title: What works and what doesn't work well in the US healthcare system.
abstract: Most observers agree that the US healthcare system is expensive, provides variable quality and leaves many without coverage. The policy challenge is that there is little consensus on how to approach reform. Many proposals assume that systems appearing to work in one nation can be transferred in toto to another or, alternatively, that only minor tweaking of an existing system is possible. The former approach ignores fundamental social, political and legal realities, and the latter ignores the potential for increased benefits. Additionally, many proposals are ideologically driven, focusing on how to finance expanded coverage. Broadening the discussion to examine other components of the system that do not work well may identify sufficient benefits for various stakeholders to engage them in finding more comprehensive solutions that address a range of problems. This paper examines areas in which the US healthcare system performs worse than one would like and areas in which it appears to work well. In the first category is the high proportion of people without coverage, the inefficient and inequitable incentives for the purchase and provision of insurance, the problems in deciding what should be covered, the ineffective payment incentives, administrative costs and complexities, the variable quality and lack of responsiveness to patient preferences, the less than optimal safety, under-valued primary care, provider de-professionalisation, and the costs that appear to be on auto-pilot. In the second category is the rapid and wide-reaching technological innovation, the ready access to care for the insured, and clinical and patient autonomy. Among the things taken as given is our constitutional (rather than parliamentary) political system and underlying public values about the roles of individuals and government. Current players will be active in any debate about reform, so their interests must be addressed. Likewise, certain underlying economic and social drivers of behaviour will continue and should be considered in any reform proposal. Potentially changeable, however, are the roles and functions that the current players may take on in a new system. Likewise, health system-specific legislation should be as malleable as are financing approaches. A more expansive view of the health system's problems makes potential solutions more complex. By addressing problems faced by people currently with coverage and by providers and other stakeholders within the system, however, the benefits may be sufficiently widespread to create the political consensus that has so far eluded reformers in the US.
authors: Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California San Francisco, 3333 California Street, Suite 265, San Francisco, California 94118, USA. hal.luft@ucsf.edu
authors: Harold S
authors: HS
authors: Luft
mesh_terms: D003695:Delivery of Health Care / Q000191:economics / Q000458:organization & administration* / Q000592:standards; D018166:Health Care Reform; D054625:Healthcare Disparities / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D061889:Healthcare Financing; D006801:Humans; D019458:Insurance Coverage / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D007348:Insurance, Health / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D014481:United States
references: Health Aff (Millwood). 2001 Jan-Feb;20(1):9-26
references: 11194864
references: Health Aff (Millwood). 1984 Summer;3(2):6-32
references: 6432667
references: Qual Saf Health Care. 2002 Mar;11(1):64-8
references: 12078373
references: Ann Intern Med. 2003 Feb 18;138(4):288-98
references: 12585826
references: Health Aff (Millwood). 2001 Sep-Oct;20(5):43-60
references: 11558720
references: JAMA. 1999 Oct 20;282(15):1458-65
references: 10535437
references: Health Serv Res. 2004 Aug;39(4 Pt 2):1189-210
references: 15230920
references: Health Aff (Millwood). 2001 Sep-Oct;20(5):11-29
references: 11558696
references: Am Econ Rev. 1996 Mar;86(1):1-24
references: 10168326
references: BMJ. 2002 Oct 26;325(7370):961-4
references: 12399352
references: N Engl J Med. 1991 Jul 25;325(4):245-51
references: 2057025
references: Ann Intern Med. 2003 Aug 19;139(4):267-73
references: 12965982
references: N Engl J Med. 2005 Jul 21;353(3):305-9
references: 16034019
references: Ann Intern Med. 2003 Feb 18;138(4):273-87
references: 12585825
references: JAMA. 1991 May 15;265(19):2541-4
references: 2020073
references: N Engl J Med. 2003 Aug 21;349(8):768-75
references: 12930930
references: N Engl J Med. 1996 Dec 26;335(26):1963-7
references: 8960477