Why it's time for a national health program in the United States.

The United States lacks a coherent national health program. Current programs leave major gaps in coverage and recently have become more restrictive. Influential policies that have failed to correct crucial problems of the health-care system include competitive strategies, corporate intervention, and public-sector cutbacks with bureaucratic expansion. A national health program that combines elements of national health insurance and a national health service is a policy that would help solve current health-care problems. Previous proposals for national health insurance contained weaknesses that would need correction under a national program. Based on the experiences of other economically advanced countries, a national health program could provide universal entitlement to health care while controlling costs and improving the health-care system through structural reorganization. Current proposals for a national health program contain several basic principles dealing with the scope of services, copayments, financing, cost controls, physician and professional associations, personnel and distribution, prevention, and participation in policy making. Support for a national health program is growing rapidly. Such a program would help protect all people who live in this country from unnecessary illness, suffering, and early death.     

The Principle of Procreative Beneficence: Old Arguments and A New Challenge

In the last ten years, there have been a number of attempts to refute Julian Savulescu's Principle of Procreative Beneficence; a principle which claims that parents have a moral obligation to have the best child that they can possibly have. So far, no arguments against this principle have succeeded at refuting it. This paper tries to explain the shortcomings of some of the more notable arguments against this principle. I attempt to break down the argument for the principle and in doing so, I explain what is needed to properly refute it. This helps me show how and why the arguments of Rebecca Bennett, Sarah Stoller and others fail to refute the principle. Afterwards, I offer a new challenge to the principle. I attack what I understand to be a fundamental premise of the argument, a premise which has been overlooked in the literature written about this principle. I argue that there is no reason to suppose, as Savulescu does, that morality requires us to do what we have most reason to do. If we reject this premise, as I believe we have reason to do, the argument for Procreative Beneficence fails.     

Will more organs save more lives? Cost‐effectiveness and the ethics of expanding organ procurement

The assumption that procuring more organs will save more lives has inspired increasingly forceful calls to increase organ procurement. This project, in contrast, directly questions the premise that more organ transplantation means more lives saved. Its argument begins with the fact that resources are limited and medical procedures have opportunity costs. Because many other lifesaving interventions are more cost‐effective than transplantation and compete with transplantation for a limited budget, spending on organ transplantation consumes resources that could have been used to save a greater number of other lives. This argument has not yet been advanced in debates over expanded procurement and could buttress existing concerns about expanded procurement. To support this argument, I review existing empirical data on the cost‐effectiveness of transplantation and compare them to data on interventions for other illnesses. These data should motivate utilitarians and others whose primary goal is maximizing population‐wide health benefits to doubt the merits of expanding organ procurement. I then consider two major objections: one makes the case that transplant candidates have a special claim to medical resources, and the other challenges the use of cost‐effectiveness to set priorities. I argue that there is no reason to conclude that transplant candidates’ medical interests should receive special priority, and that giving some consideration to cost‐effectiveness in priority setting requires neither sweeping changes to overall health priorities nor the adoption of any specific, controversial metric for assessing cost‐effectiveness. Before searching for more organs, we should first ensure the provision of cost‐effective care.     

A smoking ban in psychiatric units: threat or opportunity?

People with severe mental illness (SMI) experience some of the worst physical health and die younger than almost any section of the population. Mental health professionals have seemed strangely indifferent to this inequality, which in other areas of health would be a national scandal. In this editorial we discuss the recently introduced smoking ban in inpatient mental health service settings, which will offer mental health services an opportunity to implement creative, evidence-based strategies to help people with SMI address smoking and nicotine addiction. In doing this, we refer to National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance. This guidance forms the basis of national smoking policies for the general population and forms a starting point for those with SMI. Such a strategy will necessarily involve close collaboration with primary care, and we specifically examine how this might be achieved.     

The route to a national health policy lies through the states.

National health program legislation has been becalmed in the Congress for almost 80 years. Despite periodic cries of "crisis," legislation never emerges from committee. Periodically, campaigns have been mounted without success. Tactical efforts to circumvent direct action by legislating bits and pieces of related programs, Medicare and Medicaid, health maintenance organization support, and pre-budgeting, have complicated operation of the medical care system and stimulated intractable cost inflation. For the first 150 years of American history, responsibility for public health and welfare legislation rested with the states. Most public health policies originated in a state or a few states and then later became national legislation. The state efforts were, in effect, natural experiments. After the Depression and the flood of funding from the federal government in subsequent years, the states faded as innovators. It is proposed that funding a few state models to restimulate state initiative in this regard will provide a more effective route to a national health program.     

Seeking innovation: incentive funding for biodefense biotechs

In the current venture capital climate, it is easier to secure funding for late-stage, next-in-class therapeutic agents than for early-stage opportunities that have the potential to advance basic science and translational medicine. This funding paradigm is particularly problematic for the development of "dual-use" biothreat countermeasures such as antibiotics, vaccines, and antitoxins that target pathogens in novel ways and that have broad public health and biodefense applications. To address this issue, we propose the creation of the Drug Development Incentive Fund (DDIF), a novel funding mechanism that can stimulate the development of first-in-class agents that also possess the capability to guard against potential biothreats. This program would also support greater synergies between public funding and private venture investment. In a single act, this organization would secure science of national importance from disappearing, invest in projects that yield significant public health returns, advance the promises of preclinical and early phase research, revitalize biopharmaceutical investment, and create valuable innovation-economy jobs.     

Compulsory moral bioenhancement should be covert

Some theorists argue that moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory. I take this argument one step further, arguing that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration ought to be covert rather than overt. This is to say that it is morally preferable for compulsory moral bioenhancement to be administered without the recipients knowing that they are receiving the enhancement. My argument for this is that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration is a matter of public health, and for this reason should be governed by public health ethics. I argue that the covert administration of a compulsory moral bioenhancement program better conforms to public health ethics than does an overt compulsory program. In particular, a covert compulsory program promotes values such as liberty, utility, equality, and autonomy better than an overt program does. Thus, a covert compulsory moral bioenhancement program is morally preferable to an overt moral bioenhancement program.     

HUMAN GENE THERAPY: DOWN THE SLIPPERY SLOPE?

The strength of a slippery slope argument is a matter of some dispute. Some see it as a reasonable argument pointing out what probably or inevitably follows from adopting some practice, others see it as essentially a fallacious argument. However, there seems to be a tendency emerging to say that in many cases, the argument is not actually fallacious, although it may be unsubstantiated. I shall not try to settle this general discussion, but merely seek to assess the strength of the slippery slope argument applied to human gene therapy. The structure of my argument will be the following. First, I shall distinguish between three different versions of the slippery slope argument; two logical versions and an empirical one. Next, I will address human gene therapy in terms of each of the three versions, partly relying on slippery slope arguments against this practice that have already surfaced in the literature. I shall argue that neither version pulls through. The logical versions fail primarily because relevant distinctions can be made between different uses of gene therapy, contrary to what the proponents of the arguments claim. The empirical version fails because there seems to be no evidence supporting the claim that we shall in fact slide down the slope if we engage in gene therapy, and because if we accepted the conclusion that we should not allow gene therapy on the basis of the empirical argument, we should have to make very far-reaching and undesirable modifications in health care in general, in order to be consistent. Or at least so I shall argue.     

Marquis: A Defense of Abortion?

This is a reply to Don Marquis'Why Abortion is Immoral.' Marquis, who asserts that abortion is morally wrong, bases his argument on the following premise: Killing a being is morally wrong if that being is the sort of being who has a valuable future. I argue that this premise is false. I then assert that if I am correct about this premise being false, Marquis is faced with a dilemma. If he does not alter the premise in a way that makes it true, his argument is unsound. However, if he does make such an alteration, he must also alter a second premise in his argument, and this second change opens him to the charge of question begging. In addition, I conclude that such an alteration requires Marquis to adopt a position much like that taken by Judith J. Thompson in 'A Defense of Abortion,' a position he initially states is indefensible.     

Covert moral bioenhancement,public health,and autonomy

In a recent article in this journal, Parker Crutchfield argues that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, as some authors claim, then it ought to be covert, i.e., performed without the knowledge of the population that is being morally enhanced. Crutchfield argues that since the aim of compulsory moral bioenhancement is to prevent ultimate harm to the population, compulsory moral bioenhancement is best categorized as a public health issue, and should therefore be governed by the norms and values that apply in public health settings. In this article, I argue for two related claims. First, I question the extent to which compulsory moral enhancement should be considered a public health issue that ought to be governed by the norms and values that apply in public health settings. Second, I argue that Crutchfield's argument that covert moral bioenhancement would better respect people's autonomy than an overt program overlooks two important autonomy‐based reasons that, in fact, favor an overt moral enhancement program over a covert one.     

Effect of the California tobacco control program on personal health care expenditures

Background

Large state tobacco control programs have been shown to reduce smoking and would be expected to affect health care costs. We investigate the effect of California''s large-scale tobacco control program on aggregate personal health care expenditures in the state.

Methods and Findings

Cointegrating regressions were used to predict (1) the difference in per capita cigarette consumption between California and 38 control states as a function of the difference in cumulative expenditures of the California and control state tobacco control programs, and (2) the relationship between the difference in cigarette consumption and the difference in per capita personal health expenditures between the control states and California between 1980 and 2004. Between 1989 (when it started) and 2004, the California program was associated with $86 billion (2004 US dollars) (95% confidence interval [CI] $28 billion to $151 billion) lower health care expenditures than would have been expected without the program. This reduction grew over time, reaching 7.3% (95% CI 2.7%–12.1%) of total health care expenditures in 2004.

Conclusions

A strong tobacco control program is not only associated with reduced smoking, but also with reductions in health care expenditures.     

OMA's Continuing Education Program

Confronted with the inability to offer access to trained mental health personnel to their remote rural community, a private medical group practice in California recruited and integrated psychiatric social workers in their clinic. The rapid acceptance of these newer mental health professionals by community members of all economic levels and by group physicians confirms the success of this program, now in its fourth year, and rising community interest in mental health services.The group practice prototype affords a unique opportunity for innovation in community health care delivery in outlying areas with their traditional difficulties in attracting health care professionals.     

Needle exchange programs: an economic evaluation of a local experience

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether providing a needle exchange program to prevent HIV transmission among injection drug users would cost less than the health care consequences of not having such a program. DESIGN: Incidence outcome model to estimate the number of cases of HIV infection that this program would prevent over 5 years, assuming that the HIV incidence rate would be 2% with the program and 4% without it, and that an estimated 275 injection drug users would use the service over this time. SETTING: Hamilton, Ont. OUTCOME MEASURES: Estimated number of cases of HIV infection expected to be prevented with and without the program over 5 years; estimated lifetime health care costs of treating an AIDS patient. The indirect costs of AIDS to society (e.g., lost productivity and informal caregiving) were not included. Projected costs were adjusted (discounted) to reflect their present value. In a sensitivity analysis, 3 parameters were varied: the estimate of the HIV transmission rate if no needle exchange program were provided, the number of injection drug users participating in the program, and the discount rate. RESULTS: With very conservative estimates, it was predicted that the Hamilton needle exchange program will prevent 24 cases of HIV infection over 5 years, thereby providing cost savings of $1.3 million after the program costs are taken into account. This translates into a ratio of cost savings to costs of 4:1. The sensitivity analysis confirmed that these findings are robust. CONCLUSION: Needle exchange programs are an efficient use of financial resources.     

Costs and coverage. Pressures toward health care reform.

Signs of discontent with the health care system are growing. Calls for health care reform are largely motivated by the continued increase in health care costs and the large number of people without adequate health insurance. For the past 20 years, health care spending has risen at rates higher than the gross national product. As many as 35 million people are without health insurance. As proposals for health care reform are developed, it is useful to understand the roots of the cost problem. Causes of spiraling health care costs include "market failure" in the health care market, expansion in technology, excessive administrative costs, unnecessary care and defensive medicine, increased patient complexity, excess capacity within the health care system, and low productivity. Attempts to control costs, by the federal government for the Medicare program and then by the private sector, have to date been mostly unsuccessful. New proposals for health care reform are proliferating, and important changes in the health care system are likely.     

Health status and national health priorities.

Various measures of the health status of the population of the United States show there is considerable room for improvement. Compared with other industrialized nations, we are spending more for health care but our health is worse. These data form the basis for setting national priorities. Four selected policy issues are discussed, including access to medical care, maternal and child health care, the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, and long-term care. Examination of these issues leads to the conclusion that universal and affordable health care is the major national health priority, requiring a commitment by the people of the United States and its leaders to develop a viable solution.     

Exploring Managers’ Perspectives on MNCH Program in Pakistan: A Qualitative Study

Background

Pakistan’s Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (MNCH) Program is faced with multiple challenges in service delivery, financial and logistic management, training and deployment of human resources, and integration within the existing health system. There is a lack of evidence on managerial aspects of the MNCH program management and implementation.

Methods and Findings

This study used qualitative methods to explore the challenges national, provincial and district program managers have faced in implementing a community midwifery program in province of Punjab while also exploring future directions for the program under a devolved health system. While the program had been designed in earnest, the planning lacked critical elements of involving relevant stakeholders in design and implementation, socio-demographic context and capacity of the existing health system. Financial limitations, weak leadership and lack of a political commitment to the problem of maternal health have also had an impact on program implementation.

Conclusions

Our study results suggest that there is a need to re-structure the program while ensuring sustainability and collaboration within the health sector to increase uptake of skilled birth attendance and improve maternal health care in Pakistan.     

Defining standard of care in the developing world: the intersection of international research ethics and health systems analysis

In recent years there has been intense debate regarding the level of medical care provided to 'standard care' control groups in clinical trials in developing countries, particularly when the research sponsors come from wealthier countries. The debate revolves around the issue of how to define a standard of medical care in a country in which many people are not receiving the best methods of medical care available in other settings. In this paper, we argue that additional dimensions of the standard of care have been hitherto neglected, namely, the structure and efficiency of the national health system. The health system affects locally available medical care in two important ways: first, the system may be structured to provide different levels of care at different sites with referral mechanisms to direct patients to the appropriate level of care. Second, inefficiencies in this system may influence what care is available in a particular locale. As a result of these two factors locally available care cannot be equated with a national 'standard'. A reasonable approach is to define the national standard of care as the level of care that ought to be delivered under conditions of appropriate and efficient referral in a national system. This standard is the minimum level of care that ought to be provided to a control group. There may be additional moral arguments for higher levels of care in some circumstances. This health system analysis may be helpful to researchers and ethics committees in designing and reviewing research involving standard care control groups in developing country research.     

The argument from transfer

Utilitarian arguments on bioethical issues regarding human reproduction typically start with the view that it is wrong, other things being equal, not to procreate when this would have resulted in an additional being with a life worth living. The paper takes this view for granted and examines the common utilitarian claim that overpopulation and destitution in the world mean that, in practice, this obligation to procreate, other things being equal, often turn into a (categorical) obligation not to procreate. A version of this argument is defended— a version called the argument from transfer — according to which, rather than having additional children and care for them in order to make them happy, many people in the West ought to abstain from procreation and take care of destitute children already existing. The reasoning leading up to this conclusion raises some philosophical questions, seldom discussed in connection with bioethics, which indicate that the argument from transfer, although supporting the claim above, cannot neutralise the obligation to create mare happy people as easib as assumed by utilitarians. It is argued that the argument from transfer may place many people facing the choice of procreation in a peculiar moral dilemma.     

Would primary health care workers give appropriate dietary advice after cholesterol screening?

The purpose of this study was to obtain information on the dietary knowledge of primary health care workers and on their ability to apply this knowledge in practice. A total of 128 primary health care workers (53 general practitioners and 61 nurses) in 12 practices and 14 primary care facilitators were surveyed by questionnaire between December 1987 and June 1988. All of the practices were participating in a project to promote prevention in primary care and offered health checks designed to identify and deal with cardiovascular risk factors. The questionnaire focused on issues related to managing patients with moderate hypercholesterolaemia. The results of the study showed some important gaps in the health workers'' knowledge--for example, only 91 understood that dietary intake of polyunsaturated fatty acids as a proportion of total fat intake should be increased in a diet designed to reduce serum lipid concentrations. Appreciable gaps in their ability to give practical and appropriate dietary advice were also identified: 35 gave advice that would have led to the patient losing weight (although his history indicated that he was not overweight), and 27 gave only negative advice, offering no suggestions about substituting healthy foods for unhealthy ones. The demand for primary health care workers to give dietary advice is increasing and is likely to increase further if a national screening programme for hypercholesterolaemia is recommended. The results of this survey point to a need for improved nutritional education and training in dietary counselling for general practitioners, nurses, and primary care facilitators.