PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 10116475

Learning from the Aloha State.

Abstract

Since 1974, Hawaii has required its employers to provide health insurance to all employees working at least 20 hours a week. More recently, the state created a new program to cover the "gap group" of 50,000 uninsured residents, along with a new program to create a "seamless system of health care" for all Aloha State residents. And Hawaii has managed to insure nearly all of its citizens while keeping the annual price of health insurance at nearly half of that paid in many mainland states ($1,300 per person and $4,000 per family). At the same time, life expectancy is the highest in the nation and infant mortality is among the lowest. In seeking to reform a dysfunctional national insurance system, policymakers should learn from the Hawaiian experience, which shows that small business can live with an employer mandate, universal coverage can cut costs by encouraging early preventive care, and a dominant payer can reduce administrative expenses.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M S Dukakis, C Roseman. Learning from the Aloha State.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10116475/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

A prospective, randomized trial to assess the cost impact of pharmacist-initiated interventions.

BACKGROUND: Hospital pharmacists make many recommendations that improve patients' quality of care and/or reduce drug costs. While the impact of quality-of-care interventions is difficult to quantify, those limited to cost savings could be assessed in a prospective, randomized fashion. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of pharmacist-initiated interventions on cost savings. METHODS: Six pharmacists at a large university hospital recorded patient-specific recommendations for 30 days. All quality-of-care interventions were completed by the pharmacists, but those strictly aimed at reducing costs were stratified by drug class and randomized to an intervention or control group. Pharmacists contacted physicians with cost-saving recommendations in the intervention group, while control group patients were simply observed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Drug costs after randomization. RESULTS: Most (n=967 [79%]) of the 1226 interventions recorded were aimed at improving quality of care. The remaining 259 (21%) provided equivalent quality of care, but at less expense. These cost-saving interventions typically involved streamlining therapy to less expensive agents (39%), discontinuing an unnecessary medication (25%), or modifying the route of administration (24%). The group randomized to receive a pharmacist's intervention had drug costs that were 41% lower than those in the control group (mean, $73.75 vs $43.40; P<.001). Interventions involving anti-infective agents had the greatest cost savings (mean, $104.08 vs $58.45; P<.001). For our institution, this extrapolates to an annual savings of approximately $394,000 (95% confidence interval, $46,000-$742,000). As expected, these interventions had no impact on length of hospital stay, in-hospital mortality, 30-day readmissions, or the need to readminister the targeted medication or restart intravenous therapy. CONCLUSIONS: While interventions solely aimed at reducing costs represent a small portion of a pharmacist's activities, they can result in significant savings for an institution.

Cost Control