Explore the vast range of titles available.

Just Doctoring draws the doctor-patient relationship out of the consulting room and into the middle of the legal and political arenas where it more and more frequently appears. Traditionally, medical ethics has focused on the isolated relationship of physician to patient in a setting that has left the physician virtually untouched by market constraints or government regulation. Arguing that changes in health care institutions and legal attention to patient rights have made conventional approaches obsolete, Troyen Brennan points the way to a new, more aware and engaged medical ethics. The medical profession is no longer isolated, even theoretically, from the liberal, market-dominated state. Old ideas of physician beneficence and altruism must make way for a justice-based medical ethics, assuming a relationship between equals more compatible with liberal political philosophy. Brennan offers clinical examples of many of today's most challenging medical problems--from informed consent to care rationing and the repercussions of the HIV epidemic--and gives his recommendation for a new ethical perspective. This lively and controversial plea for a rethinking of medical ethics goes right to the heart of medical care at the end of the twentieth century. This title is part of UC Press's Voices Revived program, which commemorates University of California Press's mission to seek out and cultivate the brightest minds and give them voice, reach, and impact. Drawing on a backlist dating to 1893, Voices Revived makes high-quality, peer-reviewed scholarship accessible once again using print-on-demand technology. This title was originally published in 1991. Many titles in the Voices Revived program are also newly available as ebooks, offered at a discounted price to support wider access to scholarly work.

Amidst the ongoing novel Coronavirus disease pandemic, children with developmental disabilities warrant specific attention to minimise having disproportionate consequences. These children are especially vulnerable to the effects of the pandemic due to (1) Greater healthcare needs, (2) Dependency on community-based services and (3) Mental health concerns. Healthcare professionals, public health systems and the society needs to come together to advocate for these children by optimising access to healthcare and community intervention services, promoting mental well-being and caregiver welfare. The consequences of missed present-day opportunities might only be evident in the years to come in these children. Hence, despite the prolonged pandemic, with consequent limitations in availability of resources, children with developmental disabilities should continue to be supported.

Objectives. To quantify the number of people in the US who delay medical care annually because of lack of available transportation and to examine the differential prevalence of this barrier for adults across sociodemographic characteristics and patient populations. Methods. We used data from the National Health Interview Survey (1997–2017) to examine this barrier over time and across groups. We used joinpoint regression analysis to identify significant changes in trends and multivariate analysis to examine correlates of this barrier for the year 2017. Results. In 2017, 5.8 million persons in the United States (1.8%) delayed medical care because they did not have transportation. The proportion reporting transportation barriers increased between 2003 and 2009 with no significant trends before or after this window within our study period. We found that Hispanic people, those living below the poverty threshold, Medicaid recipients, and people with a functional limitation had greater odds of reporting a transportation barrier after we controlled for other sociodemographic and health characteristics. Conclusions. Transportation barriers to health care have a disproportionate impact on individuals who are poor and who have chronic conditions. Our study documents a significant problem in access to health care during a time of rapidly changing transportation technology.

Objectives. To document how health insurance coverage changed for White, Black, and Hispanic adults after the Affordable Care Act (ACA) went into effect. Methods. We used data from the American Community Survey from 2008 to 2014 to examine changes in the percentage of nonelderly adults who were uninsured, covered by Medicaid, or covered by private health insurance. In addition to presenting overall trends by race/ethnicity, we stratified the analysis by income group and state Medicaid expansion status. Results. In 2013, 40.5% of Hispanics and 25.8% of Blacks were uninsured, compared with 14.8% of Whites. We found a larger gap in private insurance, which was partially offset by higher rates of public coverage among Blacks and Hispanics. After the main ACA provisions went into effect in 2014, coverage disparities declined slightly as the percentage of adults who were uninsured decreased by 7.1 percentage points for Hispanics, 5.1 percentage points for Blacks, and 3 percentage points for Whites. Coverage gains were greater in states that expanded Medicaid programs. Conclusions. The ACA has reduced racial/ethnic disparities in coverage, although substantial disparities remain. Further increases in coverage will require Medicaid expansion by more states and improved program take-up in states that have already done so.

BackgroundOne-quarter of U.S. patients do not have a primary care provider or do not have complete access to one. Work and personal responsibilities also compete with finding convenient, accessible care. Telehealth services facilitate patients’ access to care, but whether patients are satisfied with telehealth is unclear.ObjectiveWe assessed patients’ satisfaction with and preference for telehealth visits in a telehealth program at CVS MinuteClinics.DesignCross-sectional patient satisfaction survey.ParticipantsPatients were aged ≥18 years, presented at a MinuteClinic offering telehealth in January–September 2014, had symptoms suitable for telehealth consultation, and agreed to a telehealth visit when the on-site practitioner was busy.Main MeasuresPatients reported their age, gender, and whether they had health insurance and/or a primary care provider. Patients rated their satisfaction with seeing diagnostic images, hearing and seeing the remote practitioner, the assisting on-site nurse’s capability, quality of care, convenience, and overall understanding. Patients ranked telehealth visits compared to traditional ones: better (defined as preferring telehealth), just as good (defined as liking telehealth), or worse. Predictors of preferring or liking telehealth were assessed via multivariate logistic regression.Key resultsIn total, 1734 (54 %) of 3303 patients completed the survey: 70 % were women, and 41 % had no usual place of care. Between 94 and 99 % reported being “very satisfied” with all telehealth attributes. One-third preferred a telehealth visit to a traditional in-person visit. An additional 57 % liked telehealth. Lack of medical insurance increased the odds of preferring telehealth (OR = 0.83, 95 % CI, 0.72–0.97). Predictors of liking telehealth were female gender (OR = 1.68, 1.04–2.72) and being very satisfied with their overall understanding of telehealth (OR = 2.76, 1.84–4.15), quality of care received (OR = 2.34, 1.42–3.87), and telehealth’s convenience (OR = 2.87, 1.09–7.94)ConclusionsPatients reported high satisfaction with their telehealth experience. Convenience and perceived quality of care were important to patients, suggesting that telehealth may facilitate access to care.

In 2019, as in prior years, Medicaid physician fees remained well below Medicare and private insurance fees despite growth in Medicaid enrollment. Low Medicaid physician fees have important implications in terms of access to care for Medicaid enrollees and the effects of proposals to expand coverage through a Medicaid buy-in program or a Medicaid-like public option. Medicaid enrollment has grown substantially under the Affordable Care Act (ACA)1 and will likely increase further as a result of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related job losses. Policy makers have also proposed expanding health insurance coverage through a Medicaid buy-in program or a Medicaid-like public option. The costs of these proposals and their effects on enrollees depend, in part, on physician fees paid under the new coverage.5 Prior research shows that private insurance physician fees greatly exceed those in Medicare, whereas Medicaid physician fees have historically been far below those in Medicare. Low physician fees in Medicaid may limit physician participation in the program, reducing access to care for enrollees. This article updates previous studies of Medicaid physician fees8-10 to assess how Medicaid fees compared with Medicare fees in 2019 across states and service types.We find that the Medicaid-to-Medicare physician fee index was similar in 2008,2012, and 2019 (exhibit 1), despite large increases in Medicaid enrollment (data not shown). This index was not significantly associated with state Medicaid expansion decisions.In what is known as the \"primary care fee bump,\" the ACA increased Medicaid primary care physician fees to Medicare levels in 2013 and 2014. The fee bump expired in 2015, but some states fully or partially continued it with state funds.10 Given such attempts to address long-standing concerns that low Medicaid physician fees may impede enrollees' access to care, our analysis aims to provide a baseline for evaluating the effects of increasing Medicaid enrollment or coverage expansions.

Augmented Intelligence (AI) systems have the power to transform health care and bring us closer to the quadruple aim: enhancing patient experience, improving population health, reducing costs, and improving the work life of health care providers. Earning physicians' trust is critical for accelerating adoption of AI into patient care. As technology evolves, the medical community will need to develop standards for these innovative technologies and re-visit current regulatory systems that physicians and patients rely on to ensure that health care AI is responsible, evidence-based, free from bias, and designed and deployed to promote equity. To develop actionable guidance for trustworthy AI in health care, the AMA reviewed literature on the challenges health care AI poses and reflected on existing guidance as a starting point for addressing those challenges (including models for regulating the introduction of innovative technologies into clinical care).

Objectives. To examine whether living in a rural versus urban area differentially exposes populations to social conditions associated with disparities in access to health care. Methods. We linked Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (2005–2010) data to geographic data from the American Community Survey (2005–2009) and Area Health Resource File (2010). We categorized census tracts as rural and urban by using the Rural–Urban Commuting Area Codes. Respondent sample sizes ranged from 49 839 to 105 306. Outcomes were access to a usual source of health care, cholesterol screening, cervical screening, dental visit within recommended intervals, and health care needs met. Results. African Americans in rural areas had lower odds of cholesterol screening (odds ratio[OR] = 0.37; 95% confidence interval[CI] = 0.25, 0.57) and cervical screening (OR = 0.48; 95% CI = 0.29, 0.80) than African Americans in urban areas. Whites had fewer screenings and dental visits in rural versus urban areas. There were mixed results for which racial/ethnic group had better access. Conclusions. Rural status confers additional disadvantage for most of the health care use measures, independently of poverty and health care supply.

Background Many patients with post COVID-19 condition (PCC) require healthcare services. However, qualitative studies indicate that patients with PCC encounter many barriers to healthcare access. This cross-sectional study aimed to determine how many PCC patients report barriers to healthcare access and which barriers are reported, and to explore differences between subgroups. Methods Data were collected via an online survey from 10,462 adult patients with a confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection in the Netherlands, who experienced persisting symptoms ≥ 3 months after the initial infection. To study self-perceived barriers, a list of eleven possible barriers was used, covering multiple aspects of healthcare access. Differences between subgroups based on sociodemographic characteristics, medical characteristics, PCC symptoms (fatigue, dyspnoea, cognitive problems, anxiety and depression), and healthcare use (general practitioner, paramedical professional, medical specialist, occupational physician and mental health professional) were studied through multivariable multinomial (0 vs. 1 vs. > 1 barrier) and binomial regression analyses (for each individual barrier). Results A total of 83.2% of respondents reported at least one barrier to healthcare access. Respondents reported a median of 2.0 (IQR = 3.0) barriers. The barriers “I didn’t know who to turn to for help” (50.9%) and “No one with the right knowledge/skills was available” (36.8%) were most frequently reported. Respondents with younger age, higher educational level, not hospitalized during acute COVID-19 infection, longer disease duration, who had more severe PCC symptoms, and who did not consult an occupational physician or paramedical professional, were more likely to report barriers. Analyses per barrier showed that women were more likely to report financial and help-seeking barriers, while men were more likely to report barriers related to availability of care. Hospitalized respondents were less likely to report barriers related to availability of care, but not less likely to report financial or help-seeking barriers. Conclusions This study shows that the majority of patients with PCC experiences barriers to healthcare access. Particular attention should be paid to younger, non-hospitalized patients with a long disease duration and severe PCC symptoms. Efforts to remove barriers should focus not only on improving availability of care, but also on helping patients navigate care pathways.

Background Delayed medical care may result in adverse health outcomes and increased cost. Our purpose was to identify factors associated with delayed medical care in a primarily rural state. Methods Using a stratified random sample of 5,300 Nebraska households, we conducted a cross-sectional mailed survey with online response option (27 October 2020 to 8 March 2021) in English and Spanish. Multiple logistic regression models calculated adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals. Results The overall response rate was 20.8% ( n  = 1,101). Approximately 37.8% of Nebraskans ever delayed healthcare (cost-related 29.7%, transportation-related 3.7%), with 22.7% delaying care in the past year (10.1% cost-related). Cost-related ever delay was associated with younger age [< 45 years aOR 6.17 (3.24–11.76); 45–64 years aOR 2.36 (1.29–4.32)], low- and middle-income [< $50,000 aOR 2.85 (1.32–6.11); $50,000-$74,999 aOR 3.06 (1.50–6.23)], and no health insurance [aOR 3.56 (1.21–10.49)]. Transportation delays were associated with being non-White [aOR 8.07 (1.54–42.20)], no bachelor’s degree [≤ high school aOR 3.06 (1.02–9.18); some college aOR 4.16 (1.32–13.12)], and income < $50,000 [aOR 8.44 (2.18–32.63)]. Those who did not have a primary care provider were 80% less likely to have transportation delays [aOR 0.20 (0.05–0.80)]. Conclusions Delayed care affects more than one-third of Nebraskans, primarily due to financial concerns, and impacting low- and middle-income families. Transportation-related delays are associated with more indicators of low socio-economic status. Policies targeting minorities and those with low- and middle-income, such as Medicaid expansion, would contribute to addressing disparities resulting from delayed care.