PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10437331

Do targeted efforts for the rural underserved help kill comprehensive reform?

Abstract

There has been a shift during the past 60 years from a broad notion of the entire nation as underserved to a more focused effort to identify particular areas (often rural) thought to be underserved. This approach was formalized with the advent of the war on poverty. This focused approach has been cemented during the past 30 years, in part by the success of various federal health center programs that have remained funded during this period in spite of opposition. This paper concludes that the consensus view that rural underserved areas represent an "exception" phenomenon that is properly addressed with special responses (organizations or physicians) has had two major effects: (1) the political survivability of focused programmatic responses (such as Community Health Centers) has been enhanced; and (2) the existence of an "elastic net" policy network to advocate for the expansion of such remedial efforts may play a contributory role in helping to defeat comprehensive health reform.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D H Taylor. 1999. Do targeted efforts for the rural underserved help kill comprehensive reform?. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-0361.1999.tb00598.x

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

The impact of micro health insurance on Rwandan health centre costs.

While the implications of payment mechanisms for provider behaviour and cost have been amply explored in industrialized countries, there is little empirical evidence from developing countries. This study exploits the opportunities created by a pilot study of micro health insurance with capitation in Rwanda to address this issue. Using cross-sectional data collected in 52 health centres, the paper employs an econometric cost function with payer-specific outputs to assess the cost impact of two provider payment mechanisms: (1) user fees for care paid by the uninsured, and (2) capitation payment paid by informal insurance schemes for the insured. The cost function allows payer-specific marginal and average costs and scale measures to be calculated. Findings point to significant differences in cost between the two payment forms. These may be due to the incentives embodied in the capitation provider payment or the less severe case-mix among insured patients arising from improved access to care for this group, or both. For both payment types there are important short-run economies of scale, which could be exploited through more intensive use of idle resources in health centres.

Community Health Centers↗