Health Planning in the United States: Some Categorical and General Approaches

1971 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 134-148
Author(s):  
H. E. Hilleboe ◽  
A. Barkhuus
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Social Security ◽  
National Health ◽  
Health Planning ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Social ◽  
Social Security Act ◽  
Comprehensive Health ◽  
Planning Concepts

It is rather amazing that in 1971, the United States does not have a comprehensive health policy or national health plan. Our advanced science and technology have not taken root on a broad basis in the health field. Yet categorical planning has been done in several fields of health ever since the enactment of the Social Security Act in 1935. Planning was initiated in the fields of maternal and child health and crippled children by the federal Children's Bureau. This article gives some examples of both categorical and general approaches to health planning, how they came into being, and what planning concepts and processes were developed and used. These examples may be of some value to planners who have to employ categorical approaches—largely pragmatic—pending the time that comprehensive national health planning becomes feasible. The categorical areas chosen for discussion are: (a) health facilities, (b) heart, cancer, stroke, and kidney disease (Regional Medical Programs), (c) mental health, and (d) American Indian health. The general area includes comprehensive health planning. Following the passage of the Social Security Act of 1935, personal and environmental health services have been fragmented into a number of pieces. In 1971, utter confusion reigns in the federal and state structure and functions of health. Hopefully, the Congress may soon realize that a national system of health services is essential to provide 205 million people with the quality and distribution of services—without financial barriers—that $70 billion dollars a year should buy. Certainly the experiences gained with the categorical approaches to health planning can be of value to governmental leaders and their advisers as they prepare comprehensive health policies and national health plans for the 1970s.

Michigan Court Enjoins Statute Limiting Abortions Covered by Medicaid

1996 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-75
Author(s):  
A.S.
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Social Security ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Funding ◽  
Medicaid Program ◽  
Planned Parenthood ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
The Social ◽  
Social Security Act ◽  
Federal Appropriations

In Planned Parenthood Affiliates of Michigan v. Engler (73 F.3d 634 (6th Cir. 1996)), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that § 400.109(a) of the Social Welfare Act of Michigan (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 400.109(a) (1994)) impermissibly conflicts with the Medicaid Act (Social Security Act tit. XIX, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396 et seq. (1988)) as modified by the 1994 Hyde Amendment (Pub. L. No. 103-112, § 509, 107 Stat. 1082-1113 (1994)), insofar as the § 400.109(a) only provides state funding for abortions necessary to save the life of a mother, and not for abortions resulting from rape or incest. The court held that the Hyde Amendment defines medically necessary abortions that must be funded by states participating in the federal Medicaid program, and that the amendment is not merely a federal appropriations bill.

scholarly journals The Health Insurance Exchange: An Oligopolistic Market In Need Of Reform

2013 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. 569
Author(s):  
Wali I. Mondal
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Health Insurance ◽  
Social Security ◽  
Affordable Care Act ◽  
Insurance Coverage ◽  
The United States ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Universal Healthcare ◽  
The Social ◽  
Social Security Act

<p>Until the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act commonly known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was signed into law in March 2010, United States was the only industrialized rich country in the world without a universal healthcare insurance coverage. While pioneering works by Burns (1956, 1966) focused on the Social Security Act of 1935 in addressing the health insurance needs of U.S. retired population through Medicare, and later Medicaid was created by the Social Security Amendments of 1965, U.S. health insurance has remained a private, for-profit venture. The passage of ACA was one of the most contentious legislations of modern times. Soon after it was signed into law, various groups of private citizens and a number of States challenged some provisions of the ACA; however, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld its key provisions. A segment of the Congress remains opposed to the ACA on ideological ground and continues to challenge it with a variety of legal maneuvers. Notwithstanding the political or ideological arguments for or against the ACA, the objective of this paper is to analyze the competitiveness of the health insurance marketplace which opened on October 1, 2013. In doing so, the paper will address the structure of the health insurance exchange and suggest ways and means to make it more competitive.</p>

Why Some Countries Have National Health Insurance, others Have National Health Services, and the United States Has Neither

1989 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 383-404 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vicente Navarro
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Health Insurance ◽  
Health Services ◽  
National Health Insurance ◽  
National Health ◽  
Labor Movement ◽  
Health Sector ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
The United States ◽  
Social Force

This article presents a discussion of why some capitalist developed countries have national health insurance schemes, others have national health services, and the United States has neither. The first section provides a critical analysis of some of the major answers given to these questions by authors belonging to the schools of thought defined as “public choice,” “power group pluralism,” and “postindustrial convergence.” The second section puts forward an alternative explanation rooted in a historical analysis of the correlation of class forces in each country. The different forms of funding and organization of health services, structured according to the corporate model or to the liberal-welfare market capitalism model, have appeared historically in societies with different correlations of class forces. In all these societies the major social force behind the establishment of a national health program has been the labor movement (and its political instruments-the socialist parties) in its pursuit of the welfare state. In the final section the developments in the health sector after World War II are explained. It is postulated that the growth of public expenditures in the health sector and the growth of universalism and coverage of health benefits that have occurred during this period are related to the strength of the labor movement in these countries.

Gender and the Origins of Modern Social Policies in Britain and the United States

1991 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theda Skocpol ◽  
Gretchen Ritter
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Welfare State ◽  
Social Insurance ◽  
Working Women ◽  
The United States ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Social Policies ◽  
The Social ◽  
Social Security Act ◽  
Modern Welfare State

Comparative research on the origins of modern welfare states typically asks why certain European nations, including Great Britain, enacted pensions and social insurance between the 1880s and the 1920s, while the United States “lagged behind,” that is did not establish such policies for the entire nation until the Social Security Act of 1935. To put the question this way overlooks the social policies that were distinctive to the early twentieth-century United States. During the period when major European nations, including Britain, were launching paternalist versions of the modern welfare state, the United States was tentatively experimenting with what might be called a maternalist welfare state. In Britain, male bureaucrats and party leaders designed policies “for the good” of male wage-workers and their dependents. Meanwhile, in the United States, early social policies were championed by elite and middle-class women “for the good” of less privileged women. Adult American women were helped as mothers, or as working women who deserved special protection because they were potential mothers.

TRENDS

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1950 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. 783-784
Keyword(s):  
Child Welfare ◽  
Child Health ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Social Security ◽  
Maternal And Child Health ◽  
Child Health Services ◽  
Child Welfare Services ◽  
The Social ◽  
Social Security Act ◽  
And Child Health

WITH the war situation and the mobilization of medical manpower taking a prominent position in legislation directly affecting the medical profession, very few of the unprecedented number of health bills introduced into the 81st Congress have been enacted into law. But one piece of legislation which has been passed is of particular interest to the pediatric group since it provides for a large expansion in the grant-in-aid program of the Children's Bureau. The 1950 amendment to the Social Security Act (H.R. 6000) has nearly doubled the federal funds available for maternal and child health services, crippled children's services, and child welfare services. The remarkable growth in this program is brought into clear focus by the increases which have been made in the allocations to the Children's Bureau since the enactment of the Social Security Act in 1935. Under the provisions of the original act an annual budget of $8.17 million was allocated for grants-in-aid; $3.8 million for maternal and child health services, $2.87 million for crippled children's services, and $1.5 million for child welfare services. Each of these categories was increased in 1939 to a total of $11 million, increased again in 1946 to a total of $22 million and now to $41.5 million.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document