Navarro V
Int J Health Serv. 1984;14(2):321-8. doi: 10.2190/D5VK-LH3T-LBJE-MJ0L.
This article analyzes four major assumptions that guide the Reagan Administration's health policies: 1) the Administration received an overwhelming popular mandate to reduce the federal role in the U.S. health sector; 2) the size and growth of federal social (including health) expenditures are contributing to the current economic recession; 3) the costs to business of federally imposed health and safety regulations have contributed to making the U.S. economy less competitive; and 4) market intervention is intrinsically more efficient than government intervention in regulating the costs and distribution of health resources. Based on these assumptions, the main characteristics of the Reagan Administration's health policies have been 1) a reduction of federal health expenditures and, very much in particular, expenditures to the poor, handicapped, and elderly; 2) a weakening of federal health and safety regulations to protect workers, consumers, and the environment; and 3) the further privatization and commodification of medical services. This article shows that there is no evidence to support the assumptions on which these policies are based. Quite to the contrary, all available evidence shows the opposite: 1) the majority of Americans want an expansion of federal health expenditures and a strengthening of federal health regulation; 2) U.S. government expenditures and regulations are much more limited than those of other countries whose economies are performing more satisfactorily; and 3) those countries with larger government interventions have more efficient health care systems than the American one, where the "free market" forces are primarily responsible for the allocation of resources. Thus, major Reagan Administration health policies are based on myth rather than reality.
1)政府获得了压倒性的民众授权,以减少联邦政府在美国卫生领域的作用;2)联邦社会(包括卫生)支出的规模和增长是当前经济衰退的原因之一;3)联邦政府强加的卫生和安全法规给企业带来的成本,导致美国经济竞争力下降;4)在规范卫生资源的成本和分配方面,市场干预本质上比政府干预更有效。基于这些假设,里根政府卫生政策的主要特点是:1)减少联邦卫生支出,尤其是减少对穷人、残疾人和老年人的支出;2)削弱联邦卫生和安全法规,以保护工人、消费者和环境;3)进一步推进医疗服务的私有化和商品化。本文表明,没有证据支持这些政策所基于的假设。恰恰相反,所有现有证据都表明情况正好相反:1)大多数美国人希望增加联邦卫生支出并加强联邦卫生监管;2)美国政府的支出和监管比其他经济表现更令人满意的国家要有限得多;3)那些政府干预较大的国家,其医疗保健系统比美国更有效,在美国,“自由市场”力量主要负责资源分配。因此,里根政府的主要卫生政策基于神话而非现实。