Explore the vast range of titles available.

The future of disability in America will depend on how well the U.S. prepares for and manages the demographic, fiscal, and technological developments that will unfold during the next two to three decades. Building upon two prior studies from the Institute of Medicine (the 1991 Institute of Medicine's report Disability in America and the 1997 report Enabling America ), The Future of Disability in America examines both progress and concerns about continuing barriers that limit the independence, productivity, and participation in community life of people with disabilities. This book offers a comprehensive look at a wide range of issues, including the prevalence of disability across the lifespan; disability trends the role of assistive technology; barriers posed by health care and other facilities with inaccessible buildings, equipment, and information formats; the needs of young people moving from pediatric to adult health care and of adults experiencing premature aging and secondary health problems; selected issues in health care financing (e.g., risk adjusting payments to health plans, coverage of assistive technology); and the organizing and financing of disability-related research. The Future of Disability in America is an assessment of both principles and scientific evidence for disability policies and services. This book's recommendations propose steps to eliminate barriers and strengthen the evidence base for future public and private actions to reduce the impact of disability on individuals, families, and society.

Following China's example, on March 30, at the direction of US President Donald Trump, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which oversees the nation's major public health programmes, issued what it termed “an unprecedented array of temporary regulatory waivers and new rules to equip the American healthcare system with maximum flexibility to respond to the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic”. The risk–benefit ratio for virtual health care has massively shifted and all the red tape has suddenly been cut.” In Italy, although all 20 regions had implemented national telemedicine guidelines as of 2018, hospital managers have been largely caught off guard by the explosion in digital demand, says Elena Sini, information officer for GVM Care & Research, a network of nine private hospitals in northern Italy. With mobile phone use now globally ubiquitous, technological barriers to the adoption of virtual health care are easily surmountable, even in the most resource-scarce settings, notes Alex Jadad, founder of the Centre for Global eHealth Innovation at the University of Toronto, ON, Canada, where he is the director of the Institute for Global Health Equity and Innovation.

Fragmentation in social health insurance schemes is an important factor for inequitable access to health care and financial protection for people covered by different health insurance schemes in China. To fulfil its commitment of universal health coverage by 2020, the Chinese Government needs to prioritise addressing this issue. After analysing the situation of fragmentation, this Review summarises efforts to consolidate health insurance schemes both in China and internationally. Rural migrants, elderly people, and those with non-communicable diseases in China will greatly benefit from consolidation of the existing health insurance schemes with extended funding pools, thereby narrowing the disparities among health insurance schemes in fund level and benefit package. Political commitments, institutional innovations, and a feasible implementation plan are the major elements needed for success in consolidation. Achievement of universal health coverage in China needs systemic strategies including consolidation of the social health insurance schemes.

By September 2015, a total of 29 states and Washington, D.C., were participating in the ACA Medicaid expansion. During year 2 after implementation, the expansion was associated with substantial reductions in rates of uninsurance and in reports of inability to afford health care. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) expanded Medicaid eligibility to persons earning up to 138% of the federal poverty level, as part of the largest expansion of coverage to nonelderly adults since the 1960s. Although the expansion was originally intended to be enacted nationally, a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court decision made it optional for states. A total of 24 states decided not to expand in 2014, which affected 6.7 million uninsured low-income adults who otherwise would have gained eligibility. 1 Since 2014, an additional 5 states have implemented expansions, although 19 states still have not adopted the expansion as of January 2017. . . .

Widening economic inequality in the USA has been accompanied by increasing disparities in health outcomes. The life expectancy of the wealthiest Americans now exceeds that of the poorest by 10–15 years. This report, part of a Series on health and inequality in the USA, focuses on how the health-care system, which could reduce income-based disparities in health, instead often exacerbates them. Other articles in this Series address population health inequalities, and the health effects of racism, mass incarceration, and the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Poor Americans have worse access to care than do wealthy Americans, partly because many remain uninsured despite coverage expansions since 2010 due to the ACA. For individuals with private insurance, rising premiums and cost sharing have undermined wage gains and driven many households into debt and even bankruptcy. Meanwhile, the share of health-care resources devoted to care of the wealthy has risen. Additional reforms that move forward, rather than backward, from the ACA are sorely needed to mitigate health and health-care inequalities and reduce the financial burdens of medical care borne by non-wealthy Americans.

Radiotherapy is a critical and inseparable component of comprehensive cancer treatment and care. For many of the most common cancers in low-income and middle-income countries, radiotherapy is essential for effective treatment. In high-income countries, radiotherapy is used in more than half of all cases of cancer to cure localised disease, palliate symptoms, and control disease in incurable cancers. Yet, in planning and building treatment capacity for cancer, radiotherapy is frequently the last resource to be considered. Consequently, worldwide access to radiotherapy is unacceptably low. We present a new body of evidence that quantifies the worldwide coverage of radiotherapy services by country. We show the shortfall in access to radiotherapy by country and globally for 2015–35 based on current and projected need, and show substantial health and economic benefits to investing in radiotherapy. The cost of scaling up radiotherapy in the nominal model in 2015–35 is US$26·6 billion in low-income countries, $62·6 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $94·8 billion in upper-middle-income countries, which amounts to $184·0 billion across all low-income and middle-income countries. In the efficiency model the costs were lower: $14·1 billion in low-income, $33·3 billion in lower-middle-income, and $49·4 billion in upper-middle-income countries—a total of $96·8 billion. Scale-up of radiotherapy capacity in 2015–35 from current levels could lead to saving of 26·9 million life-years in low-income and middle-income countries over the lifetime of the patients who received treatment. The economic benefits of investment in radiotherapy are very substantial. Using the nominal cost model could produce a net benefit of $278·1 billion in 2015–35 ($265·2 million in low-income countries, $38·5 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $239·3 billion in upper-middle-income countries). Investment in the efficiency model would produce in the same period an even greater total benefit of $365·4 billion ($12·8 billion in low-income countries, $67·7 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $284·7 billion in upper-middle-income countries). The returns, by the human-capital approach, are projected to be less with the nominal cost model, amounting to $16·9 billion in 2015–35 (–$14·9 billion in low-income countries; –$18·7 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $50·5 billion in upper-middle-income countries). The returns with the efficiency model were projected to be greater, however, amounting to $104·2 billion (–$2·4 billion in low-income countries, $10·7 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $95·9 billion in upper-middle-income countries). Our results provide compelling evidence that investment in radiotherapy not only enables treatment of large numbers of cancer cases to save lives, but also brings positive economic benefits.

Cancer is one of the major non-communicable diseases posing a threat to world health. Unfortunately, improvements in socioeconomic conditions are usually associated with increased cancer incidence. In this Commission, we focus on China, India, and Russia, which share rapidly rising cancer incidence and have cancer mortality rates that are nearly twice as high as in the UK or the USA, vast geographies, growing economies, ageing populations, increasingly westernised lifestyles, relatively disenfranchised subpopulations, serious contamination of the environment, and uncontrolled cancer-causing communicable infections. We describe the overall state of health and cancer control in each country and additional specific issues for consideration: for China, access to care, contamination of the environment, and cancer fatalism and traditional medicine; for India, affordability of care, provision of adequate health personnel, and sociocultural barriers to cancer control; and for Russia, monitoring of the burden of cancer, societal attitudes towards cancer prevention, effects of inequitable treatment and access to medicine, and a need for improved international engagement.

Greece's economic crisis has deepened since it was bailed out by the international community in 2010. The country underwent the sixth consecutive year of economic contraction in 2013, with its economy shrinking by 20% between 2008 and 2012, and anaemic or no growth projected for 2014. Unemployment has more than tripled, from 7·7% in 2008 to 24·3% in 2012, and long-term unemployment reached 14·4%. We review the background to the crisis, assess how austerity measures have affected the health of the Greek population and their access to public health services, and examine the political response to the mounting evidence of a Greek public health tragedy.

Millions of elective surgical procedures were cancelled worldwide during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.1 This enabled redistribution of staff and resources to provide care for patients with COVID-19 and addressed evidence that perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection increases postoperative mortality.2 Although some hospitals established COVID-19-free surgical pathways to create safe elective surgery capacity,3 the National Health Service (NHS) in England has not returned to pre-pandemic elective surgery activity levels. [...]we did not explore regional variation, which could arise as a result of differences in resource availability, accessibility of COVID-19-free surgical pathways, or baseline surgical case mix. [...]we have not addressed differences between surgical specialties.

In the past decade, the Government of China initiated health-care reforms to achieve universal access to health care by 2020. We assessed trends in health-care access and financial protection between 2003, and 2011, nationwide. We used data from the 2003, 2008, and 2011 National Health Services Survey (NHSS), which used multistage stratified cluster sampling to select 94 of 2859 counties from China's 31 provinces and municipalities. The 2011 survey was done with a subset of the NHSS sampling frame to monitor key indicators after the national health-care reforms were announced in 2009. Three sets of indicators were chosen to measure trends in access to coverage, health-care activities, and financial protection. Data were disaggregated by urban or rural residence and by three geographical regions: east, central, and west, and by household income. We examined change in equity across and within regions. The number of households interviewed was 57 023 in 2003, 56 456 in 2008, and 18 822 in 2011. Response rates were 98·3%, 95·0%, and 95·5%, respectively. The number of individuals interviewed was 193 689 in 2003, 177 501 in 2008, and 59 835 in 2011. Between 2003 and 2011, insurance coverage increased from 29·7% (57 526 of 193 689) to 95·7% (57 262 of 59 835, p<0·0001). The average share of inpatient costs reimbursed from insurance increased from 14·4 (13·7–15·1) in 2003 to 46·9 (44·7–49·1) in 2011 (p<0·0001). Hospital delivery rates averaged 95·8% (1219 of 1272) in 2011. Hospital admissions increased 2·5 times to 8·8% (5288 of 59 835, p<0·0001) in 2011 from 3·6% (6981 of 193 689) in 2003. 12·9% of households (2425 of 18 800) had catastrophic health expenses in 2011. Caesarean section rates increased from 19·2% (736 of 3835) to 36·3% (443 of 1221, p<0·0001) between 2003 and 2011. Remarkable increases in insurance coverage and inpatient reimbursement were accompanied by increased use and coverage of health care. Important advances have been made in achieving equal access to services and insurance coverage across and within regions. However, these increases have not been accompanied by reductions in catastrophic health expenses. With the achievement of basic health-services coverage, future challenges include stronger risk protection, and greater efficiency and quality of care. None.