Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The importance of quality of life research for health care reform in the USA and the future of public health

  • Commentary
  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Quality of life research data have significant implications for the social and public policy in the USA as it can be used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of various permutations of treatment as well as the ‘human effectiveness’ of health care system restructuring. The USA spends more on health care per capita than any other industralized nation, yet on major health indicators, such as infant mortality rate, this expenditure is not related to beneficial effects on the community. When epidemiological and quality of life data drive national health care planning, improved approaches to the management of health service delivery may become apparent. Ultimately only the patient or consumer can determine if a particular treatment is successful; the same may be true for health care reform.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. MoyerME. A revised look at the number of uninsured Americans. Health Aff 1989; 8: 102–11.

    Google Scholar 

  2. ShortPF. National Medical Expenditure Survey: Estimates of the Uninsured Population, Calendar Year 1987: Data Summary 2. Rockville, MD: National Center for Health Services Research and Health Care Technology Assessment; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  3. NelsonC, ShortK. Health Insurance Coverage, 1986–88 Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Census; 1990. Current Population Reports, Household Economic Studies, Series P-70, No. 17.

    Google Scholar 

  4. CholletD, FoleyJ, MagesC. Uninsured in the United States: The Nonelderly Population Without Health Insurance, 1988. Washington, D.C.: Employee Benefit Research Institute; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Office of the Actuary, Health Care Financing Administration. National health expenditures, 1986–2000. Health Care Finance Rev 1987, 8: 1–36.

    Google Scholar 

  6. SchieberGJ, PoullierJP. Recent trends in international health care spending. Health Aff 1987; 6: 105–112.

    Google Scholar 

  7. EnthovenAC, KronickR. Universal health insurance through incentives reform. JAMA 1991; 265: 2532–2536.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kirkman-LiffBL. Health insurance values and implementation in the Netherlands and the Federal Republic of Germany: An alternative path to universal coverage. JAMA 1991; 265: 2496–2502.

    Google Scholar 

  9. ToddJS, SeekinsSV, KrichbaumJA, HarveyLK. Health access America-strengthening the US health care system. JAMA 1991; 265: 2503–2506.

    Google Scholar 

  10. RockefellerJDIV. A call for action: The Pepper Commission's blueprint for health care reform. JAMA 1991; 265: 2507–2510.

    Google Scholar 

  11. BronowRS, BeltranRA, CohenSC, ElliottPT, GoldmanGM, SpotnitzSG. The physicians who care plan: Preserving quality and equitability in American medicine. JAMA 1991; 265: 2511–2515.

    Google Scholar 

  12. NutterDO, HelmsCM, WhitcombME, WestonWD. Restructuring health care in the United States. JAMA 1991; 265: 2516–2524.

    Google Scholar 

  13. DavisK. Expanding medicare and employer plans to achieve universal health insurance. JAMA 1991; 265: 2525–2528.

    Google Scholar 

  14. The Kansas Employer Coalition on Health, Task Force on Long-term Solutions. A framework for reform if the US health care financing and provision system. JAMA 1991; 265: 2529–2531.

    Google Scholar 

  15. HolahanJ, MoonM, WelchWP, ZuckermanS. An American approach to health system reform. JAMA 1991; 265: 2537–2540.

    Google Scholar 

  16. ButlerSM. A tax reform strategy to deal with the uninsured. JAMA 1991; 265: 2541–2544.

    Google Scholar 

  17. RoybalER. The ‘US health act’: Comprehensive reform for a caring America. JAMA 1991; 265: 2545–2548.

    Google Scholar 

  18. GrumbachK, BodenheimerT, HimmelsteinDU, WoolhandlerS. Liberal benefits, conservative spending: The physicians for a national health program proposal. JAMA 1991; 265: 2549–2554.

    Google Scholar 

  19. FeinR. The health security partnership: A federalstate universal insurance and cost-containment program. JAMA 1991; 265: 2555–2558.

    Google Scholar 

  20. US Department of Commerce. Projections of the Population of the United States by Age, Sex and Race: 1983 to 2080. Washington, D.C. Government Printing Office, 1984; Bureau of the Census (Current Population Reports; series P-25, no. 952).

    Google Scholar 

  21. EisenbergDM, KesslerRC, FosterC, NorlockFE, CalkinsDR, DelbancoTL. Unconventional medicine in the United States. N Engl J Med 1993, 328: 246–252.

    Google Scholar 

  22. CampionEW. Why unconventional medicine? N Engl J Med 1993: 328: 282–283.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Arizona Department of Health Services, 3008 N. 3rd Street, Suite 302, 85012, Phoenix, AZ, USA

    G. A. Gellert

Authors
  1. G. A. Gellert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gellert, G.A. The importance of quality of life research for health care reform in the USA and the future of public health. Qual Life Res 2, 357–361 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00449431

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00449431

Key words

Search

Navigation