Skip to main content

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Kaiser Family Foundation. Health care and the 2004 election: health care costs [online]. Available from URL: http://www.kff.org/insurance/upload/Elections-2004-Health-Care-Costs.pdf [Accessed 2005 Nov 1]

  2. Woolhandler S, Campbell T, Himmelstein DU. Costs of health care administration in the United States and Canada. N Engl J Med 2003 Aug 21; 349: 768–75

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Butler SM. A tax reform strategy to deal with the uninsured. JAMA 1991 May 15; 265(19): 2541–4

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Pauly MV, Herring BJ. Expanding coverage via tax credits: trade-offs and outcomes. Health Aff 2001 Jan/Feb; 20(1): 9–26

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. DeNavas-Walt C, Proctor B, Lee C. U.S. Census Bureau, Suitland (MD). Income, poverty, and health insurance cover-age in the United States: 2004, Current population reports; 2005 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf [Accessed 2005 Oct 12]

  6. Greenhouse S, Barbaro M. Wal-Mart memo suggests ways to cut employee benefit costs. New York Times 2005 Oct 26. Available from URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/26/business/26walmart.ready.html?ex=1287979200&en=e9a0f5d466bb026e&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss [Accessed 2006 August 18]

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hakim D. Carmakers in for a long haul in paying retiree health care. New York Times 2004 Sept 15. Available from URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/15/business/15retire.html?ex=1156046400&en=799036a87a4c9dba&ei=5070 [Accessed 2006 August 18]

    Google Scholar 

  8. Agrawal V, Ehrbeck T, O’Neill K, et al. McKinsey & Co. consumer-directed health plan report — early evidence is promising; 2005 Jun [online]. Available from URL: http://www.mck-insey.com/clientservice/payorprovider/Health_Plan_Report.pdf [Accessed 2005 Nov 2]

  9. Parente ST, Feldman R, Christianson JB. Evaluation of the effect of a consumer-driven health plan on medical care expenditures and utilization. Health Serv Res 2004 Aug; 39(4): 1189–209

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Buntin MB, Damberg C, Haviland A, et al. California HealthCare Foundation/RAND. “Consumer-directed” health plans: implications for health care quality and cost [online]. Available from URL: http://www.chcf.org/documents/insurance/ConsumerDirHealthPlansQualityCost.pdf [Accessed 2005 Nov 1]

  11. Conwell LJ, Cohen JW. Characteristics of persons with high medical expenditures in the U.S. civilian noninstitutionalized population, 2002. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2005 Statistical Brief #73 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/papers/st73/stat73.pdf#xml=http://198.136.163.161/SCRIPTS/texis.exe/webinator/search/xml.txt?query=high+expenditures&pr= MEPS&order=r&cq=&id=4360ef2f2 [Accessed 2005 Oct 27]

    Google Scholar 

  12. Arrow K. Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical care. Am Econ Rev 1963; 53: 941–73

    Google Scholar 

  13. Fisher ES, Wennberg DE, Stukel TA, et al. The implications of regional variations in Medicare spending. Part 1: the content, quality, and accessibility of care. Ann Intern Med 2003; 138: 273–87

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Fisher ES, Wennberg DE, Stukel TA, et al. The implications of regional variations in Medicare spending. Part 2: health outcomes and satisfaction with care. Ann Intern Med 2003; 138: 288–98

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wennberg JE. Unwarranted variations in healthcare delivery: implications for academic medical centres. BMJ 2002; 325: 961–4

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wennberg JE. Dealing with medical variations: a proposal for action. Health Aff 1984; 3(2): 6–32

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR, et al. Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. JAMA 1999 Oct 20; 282(15): 1458–65

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Anderson GF. Medicare and chronic conditions. N Engl J Med 2005 July 2; 353(3): 305–9

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS, editors. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  20. Localio AR, Lawthers AG, Brennan TA, et al. Relation between malpractice claims and adverse events due to negligence. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study III. N Engl J Med 1999 Feb 7; 324(6): 377–84

    Google Scholar 

  21. Brennan TV, Mello MM. Patient safety and medical malpractice: a case study. Ann Intern Med 2003 Aug 19; 139(4): 267–73

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Brennan TA, Sox CM, Bursetin HR. Relation between negligent adverse events and the outcomes of medical malpractice litigation. N Engl J Med 1996 Dec 26; 335(26): 1963–7

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Garner BA, editor. Black’s law dictionary. 6th ed. St Paul (MN): West Group, 1990: 959

    Google Scholar 

  24. Liang BA. A system of medical error disclosure. Qual Saf Health Care 2002; 11: 64–8

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Larson MS. The rise of professionalism: a sociological analysis. Barkeley (CA): University of California Press, 1977

    Google Scholar 

  26. Fuchs VR. Economics, values, and health care reform. Am Econ Rev 1996 Mar; 86(1): 1–24

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Culter DM, McClellan M. Is technological change in medicine worth it? Health Aff 2001 Sep/Oct; 20(5): 11–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kleinke JD. The price of progress: prescription drugs in the health care market. Health Aff 2001 Sep/Oct; 20(5): 43–60

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Pauly MV. The economics of moral hazard: comment. Am Econ Rev 1968; 58: 531–7

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Harold S. Luft.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Luft, H.S. What Works and What Doesn’t Work Well in the US Healthcare System. PharmacoEconomics 24, 15–28 (2006). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200624002-00003

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200624002-00003

Keywords

  • Healthcare System
  • Health Insurance Coverage
  • Reconfigured System
  • Employer Contribution
  • Medicare Spending