Using law to fight a silent epidemic: the role of health literacy in health care access, quality, & cost.

Annals of health law Pub Date : 2011-01-01
Brietta Clark
{"title":"Using law to fight a silent epidemic: the role of health literacy in health care access, quality, & cost.","authors":"Brietta Clark","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The dominant rhetoric in the health care policy debate about cost has assumed an inherent tension between access and quality on the one hand, and cost effectiveness on the other; but an emerging discourse has challenged this narrative by presenting a more nuanced relationship between access, quality, and cost. This is reflected in the discourse surrounding health literacy, which is viewed as an important tool for achieving all three goals. Health literacy refers to one's ability to obtain, understand and use health information to make appropriate health decisions. Research shows that improving patients' health literacy can help overcome access barriers and empower patients to be better health care partners, which should lead to better health outcomes. Promoting health literacy can also reduce expenditures for unnecessary or inappropriate treatment. This explains why, as a policy matter, improving health literacy is an objective that has been embraced by almost every sector of the health care system. As a legal matter, however, the role of health literacy in ensuring quality and access is not as prominent. Although the health literacy movement is relatively young, it has roots in longstanding bioethical principles of patient autonomy, beneficence, and justice as well as the corresponding legal principles of informed consent, the right to quality care, and antidiscrimination. Assumptions and concerns about health literacy seem to do important, yet subtle work in these legal doctrines--influencing conclusions about patient understanding in informed consent cases, animating decisions about patient responsibility in malpractice cases, and underlying regulatory guidance concerning the quality of language assistance services that are necessary for meaningful access to care. Nonetheless, health literacy is not explicitly treated as a legally relevant factor in these doctrines. Moreover, there is no coherent legal framework for incorporating health literacy research that challenges traditional assumptions about patient comprehension and decision-making, and that emphasizes the need for providers to improve communication and take affirmative steps to assess patient understanding. The absence of a clear and robust consideration of health literacy in these doctrines undermines core access and quality aims, and it means that such laws are of limited efficacy in promoting health literacy. Returning to the theme that the health literacy problem reflects a complementary view of access, quality and cost, it is likely that the cost implications of this problem (and not concerns about quality and access) will motivate the kind of health literacy reform that may ultimately strengthen existing quality and access standards. One recent example of this can be seen in reforms linked to government, insurer and provider attempts to reduce costly medication errors.</p>","PeriodicalId":79788,"journal":{"name":"Annals of health law","volume":"20 2","pages":"253-327, 5p preceding i"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of health law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","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

The dominant rhetoric in the health care policy debate about cost has assumed an inherent tension between access and quality on the one hand, and cost effectiveness on the other; but an emerging discourse has challenged this narrative by presenting a more nuanced relationship between access, quality, and cost. This is reflected in the discourse surrounding health literacy, which is viewed as an important tool for achieving all three goals. Health literacy refers to one's ability to obtain, understand and use health information to make appropriate health decisions. Research shows that improving patients' health literacy can help overcome access barriers and empower patients to be better health care partners, which should lead to better health outcomes. Promoting health literacy can also reduce expenditures for unnecessary or inappropriate treatment. This explains why, as a policy matter, improving health literacy is an objective that has been embraced by almost every sector of the health care system. As a legal matter, however, the role of health literacy in ensuring quality and access is not as prominent. Although the health literacy movement is relatively young, it has roots in longstanding bioethical principles of patient autonomy, beneficence, and justice as well as the corresponding legal principles of informed consent, the right to quality care, and antidiscrimination. Assumptions and concerns about health literacy seem to do important, yet subtle work in these legal doctrines--influencing conclusions about patient understanding in informed consent cases, animating decisions about patient responsibility in malpractice cases, and underlying regulatory guidance concerning the quality of language assistance services that are necessary for meaningful access to care. Nonetheless, health literacy is not explicitly treated as a legally relevant factor in these doctrines. Moreover, there is no coherent legal framework for incorporating health literacy research that challenges traditional assumptions about patient comprehension and decision-making, and that emphasizes the need for providers to improve communication and take affirmative steps to assess patient understanding. The absence of a clear and robust consideration of health literacy in these doctrines undermines core access and quality aims, and it means that such laws are of limited efficacy in promoting health literacy. Returning to the theme that the health literacy problem reflects a complementary view of access, quality and cost, it is likely that the cost implications of this problem (and not concerns about quality and access) will motivate the kind of health literacy reform that may ultimately strengthen existing quality and access standards. One recent example of this can be seen in reforms linked to government, insurer and provider attempts to reduce costly medication errors.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
利用法律对抗无声的流行病:卫生知识在卫生保健获取、质量和成本方面的作用。
在医疗保健政策辩论中,关于成本的主导言论一方面在获取和质量之间,另一方面在成本效益之间,假设了一种内在的紧张关系;但是,一种新兴的论述挑战了这种说法,提出了获取、质量和成本之间更微妙的关系。这反映在围绕卫生知识普及的讨论中,卫生知识普及被视为实现所有三个目标的重要工具。卫生素养是指一个人获得、理解和使用卫生信息以作出适当卫生决定的能力。研究表明,提高患者的卫生知识素养有助于克服获取障碍,使患者有能力成为更好的卫生保健伙伴,从而带来更好的健康结果。促进卫生知识普及还可以减少用于不必要或不适当治疗的支出。这就解释了为什么作为一项政策事项,提高卫生知识素养是一项几乎被卫生保健系统的每个部门所接受的目标。然而,作为一个法律问题,卫生知识普及在确保质量和获取方面的作用不那么突出。虽然卫生扫盲运动相对较年轻,但它植根于长期存在的患者自主、慈善和正义等生物伦理原则,以及相应的知情同意、获得优质护理的权利和反歧视等法律原则。对健康素养的假设和关注似乎在这些法律理论中发挥着重要而微妙的作用——影响着在知情同意案件中关于患者理解的结论,推动着在医疗事故案件中关于患者责任的决定,以及关于有意义获得护理所必需的语言援助服务质量的潜在监管指导。然而,在这些学说中,卫生知识普及并没有被明确视为一个法律相关因素。此外,没有连贯的法律框架来纳入卫生知识普及研究,这些研究挑战了关于患者理解和决策的传统假设,并强调提供者需要改善沟通并采取积极步骤来评估患者的理解。这些理论缺乏对卫生知识普及的明确而有力的考虑,破坏了获取和质量的核心目标,这意味着这些法律在促进卫生知识普及方面的效力有限。回到这一主题,即卫生知识普及问题反映了获取、质量和成本的互补观点,这一问题所涉成本问题(而不是对质量和获取的关切)很可能会推动卫生知识普及改革,最终可能加强现有的质量和获取标准。最近的一个例子是政府、保险公司和医疗服务提供者试图减少代价高昂的药物错误的改革。
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
Financial conflicts of interest in science. Beyond "safe and effective": the role of the federal government in supporting and disseminating comparative-effectiveness research. Putting together the pieces: recent proposals to fill in the genetic testing regulatory puzzle. Options for state and local governments to regulate non-cigarette tobacco products. Prescription data mining, medical privacy and the First Amendment: the U.S. Supreme Court in Sorrell v. IMS health Inc.
×
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