Health care policy for American Indians since the early 20th century

S. Kunitz
{"title":"Health care policy for American Indians since the early 20th century","authors":"S. Kunitz","doi":"10.7765/9781526151612.00017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Healthcare policy for American Indians cannot be understood apart from the US government’s Indian policy more generally, and neither Indian policy in general nor healthcare policy in particular has been consistent over the past century or more. Moreover, they have often appeared to be inconsistent in their aims. From the late 19th century to the 1930s, the emphasis of Indian policy was on the assimilation of Indians into the larger US society, and their abandonment of tribalism. With the coming of the New Deal in the 1930s, policy shifted to what would now be called self-determination. By the early 1950s, however, selfdetermination had been abandoned in favour of assimilation, manifested in the government’s attempt – successful in several instances – to terminate the special trust status of Indian tribes. By the late 1960s, that policy had been abandoned and self-determination was once again the stated policy. The consequences for health policy have been paradoxical. Despite the concern to create better health services responsive to the needs of Indians during the New Deal of the 1930s, for instance, quality and access did not improve noticeably. On the other hand, in the 1950s, when termination of Indians’ special status had become the goal, it became evident that, without a significant improvement in health status, they would be unable to assimilate adequately. Thus, services were improved significantly, with beneficial consequences for health. That improved system of health services became the target of criticism by many who believed that it was insufficiently responsive to community needs. Changes in federal legislation in the 1970s allowed tribal governments and other entities to assume responsibility for the management and provision of services without, however, providing a mechanism for financial support to grow as the costs of care increased. Thus there has been little increase in financial support for services over the past 20 years or so, and the result has been that both preventive and curative services have suffered, and the mortality rate of Indians has increased.","PeriodicalId":427902,"journal":{"name":"History, historians and development policy","volume":"172 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History, historians and development policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526151612.00017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Healthcare policy for American Indians cannot be understood apart from the US government’s Indian policy more generally, and neither Indian policy in general nor healthcare policy in particular has been consistent over the past century or more. Moreover, they have often appeared to be inconsistent in their aims. From the late 19th century to the 1930s, the emphasis of Indian policy was on the assimilation of Indians into the larger US society, and their abandonment of tribalism. With the coming of the New Deal in the 1930s, policy shifted to what would now be called self-determination. By the early 1950s, however, selfdetermination had been abandoned in favour of assimilation, manifested in the government’s attempt – successful in several instances – to terminate the special trust status of Indian tribes. By the late 1960s, that policy had been abandoned and self-determination was once again the stated policy. The consequences for health policy have been paradoxical. Despite the concern to create better health services responsive to the needs of Indians during the New Deal of the 1930s, for instance, quality and access did not improve noticeably. On the other hand, in the 1950s, when termination of Indians’ special status had become the goal, it became evident that, without a significant improvement in health status, they would be unable to assimilate adequately. Thus, services were improved significantly, with beneficial consequences for health. That improved system of health services became the target of criticism by many who believed that it was insufficiently responsive to community needs. Changes in federal legislation in the 1970s allowed tribal governments and other entities to assume responsibility for the management and provision of services without, however, providing a mechanism for financial support to grow as the costs of care increased. Thus there has been little increase in financial support for services over the past 20 years or so, and the result has been that both preventive and curative services have suffered, and the mortality rate of Indians has increased.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
20世纪初以来美国印第安人的医疗保健政策
美国印第安人的医疗保健政策不能脱离美国政府更普遍的印第安政策来理解,在过去的一个世纪或更长的时间里,无论是一般的印第安政策还是特别的医疗保健政策都没有保持一致。此外,它们的目标似乎经常不一致。从19世纪末到20世纪30年代,印度政策的重点是将印度人融入更大的美国社会,并放弃部落主义。随着20世纪30年代新政的到来,政策转向了现在所谓的自决。然而,到了20世纪50年代初,人们放弃了自决,转而支持同化,这表现在政府试图终止印第安部落的特殊信托地位(在一些情况下取得了成功)。到1960年代末,这项政策已被放弃,自决再次成为声明的政策。这对卫生政策的影响是自相矛盾的。例如,尽管在20世纪30年代的新政期间关注创建更好的保健服务,以满足印度人的需要,但质量和机会并没有明显改善。另一方面,在1950年代,当终止印第安人的特殊地位成为目标时,很明显,如果不显著改善健康状况,他们将无法充分融入社会。因此,服务得到了显著改善,对健康产生了有益的影响。这一改进后的保健服务系统成为许多人批评的对象,他们认为这一系统对社区需要的反应不够。20世纪70年代,联邦立法的变化允许部落政府和其他实体承担管理和提供服务的责任,但没有提供一种机制,使财政支持随着护理成本的增加而增加。因此,在过去20年左右的时间里,对医疗服务的财政支持几乎没有增加,其结果是预防和治疗服务都受到影响,印度人的死亡率有所上升。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Commentary Front matter How and why history matters for development policy Commentary Index
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1