Advertisement

Governmental Initiatives in the Area of Quality Assurance

  • Patrick H. DeLeon
  • Nancy K. Gilmore-Lee
  • Stephen A. Ragusea
  • Paul A. Eckert
Part of the Issues in the Practice of Psychology book series (IPPS)

Abstract

In addressing and conceptualizing the issue of quality assurance from a public policy frame of reference, it is important to appreciate the fundamentally different roles that the government (federal and state) can appropriately play in ensuring the delivery of quality health care. Few would disagree that both the federal government and the various state entities have a clear and distinct responsibility for ensuring that their direct beneficiaries receive necessary and appropriate health care. And many, but admittedly not all, of our colleagues also appreciate that the government does possess the authority, if it decides to utilize it, to explore (i.e., support) demonstration projects to ensure that within the health care system at large (including the private sector) services being provided within its geographic jurisdiction are of the highest quality possible.

Keywords

Mental Health Mental Health Care American Psychological Association Health Care Quality Government Initiative 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Advisory Commission on Consumer Protection and Quality in the Health Care Industry. (1997, November). Consumer bill of rights and responsibilities: Report to the President of the United States. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  2. American Psychological Association (APA). (1996a). Case studies illustrate cost savings resulting from appropriate mental health intervention (Issue Brief). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  3. American Psychological Association (APA). (1996b). Mental health benefit is cost-effective (Issue Brief). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  4. American Psychological Association (APA). (1996c). The costs of failing to provide appropriate mental health care (Issue Brief). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  5. Bachman, R. E. (1996, April). An actuarial analysis of the Domenici-Wellstone amendment to S. 1028 “health insurance reform act” to provide parity for mental health benefits under group and individual insurance plans. Washington, DC: Coopers & Lybrand.Google Scholar
  6. Cantor, D. W. (1998). News from Washington, DC—Achieving a mental health bill of rights. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 29(4), 315–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chassin, M. R. (1997, May/June). Assessing strategies for quality improvement. Health Affairs, 16, 151–161.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clinton, W. J. (1998, January 28). The State of the Union. The Washington Post, p. A24.Google Scholar
  9. Congressional Budget Office (CBO). (1996, May 13). CBO’s estimates of the impact on employers of the mental health parity amendment in HR 3103. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  10. Copeland, C. (1998, April). Issues of quality and consumer rights in the health care market (Issue Brief No. 196). Washington, DC: Employee Benefit Research Institute.Google Scholar
  11. Darby, M. (1998, February). Health care quality: from data to accountability. (Background paper). National Health Policy Forum: The George Washington University.Google Scholar
  12. Davis, J. E. (1984, November). Testimony before the US Senate Appropriations Committee. Variations in medical practice (S. Hrg. #98-1239), 124–138.Google Scholar
  13. DeLeon, P. H. (1988). Public policy and public service: Our professional duty. American Psychologist, 43, 309–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DeLeon, P. H., & VandenBos, G. R. (1980). Psychotherapy reimbursement in federal programs: Political factors. In G. R. Van den Bos (Ed.), Psychotherapy: Practice, research, policy (pp. 247–285). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. DeLeon, P. H., & VandenBos, G. R. (1983). The new federal health care frontiers—Cost containment and “Wellness.” Psychotherapy in Private Practice, 1(2), 17–32.Google Scholar
  16. DeLeon, P. H., & Wiggins, J. G. (1996). Prescription privileges for psychologists. American Psychologist, 51 (3), 225–229.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. DeLeon, P. H., & Williams, J. G. (1997). Evaluation research and public policy formation: Are psychologists collectively willing to accept unpopular findings? American Psychologist, 52(5), 551–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. DeLeon, P. H., VandenBos, G. R., & Cummings, N. A. (1983). Psychotherapy—Is it safe, effective, and appropriate? The beginning of an evolutionary dialogue. American Psychologist, 38, 907–911.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. DeLeon, P. H., Willens, J. G., Clinton, J. J., & VandenBos, G. R. (1988). The role of the federal government in peer review. In G. Stricker & A. R. Rodriguez (Eds.), Handbook of quality assurance in mental health (pp. 285–309). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  20. DeLeon, P. H., Bulatao, E. Q., & VandenBos, G. R. (1994). Federal government initiatives in managed mental health. In S. A. Shueman, S. L. Mayhugh, & B. S. Gould (Eds.), Managed behavioral health care: An industry perspective (pp. 97–112). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
  21. DeLeon, P. H., Howell, W. C., Newman, R. S., Brown, A. B., Keita, G. P., & Sexton, J. L. (1996). Expanding roles in the twenty-first century. In R. J. Resnick & R. H. Rozensky (Eds.), Health psychology through the life span: Practice and research opportunities (pp. 427–453). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. DeLeon, P. H., Sammons, M. T., & Fox, R. E. (in press a). Prescription privileges. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  23. DeLeon, P. H., Sammons, M. T., Frank, R. G., & VandenBos, G. R. (in press b). Changing health care environment in the United States—Steadily evolving into the 21st century. In A. N. Wiens (Ed.), Professional issues (Vol. 8): Comprehensive clinical psychology. New York: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  24. Eckert, P. A. (1994). Cost control through quality improvement: The new challenge for psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 25(1), 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI). (1997, February). Issues in mental health care benefits: The costs of mental health parity (Issue Brief No. 182). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  26. England, M. J. (1997, January). The mental health parity act: Lifting benefit plan limits. HIU Magazine.Google Scholar
  27. Frist, W. H. (1998, June 23). Introduction of S. 2208, the healthcare quality enhancement act of 1998. Congressional Record, 144(3), S.6888–S.6889. Washington, DC: U.S. Senate.Google Scholar
  28. Gaus, C. R., & DeLeon, P. H. (1995). News from Washington, DC—Thinking beyond the limitations of mental health care. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 26(4), 339–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Health: GOP’s managed care bill rushes through House. (1998, July 25). Weekly Report, p. 2007. Washington, DC: 1998 Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
  30. Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law. (1996, May). Paying for parity: A review of costs in two states with health insurance laws mandating equal coverage of mental health care. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  31. Kiesler, C. A. (1984, November). Testimony before the US Senate Appropriations Committee. Variations in medical practice (S. Hrg. #98-1239), 138–164. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  32. Kizer, K. W. (1998, January 13). Letter response to John D. Rockefeller IV, ranking minority member, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, United States Senate, unpublished correspondence.Google Scholar
  33. Lohr, K. N. (Ed.). (1990). Medicare: A strategy for quality assurance, Vol. II. Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  34. Lorion, R. P., Iscoe, I., DeLeon, P. H., & VandenBos, G. R. (Eds.). (1996). Psychology and public policy: Balancing public service and professional need. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  35. Melek, S. P., & Pyenson, B. (1996, April 12). Premium rate estimates for a mental illness parity provision to S. 1028: “The health insurance reform act of 1995.” Milliman & Robertson.Google Scholar
  36. Mental Health Liaison Group. (1996). equal treatment of mental health services in health plans: Facts about the Domenici-Wellstone amendment to Senate bill S. 1028. (Issue Brief). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  37. Price Waterhouse, LLP. Health Policy Economics Group. (1996, May 31). Analysis of the mental health parity provisions in S. 1028. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  38. Prospective Payment Assessment Commission (PPAC). (1997, June). Medicare and the American health care system. Report to Congress. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  39. Seligman, M. E. P., & Levant, R. F. (1998). News from Washington, DC-Managed care policies rely on inadequate science. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 29(3), 211–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sleek, S. (1996, December). Psychology continues call for equity. APA Monitor, 27(12), 28, 30.Google Scholar
  41. State of California, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, Division of Health Professions Development. (1982, November). Prescribing and dispensing pilot projects (Final report to the legislature and to the healing arts licensing boards). Sacramento, CA: Author.Google Scholar
  42. US Congress. House Committee on Ways and Means. (1998). 1998 green book: Background material and data on programs within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means (WMCP105-7). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  43. US Congress. Senate. Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. (1997, December 19). Staff report on quality management in the veterans health administration department of veterans affairs: Prepared by the minority staff of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. Washington, DC: US Senate.Google Scholar
  44. US Department of Commerce. (1997, January). Telemedicine report to Congress. (#1997-418-626/42023). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  45. US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). (1991). Healthy people 2000: National health promotion and disease prevention objectives. (DHHS Pub. No. (PHS) 91-50212(3)). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  46. US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). (1998). Fiscal year 1999 justification of estimates for Appropriations Committees: Agency for health care policy and research. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  47. US Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies appropriations bill, 1999. (S. Rpt. #105-216). Washington, DC: US Senate.Google Scholar
  48. Uyeda, M. K., DeLeon, P. H., Perloff, R., & Kraut, A. G. (1986). Financing mental health services: A comparison of two federal programs. American Behavioral Scientist, 30, 90–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Valentine, N. M. (1998). Quality measures essential to the transformation of the veterans health administration: Implications for nurses as co-creators of change. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 22(4), 76–87.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Wilensky, G. R. (1997, May/June). Perspective—Promoting quality: A public policy view. Health Affairs, 16, 77–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Willens, J. G., & DeLeon, P. H. (1982). Political aspects of peer review. Professional Psychology, 13, 23–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick H. DeLeon
    • 1
  • Nancy K. Gilmore-Lee
    • 2
  • Stephen A. Ragusea
    • 3
  • Paul A. Eckert
    • 2
  1. 1.American Psychological AssociationWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Office of Senator InouyeUSA
  3. 3.Child, Adult, and Family Psychological CenterState CollegeUSA

Personalised recommendations