Responding to mounting public concern about the shift to managed care, legislation to grant patient protections has dominated the health policy agenda over the past two years. Although some policies, such as laws on maternity length of stay, can be easily dismissed as “body part by body part” micromanagement of medical practice, other initiatives offer substantive, new rights to patients across the spectrum of care. At both the state and the federal levels, the right of enrollees to appeal a denial of treatment or to file grievances about other plan decisions has emerged as a centerpiece of patient protection legislation. Grievance and appeal rights have been embraced as a way to empower patients, to enhance access to treatment, and to improve the quality of care by providing an external mechanism to review treatment denials.

Managed care has brought wide-ranging changes to the health care system. Some of these changes have been well publicized. Among them are the financial pressures that have resulted in numerous mergers of health care institutions, the restriction on the ability of patients to select their physician of choice, and the ever diminishing number of days that patients are permitted to stay in the hospital. Individual physicians, too, have been affected. For example, they are under pressure to see more patients per unit time and to use fewer resources. Utilization review and payment methods may make them reluctant to undertake the full set of diagnostic tests and therapeutic interventions when they might otherwise have done so.

Hospitals long ago shed their role as alms houses for the poor. What vestiges remain of the early American hospital are the tax-exempt, nonprofit hospital form and a general perception that hospitals, as charitable institutions, owe a duty to their communities. The appropriateness of the nonprofit hospital tax exemption has long been debated, and many theories have been advanced to justify the tax exemption of nonprofit hospitals. In a growing number of jurisdictions, however, state and local authorities have gone beyond the theoretical debate and are challenging the tax exemption of their nonprofit hospitals. For various reasons, efforts are afoot to capture greater community benefit from nonprofit hospitals.

At the heart of such challenges is the debate over the nature and extent of the duty charitable institutions owe to their communities. A demand is growing for nonprofit hospitals to earn their tax exemptions by benefiting their communities in concrete ways. Some have been stripped of their tax-exempt status by local authorities or pressured to make payments in lieu of taxes. A number of states have recently implemented initiatives in an attempt to make hospitals more accountable for their community benefits. Many hospitals are responding to this heightened scrutiny in a proactive way, by voluntarily documenting community benefits. A number of nonprofit hospitals and hospital associations are cooperating with—or even sponsoring—state legislation in this area.

Toronto physician Brian Goldman had thought about “joining the camp that favours private health care for Canada.” Writing in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, he tells us that he changed his mind after one of his cats experienced a series of illnesses and misadventures that resulted in a Can$3,101 medical bill. “I’m just glad,” he says, “that the cost of health care never entered my deliberations.”’

Canadian citizens and permanent residents are similarly free from most worries about the direct costs of their own medical care, and have been for more than a generation. This reflects a fundamental difference between the Canadian and United States contexts for health policy. Since the failure of President Clinton's first-term efforts to provide something approximating universal health insurance, reforms to the existing regime of providing and financing health care in the United States have been incremental, and primarily responsive to the changing nature of the health care marketplace. In Canada, universal publicly funded first-dollar coverage for most physicians’ and hospitals’ services has been a reality since the early 1970s.

In 1997, the United States incarcerated over 1.7 million persons in local jails and in state and federal prisons. These inmates are disproportionately poor and persons of color. Many lack adequate access to health care before incarceration and present to correctional services with major unaddressed medical problems.

Convictions for drug possession and use have increased the number of injection drug users with HIV and AIDS in prisons. Determinate sentencing and “three strikes and you’re out” laws have increased the number of inmates who are aging and dying during their sentences. Their feelings reflect those of Larry Rideau, sentenced to life without parole and founder of The Angolite—an award-winning prison newspaper at Louisiana's Angola Prison—“The dream of getting out, you equate with heaven. Dying in prison you equate with hell.”

Traditionally, organ retrieval from cadavers has taken place only in cases where the declaration of death has occurred using “brain death” criteria. Under these criteria, specific tests are performed to demonstrate directly a lack of brain activity. Recently, as a result of efforts to increase organ procurement, attention has been directed at the use of so-called “non-heart-beating” donors (NHBDs): individuals who are declared dead not as a result of direct measurements of brain function, but rather as a result of the cessation of heart and respiratory functions. Attempts to obtain organs from such individuals have recently resulted in substantial negative publicity. Claims were made that the deaths of patients were being accelerated in order to get organs, and that sometimes organs were being removed from patients who were not yet dead.