This article defines the problem of the uninsured. It begins with an overview of why health insurance matters and presents a profile of the uninsured. It then discusses the roles and limits of private and public health insurance as sources of coverage for the nonelderly population. The article concludes with reflections on the current health insurance environment and prospects for reform.

The large and growing number of uninsured people is of concern because health coverage makes a difference in whether and when people get necessary medical care, where they get their care, and ultimately how healthy people are. About a quarter of uninsured adults (26 percent) say that they have postponed seeking care in the past year because of its cost, compared to about 6 percent of privately insured adults (Figure 1). In addition, more than half of uninsured adults (54 percent) have no usual source of care, compared to 1 in 10 adults (10 percent) with other types of coverage. Similarly, uninsured children are more likely to lack a usual source of care, delay care, or to have unmet medical needs than children with insurance. The uninsured are less likely to receive timely preventive and outpatient care and are more likely to be hospitalized for avoidable health problems. Improved access to care through health insurance ultimately has an impact on people’s health and lives: an estimated 22,000 excess deaths occurred among adults aged 25-64 in 2006 as a result of lack of health coverage.

On the eve of the presidential inauguration, the U.S. health system faces rising costs of care, growing numbers of uninsured, wide variations in quality of care, and mounting public dissatisfaction. Despite spending more on health care than any other country, a recent Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance Health Care System National Scorecard reports that the United States is lagging far behind other major industrialized countries — all of which provide universal health insurance — in five key domains: healthy lives, access, quality, equity, and efficiency. U.S. national performance is well below benchmarks of top performance set by other countries or high performing states, hospitals, or health plans within the United States, with broad disparities in experience depending on geographic location, income, race/ethnicity, and insurance coverage. National leadership is required to manage the growing health care crisis in the United States and improve care for all Americans.

Virtually all Americans are part of the health care system. They may be patients, health professionals, employers providing benefits, insurers, medical manufacturers, regulators, innovators, or investors. Each has a stake in this burgeoning sector of the United States economy, and each may be critically affected, in multiple and diverse ways, by changes to the system under health reform. As health care expenditures continue to rise, it is increasingly important to understand where these expenditures go and the factors that drive these cost increases. This article examines health care expenditure patterns, considering both the “usual suspects” that frequently are cited as spending drivers, as well as certain significant dynamics that may be the main contributors to rising costs. We conclude that in order to successfully contain costs, health reform will need to address these underlying factors.

In most other nations, insurance for medical care is called sickness insurance, and it covers sick people. In the United States, we have “health insurance,” and its major carriers — commercial insurers, large employers, and increasingly government programs — strive to avoid sick people and cover only the healthy. This perverse logic at the heart of the American health insurance system is the key to reform debates.

Focusing on sick people versus healthy people might seem a strange way to view the coverage issue. Most discussions of insurance categorize people into other groupings: the insured versus the uninsured; Caucasian whites versus other racial and ethnic groups; men versus women; poor and low-income people versus everybody else; children, adults, and the elderly; or citizens versus immigrants and undocumented aliens. More recently, health researchers have begun talking about “vulnerable populations,” using most of the same demographic groupings and adding other illness-inducing factors such as social isolation, stress, and impoverished neighborhoods. But as I will show, insurance plans now use premiums, cost-sharing, and other design features in ways that indirectly divide each of these groups into the sick and the healthy, to the detriment of the sick. By shifting the costs of illness onto people who use medical care — that is, sick people — market-oriented reforms of the last few decades have eroded insurance in the name of strengthening it.

For most of the first two decades after the enactment of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), health policymakers did not seem to recognize the full impact that ERISA would have on regulation of health insurance and health care coverage. Perhaps the early court decisions in which the courts clarified that states could regulate insurance companies and the products they sold to ERISA plan sponsors gave them false comfort that because Congress appeared to recognize the role of the states in regulating insurance, ERISA might have only a tangential impact on health care reform efforts.

As we write this paper in spring 2008, many are hopeful that November’s election will open the door to some form of comprehensive health care reform. In all likelihood, we will elect a president who has campaigned to a greater or lesser extent on promises of improving access to health care, improving quality, and reducing costs. Equally important, it seems likely that the 111th Congress is preparing to undertake meaningful health care reform. And perhaps most important, despite recent attention to energy issues and the economy, opinion polls consistently show that the American public continues to rank health care as one of the two or three most important domestic issues in the fall elections and supports comprehensive health care reform.

Extensive media coverage of the nation’s response to its obligation to furnish health care for service members wounded in current overseas conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan has elevated public consciousness of the importance of the U.S. military and veteran’s health care systems to a level not seen since the end of the Vietnam War. The number of casualties of U.S. military engagements has varied in each specific conflict and is a direct result of both the type of battle and the military’s ability to handle battlefield injuries (see Table 1).

Debates over health care reform often focus on the appropriate role for the government in health care. Much less attention is paid to defining the respective roles of the states and the federal government. Yet, in the American political system, the basic issue of federalism has profound implications.

The question for the nation is which aspects of health policy should reflect national, uniform standards, and which should vary according to local conditions, values, and preferences. Economic mobility and the desire for efficiency militate for national uniformity and federal standards. By contrast, state policies can be more closely tailored to local economic conditions and can reflect local values regarding matters such as the appropriate role of government.

As this nation embarks on new efforts to reform the U.S. health system, we face a critical unfinished agenda from the mid- 1960s: persistent racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in health and health care. Medicaid, Medicare, and Community Health Centers — public programs with very different legislative histories and financing mechanisms — were the first federally funded, nationwide efforts to improve health care access for low-income and elderly Americans. Members of racial and ethnic minority groups also greatly benefited from these efforts because recipients of federal funds, such as Medicare, were required to comply with the newly passed Civil Rights Act of 1964, which barred racial discrimination. Unquestionably, government played a major role in the gains in health care access that have occurred in the last half century. Yet today all Americans do not have the same opportunities for health, access to care, or quality of care when they receive it.

Health care depends on people. It is the health workforce — doctors, nurses, pharmacists, lab technicians, and nursing assistants, to mention a few — that, in large measure, determine the quality and effectiveness of any health enterprise. The nature of the health workforce was integral to the health care reform debates of the early 1990s and will surely be central in proposals to improve the quality, accessibility, and cost of U.S. health care in the future. Therefore, as we enter a new period of health reform deliberations and as we face the inevitability of an aging population, it is important to consider the problems and potential remediation necessary for the health workforce of the future. This article focuses particularly on physicians and nurses while recognizing the importance and frequently parallel concerns that arise across all health care disciplines. Understanding how the composition, capacity, and activities of a health care workforce must change as part of health reform requires an understanding of the context in which health professionals practice. What are the factors that govern health care today, and what are their impact on the health workforce?

Information technology is considered a potentially transformative element in the field of health care by payers, providers, vendors, and consumers alike. Because of this transformative potential, health information technology (HIT) adoption is viewed by many as a key component of health system reform. HIT is in its earliest stages, with diffusion of the technology still relatively limited; at the same time, there is growing awareness of its potential to affect the operation of the entire health care system as a result of the vast amount of information that will become available to both health professionals and patients.

A typical discussion around health reform in the U.S. focuses on how the nation can most effectively and efficiently extend insurance coverage to the rising number of people who have none. Furthermore, discussions about health care reform typically are centered on times of normalcy, when the health care system is not overly taxed and there is the luxury of time to think about everyday matters of health and health care, including health care services needed to prevent illness, treat conditions, and address individual emergencies. But in light of the lessons learned over the past decade, it is also essential to consider how any reformed health care system will react to and mitigate the consequences of a public health emergency.

We stand on the edge of change. The Republican coalition is frayed, and its trusty issues — slash taxes, cut programs, deregulate industry, preach morals — have worn thin. Will the Democrats seize the opportunity and capture the political system? Or will Republicans refresh themselves and win a new lease on power? The contest will center on clashing visions and competing programs; since national health insurance is perhaps the Democrats’ signature program, health reform will be, once again, at the eye of the political storm.

We are well into the political season that guarantees the election of a new president. Actually, this season, the election cycle began in November 2006, as soon as the off-year election ended. Not surprisingly, health care and reforming health care are major issues for the election — although somewhat less important than they were before late 2007.

I use the phrase “not surprisingly” because there are easily understandable reasons why health care tends to be an election issue whenever we are electing a new president. One obvious reason is that, for several decades, we have been plagued by sizeable numbers of people without health insurance and even more importantly, by unsustainable increases in health care spending and substantial numbers of people experiencing patient safety and clinical appropriateness problems. I regard the unsustainable spending and safety and quality problems as especially important because they affect all of us — not just the 15% of the population that is without health insurance.

It comes as no surprise that, for the first time in nearly 15 years, a serious debate has emerged about the need to ensure quality, affordable coverage for all Americans. The statistics and stories about cost, coverage, and quality shortcomings abound and are indisputable. Setting the human consequences aside, the economic, budgetary competitiveness and demographic challenges facing the nation demand pragmatic and comprehensive reform. As health care costs (and cost-shifting from the uninsured) weigh down businesses and workers alike as well as federal, state, and local governments, stakeholders and forward-looking policymakers have started the drum-beat of reform — to the relief of most Americans.

This symposium explores the boldest recommendation of the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) Committee on Increasing Rates of Organ Donation (hereafter Committee), namely, the recommendation that the U.S. consider a new population of potential donors. In its 2006 report, Organ Donation: Opportunities for Action, the committee recommended pilot programs in socalled “uncontrolled” donation after a circulatory determination of death (uDCD). Potential uDCD donors have died from an unexpected loss of circulation, either due to sudden cardiac arrest or excessive blood loss following traumatic injury. Because circulation is lost before death is determined and long before organ procurement could begin, potentially transplantable organs will die from oxygen starvation (warm ischemia) unless they are quickly preserved by cooling or other means.

As of January 1, 2008, over 98,000 people are waiting for organ transplants in the United States of America. Of those, nearly 75,000 are waiting for a kidney. In this calendar year, fewer than 15,000 will receive a kidney transplant from a deceased donor. The average waiting time for a deceased donor kidney now exceeds five years in virtually all metropolitan areas. Sadly, nearly as many people die waiting as there are deceased donors each year, despite monumental efforts by the entire transplant community to increase both the number of organ donors and the number of organs recovered from each donor. The imbalance between demand and supply has led to considerable efforts to expand the criteria for what is considered an acceptable organ donor by the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network (OPTN), thereby hoping somewhat to assuage the shortfall of donor organs. So-called Expanded Criteria Donors (ECDs) may be older than 50, have history of hypertension, or have died from intracerebral hemorrhage and/or have impaired renal function. ECDs now make up nearly 40% of the donor population.

In this paper, we assume that organ donation policy in the United States will continue to be based on an opt-in model, requiring express consent to donate, and that families will continue to have the prerogative to make donation decisions whenever the deceased person has not recorded his or her own preferences in advance. The limited question addressed here is what should be done when a potential donor dies unexpectedly, without any recorded expression of his or her wishes at hand, while a family decision is being sought.

In the early days of organ transplantation from deceased donors (mid-1950s), the surgical team would bring the donor into the operating room with the recipient, the respirator would be stopped, and the team would wait for the donor’s heart to cease beating. This type of organ donation has been defined as donation after cardiac death (DCD), also referred to as non-heart-beating donation (NHBD). These donors were not declared dead using neurological criteria, but rather using conventional cardiorespiratory criteria. In 1959, Mollaret and Goulon coined the term “coma dépassé” (beyond coma) for the patients with an irreversible state of coma and apnea. Jean Morelle and Guy Alexandre of the Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium, were the first to introduce a set of brain death criteria based on the description of coma dépassé, and carried out, in 1963, the first transplants from a brain dead donor in their country and in the world.