What happened to long-term care in the health reform debate of 1993-1994? Lessons for the future.

J. Wiener, C. Estes, Susan M. Goldenson, Sheryl Goldberg
{"title":"What happened to long-term care in the health reform debate of 1993-1994? Lessons for the future.","authors":"J. Wiener, C. Estes, Susan M. Goldenson, Sheryl Goldberg","doi":"10.1111/1468-0009.00204","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"During 1993 and 1994, the United States debated but did not enact major health care reform. Although the reform efforts focused on providing health coverage for the uninsured and controlling acute care costs, many proposals included substantial long-term care initiatives. President Clinton proposed creating a large home-care program for severely disabled people of all ages and all income groups, among several other initiatives. By stressing non-means-tested public programs, the president's plan was a major departure from the Medicaid-dominated financing system for long-term care. In designing the long-term care component, the Clinton administration addressed many of the basic policy choices that must be decided in all reform efforts, including whether initiatives should be limited to older people or cover people of any age, how to balance institutional and noninstitutional care, whether to rely on government programs or on the private sector, and how to control costs. Analyzing the political and intellectual history of long-term care during the health reform debate provides lessons for future reform.","PeriodicalId":78777,"journal":{"name":"The Milbank Memorial Fund quarterly","volume":"30 1","pages":"207-52, IV"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"29","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Milbank Memorial Fund quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.00204","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 29

Abstract

During 1993 and 1994, the United States debated but did not enact major health care reform. Although the reform efforts focused on providing health coverage for the uninsured and controlling acute care costs, many proposals included substantial long-term care initiatives. President Clinton proposed creating a large home-care program for severely disabled people of all ages and all income groups, among several other initiatives. By stressing non-means-tested public programs, the president's plan was a major departure from the Medicaid-dominated financing system for long-term care. In designing the long-term care component, the Clinton administration addressed many of the basic policy choices that must be decided in all reform efforts, including whether initiatives should be limited to older people or cover people of any age, how to balance institutional and noninstitutional care, whether to rely on government programs or on the private sector, and how to control costs. Analyzing the political and intellectual history of long-term care during the health reform debate provides lessons for future reform.
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
在1993-1994年的医疗改革辩论中,长期护理发生了什么?给未来的教训。
在1993年和1994年期间,美国进行了辩论,但没有实施重大的医疗改革。虽然改革努力的重点是为没有保险的人提供医疗保险和控制急症护理费用,但许多建议包括实质性的长期护理举措。克林顿总统提议为所有年龄和所有收入群体的严重残疾人建立一个大型的家庭护理项目,以及其他几项倡议。总统的计划强调不需要对公共项目进行经济状况调查,这与以医疗补助(medicaid)为主导的长期护理融资体系有很大不同。在设计长期护理部分时,克林顿政府处理了许多在所有改革努力中必须决定的基本政策选择,包括计划是否应限于老年人还是涵盖任何年龄的人,如何平衡机构和非机构护理,是依赖政府项目还是依赖私营部门,以及如何控制成本。在医疗改革辩论中分析长期护理的政治和思想史为未来的改革提供了经验教训。
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
Measurement of Nasal Mucociliary Clearance in Indian Adults: Normative Data. Acknowledgments. Acknowledgments In the December 2019 Issue of the Quarterly In the September 2019 Issue of the Quarterly.
×
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