more adequate model is required, one that takes into account the patient's confidence in physician referral and advice.

Health Lifestyles in the U.S. and Canada: Are We Really So Different?

OBJECTIVE: Some research suggests that social, political, and cultural life in the U.S. and Canada are growing divergent. We use health lifestyle theories to extend prior research and compare the U.S. and Canada on population health indicators. METHODS: The population health indicators include health behaviors, fertility, and cause-specific mortality for each of the United States (and Washington D.C.), and Canadian Provinces and Territories (N=64). RESULTS: Canada and the U.S. are significantly different on many health lifestyle variables. But, levels of the health lifestyle variables converge at the U.S./Canada border, and some U.S. States and Canadian Provinces or Territories exhibit similar health lifestyle patterns, regardless of whether they share an international border (these are mapped in the paper). CONCLUSIONS: Although Canada and the U.S. differ on major population health indicators, some States, Provinces, and Territories exhibit marked similarities. Our paper concludes with a discussion about how our comparative perspective might inform population health policies.