Suppr超能文献

重新定义“医疗护理”。

Redefining "Medical Care.".

作者信息

Roth Lauren R

机构信息

St. John’s University School of Law.

出版信息

Cornell J Law Public Policy. 2017;27(1):65-106.

Abstract

President Donald J. Trump has said he will repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and replace it with health savings accounts (HSAs). Conservatives have long preferred individual accounts to meet social welfare needs instead of more traditional entitlement programs. The types of "medical care" that can be reimbursed through an HSA are listed in section 213(d) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) and include expenses "for the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, or for the purpose of affecting any structure or function of the body." In spite of the broad language, regulations and court interpretations have narrowed this definition substantially. It does not include the many social factors that determine health outcomes. Though the United States spends over seventeen percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on "healthcare", the country's focus on the traditional medicalized model of health results in overall population health that is far beneath the results of other countries that spend significantly less. Precision medicine is one exceptional way in which American healthcare has focused more on individuals instead of providing broad, one-size-fits-all medical care. The precision medicine movement calls for using the genetic code of individuals to both predict future illness and to target treatments for current illnesses. Yet the definition of "medical care" under the Code remains the same for all. My proposal for precision healthcare accounts involves two steps-- the first of which requires permitting physicians to write prescriptions for a broader range of goods and services. The social determinants of health are as important to health outcomes as are surgical procedures and drugs--or perhaps more so according to many population health studies. The second step requires agencies and courts to interpret what constitutes "medical care" under the Code differently depending on the taxpayer's income level. Childhood sports programs and payments for fruits and vegetables may be covered for those in the lower income brackets who could not otherwise afford these items and would not choose to spend scarce resources on them if they could. This all assumes that the government takes funds previously used to subsidize the purchase of health insurance under the ACA (or allocates new funds) and puts the funds in individual accounts so the poor or near poor have money to pay for these expenses. Section I of this Article will explore the current definition of medical care, which excludes the social determinants of health from "healthcare" spending. I then address how precision medicine has changed the types of services and treatments that it makes sense to reimburse for each individual. If efficacy can vary from person to person based on genetic code, then it also can vary depending on environment. There is an opportunity to not only vary the types of "medical care" that can be reimbursed or deducted within the traditional range of services and drugs, but also outside of that range. Section II addresses the historical shift towards health financing through individual accounts, and specifically through HSAs. If this is the only avenue for health reform in the next few years, I advocate using it to engage in the type of experiments that are typically only possible under the cover of tax expenditures. My proposal for precision healthcare accounts moves the government to experiment with individual social spending that can lead to improved overall health outcomes. Finally, in Section III, I address two dichotomies that affect any healthcare proposal: (1) entitlement programs v. grants-in-aid, and (2) pooled insurance v. consumer-driven health plans (CDHPs). In the end, I argue that an entitlement method of funding precision HSAs along with pooled insurance subsidized by the government is the most realistic resolution to these dichotomies. Only a broad-based entitlement to funding for all healthcare expenses (medical and social) allows for significant improvements in overall population health.

摘要

唐纳德·J·特朗普总统表示,他将废除《平价医疗法案》(ACA),并用健康储蓄账户(HSAs)取而代之。长期以来,保守派更倾向于通过个人账户来满足社会福利需求,而非更为传统的福利项目。可通过健康储蓄账户报销的“医疗保健”类型列于《国内税收法典》(法典)第213(d)节,包括“用于疾病的诊断、治愈、缓解、治疗或预防,或用于影响身体任何结构或功能”的费用。尽管表述宽泛,但法规和法院的解释已大幅缩小了这一定义范围。它未涵盖众多决定健康结果的社会因素。尽管美国在“医疗保健”方面的支出占国内生产总值(GDP)的比例超过17%,但该国对传统医疗化健康模式的关注导致总体人口健康状况远低于支出显著较少的其他国家。精准医疗是美国医疗保健更关注个体而非提供一刀切的广泛医疗服务的一种特殊方式。精准医疗运动呼吁利用个体的基因密码来预测未来疾病并针对当前疾病确定治疗方案。然而,法典中“医疗保健”的定义对所有人而言仍保持不变。我提出的精准医疗保健账户提案包括两个步骤——第一步要求允许医生为范围更广的商品和服务开具处方。健康的社会决定因素对健康结果的重要性与外科手术和药物相当——或者根据许多人群健康研究,可能更为重要。第二步要求各机构和法院根据纳税人的收入水平对法典中“医疗保健”的构成作出不同解释。儿童体育项目以及水果和蔬菜的费用,对于那些低收入人群可能予以涵盖,因为他们原本无力承担这些项目,而且如果有能力也不会选择将稀缺资源花在这些方面。这一切都假定政府动用先前用于补贴根据《平价医疗法案》购买医疗保险的资金(或划拨新资金),并将这些资金放入个人账户,以便贫困或接近贫困的人群有钱支付这些费用。本文第一节将探讨医疗保健的当前定义,该定义将健康的社会决定因素排除在“医疗保健”支出之外。接着我将论述精准医疗如何改变了对每个人而言合理报销的服务和治疗类型。如果疗效会因基因密码因人而异,那么它也可能因环境而异。不仅有机会在传统服务和药物范围内改变可报销或可扣除的“医疗保健”类型,在该范围之外也有这样的机会。第二节论述了向通过个人账户,特别是通过健康储蓄账户进行医疗融资的历史转变。如果这是未来几年医疗改革的唯一途径,我主张利用它来开展通常只有在税收支出掩护下才可能进行的那种试验。我提出的精准医疗保健账户提案促使政府对个体社会支出进行试验,这可能带来总体健康结果的改善。最后,在第三节中,我论述影响任何医疗保健提案的两个二分法:(1)福利项目与补助,以及(2)统筹保险与消费者驱动的健康计划(CDHPs)。最后,我认为为精准健康储蓄账户提供资金的福利方式以及由政府补贴的统筹保险是解决这些二分法最现实的方案。只有为所有医疗保健费用(医疗和社会)提供广泛的资金福利,才能大幅改善总体人口健康状况。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验