Americans' views on health care: foolish inconsistencies?

Is health care different? Popular support of federal health and social policies

Over the past several years there has been a striking increase in policymakers' attention to health care reform. This paper explores whether there has been a corresponding shift in popular attitudes and identifies factors that may have changed these attitudes. The first part of the analysis relies on survey data collected between 1975 and 1989 to estimate a set of regression models, relating support for federal involvement in health care, antipoverty programs, and general domestic policies to a set of sociodemographic characteristics. Relative to other federal policies, support for health initiatives grew over this period. During the same period, long-standing differences in support between rich and poor, old and young, educated and uneducated, all narrowed for health care, though they did not for other types of federal policies. The second part of this study explores motivations that might account for these patterns. We identify a half dozen ways in which health care may be viewed as "different," that is, more or less appropriate for federal action. Analysis of survey data from 1987 suggests that there are relatively small differences in the attitudes and perceptions that motivate support for federal health initiatives, relative to federal domestic policies in general. However, there are more striking differences between health programs and more overtly redistributive policies. Compared to redistributive federal programs, support for federal health initiatives are (a) less identified with racial minorities or economically disadvantaged groups, (b) less constrained by notions of individual responsibility, (c) more closely associated with concerns about equal opportunity in American society, and (d) somewhat more constrained by choices between federal and local government. These patterns persist whether or not respondents are politically active and whether they report themselves to be liberal or conservative. We suggest that the growing support for federal intervention in health care, relative to other social policies, is in part an inadvertent by-product of ideological positions popularized during the Reagan and Bush administrations. We draw from these results some predictions about the course of the ongoing debate over federal health policies.

Life-sustaining technologies: value issues

This article examines life-extending technologies such as resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, antibiotics, dialysis, and artificial nutrition and hydration. It considers these technologies in terms of the value issues of (1) equity of access, (2) equity of allocation, (3) cost-effectiveness and appropriateness of use, (4) legal concerns, and (5) determination and control of the application of technology. How we resolve these issues tests our character as individuals and as a society--it plays a key role in determining who shall live and what kind of society we shall become.

Availability and accessibility of rural health care

The 1980s saw a retrenchment of the ideology that government intervention could solve the problems of inadequate access to health services in rural areas. Increased emphasis was placed on an ideology that promoted deregulation and competitive market solutions. During the 1980s, the gap in the availability of physicians in metropolitan versus nonmetropolitan areas widened. Also during that time period, the gap between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan populations' utilization of physician services widened. In addition, many indicators of the health status of nonmetropolitan residents versus metropolitan residents worsened during the 1980s. As we enter the 1990s, concern about equitable access to needed health care services and for the vulnerability and fragility of rural health systems has resurfaced. A number of national policies and a research agenda to improve accessibility and availability of health services in rural areas are being considered.