The debate within the U.S. government about reforming the health care system centers on ways to control rising costs and assure high-quality, affordable care. RAND Health and its health care reform initiative—RAND COMPARE (Comprehensive Assessment of Reform Efforts)—provide objective research and analysis on topics that can inform the health care reform debate, including financing; increasing access, insurance coverage, and quality; decreasing costs; and promoting wellness and prevention.
While a governor or legislator may disagree with Medicaid expansion for philosophical reasons, the claims that the expansion will be a burden on states' economies seem misguided given the full range of projected economic impacts on the states, writes Carter C. Price.
Regardless of which candidate wins in November, and regardless of whether “Obamacare” is repealed, amended, or defended by the next Congress, the next president will have to contend with the spiraling cost of health care in the United States—a problem that is growing more acute with each passing year, writes Arthur Kellermann.
Despite high per-capita expenditures in the U.S., Americans under the age of 65 are less likely than their peers in France, Germany, or the United Kingdom to receive timely and appropriate health care, writes Ellen Nolte.
The bottom line is this: With or without the Affordable Care Act, the nation can no longer kick the can down the road on costs, writes Arthur Kellermann.
Although health care organizations have favorable characteristics that can maximize IT's benefits, the reengineering of health care delivery is only beginning, write Spencer Jones, Paul Heaton, Robert Rudin, and Eric Schneider.
Evidence from past efforts in the U.S. and abroad suggests that the full potential of health reform will not be realized without specific efforts to reduce disparities, write Robin M. Weinick, Malcom V. Williams, and Romana Hasnain-Wynia.
Because the budget crisis is really a crisis, it behooves physicians to answer the waste question as rapidly as possible. Without an answer, there is no hope that an appropriate policy process for reining in health care costs will be identified, writes Robert H. Brook.
The ongoing evolution of the health care system is leading US households toward greater responsibility for their own well-being. With this responsibility, however, comes an increasing need to be able to find, trust, use, and act on relevant information to make informed choices, write Laurie T. Martin and Ruth M. Parker.
The movement toward reporting results of surgeons and hospitals will probably lead to a society in which the wealthy receive care from the better hospitals and physicians, writes Robert H. Brook.
Can the health care system handle the demands of 30 million-plus new customers?, asks Elizabeth McGlynn.
How close do you think that the health care reform plan would come, in reality, to achieving each goal? On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 is extremely close, and 1 is not at all close.
To clear up some of the confusion about the newly approved health care legislation, Elizabeth McGlynn debunks some common misconceptions about the bill.
To provide a context for understanding health insurance premium price increases, this document identifies the factors that insurance companies consider when setting rates for the next year.
What can you choose when life restricts you to the narrow width of a hospital bed and your view is one of life's final horizon, ask Steven M. Asch, Karl Lorenz, and Diane Meier.
RAND's latest analysis of options for reducing the number of uninsured shows that among all the options included in the House tri-committee bill, the Senate HELP bill, and the proposal released by Senator Max Baucus, the individual mandate would have the greatest impact, writes Elizabeth McGlynn.
The ferocity of the national debate over health care continues to build, and rhetoric has all but replaced reality. People on all sides of the issue appear to want anything but the facts, write Elizabeth McGlynn and Jeffrey Wasserman.
President Obama and several Congressional leaders have recently expressed support for the idea of allowing citizens to buy into a public insurance program as part of any health reform legislation. The intensity of the ensuing debate has been fascinating given the lack of specifics that have been offered by either side, writes Elizabeth A. McGlynn.
One reason that health reform proposals always seem to fail is that proponents promise too much. Reformers declare they will improve quality, lower costs and increase access — all at the same time. This mantra is repeated so often that the public tends to believe it is possible, when really it isn't, writes Dana P. Goldman.
The United States will produce more than $14 trillion worth of goods and services this year—truly an astonishing amount. But equally astonishing is that one out of every six of these dollars will go to health care. This is the source of much hand-wringing by policy makers. They worry that we cannot afford to spend so much, and that our national output will suffer as a result. They have it backwards.
As it considers ways to improve the efficiency and quality of U.S. health care, one issue that a new Congress should reconsider is the longstanding roadblock that has stalled efforts to create a system of unique patient identification numbers for every person in the United States, writes Richard Hillestad.