Explore the vast range of titles available.

In our rapidly advancing scientific and technological world, many take great pride and comfort in believing that we are on the threshold of new ways of thinking, living, and understanding ourselves. But despite dramatic discoveries that appear in every way to herald the future, legacies still carry great weight. Even in swiftly developing fields such as health and medicine, most systems and policies embody a sequence of earlier ideas and preexisting patterns.In History and Health Policy in the United States, seventeen leading scholars of history, the history of medicine, bioethics, law, health policy, sociology, and organizational theory make the case for the usefulness of history in evaluating and formulating health policy today. In looking at issues as varied as the consumer economy, risk, and the plight of the uninsured, the contributors uncover the often unstated assumptions that shape the way we think about technology, the role of government, and contemporary medicine. They show how historical perspectives can help policymakers avoid the pitfalls of partisan, outdated, or merely fashionable approaches, as well as how knowledge of previous systems can offer alternatives when policy directions seem unclear.Together, the essays argue that it is only by knowing where we have been that we can begin to understand health services today or speculate on policies for tomorrow.

The International Journal of Health Services is glad to publish a brief note about the origins of what is now known as the International Association of Health Policy, a worldwide association of professionals working on how to improve the health and well-being of the populations. The International Journal of Health Services was part ofthat history as well.

\"The unique composition and configuration of doctors and hospitals in the U.S. is leading to a crisis in primary care provision. There are significantly more specialists than generalists and many community hospitals and outpatient facilities are concentrated in affluent areas with high rates of comprehensive insurance coverage. These particular features present difficult challenges to policymakers seeking to increase access to care. Carl F. Ameringer shows why the road to universal healthcare is not built on universal finance alone. Policymakers in other countries successfully align finance with delivery to achieve better access, lower costs, and improved population health. This book explains how the U.S. healthcare system developed, and why efforts to expand insurance coverage in the absence of significant changes to delivery could make things worse\"-- Provided by publisher.

The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina has placed a national spotlight on the shameful state of healthcare for America's poor. In the face of this highly publicized disaster, public health experts are more concerned than ever about persistent disparities that result from income and race.This book tells the story of one groundbreaking approach to medicine that attacks the problem by focusing on the wellness of whole neighborhoods. Since their creation during the 1960s, community health centers have served the needs of the poor in the tenements of New York, the colonias of Texas, the working class neighborhoods of Boston, and the dirt farms of the South. As products of the civil rights movement, the early centers provided not only primary and preventive care, but also social and environmental services, economic development, and empowerment.Bonnie Lefkowitz-herself a veteran of community health administration-explores the program's unlikely transformation from a small and beleaguered demonstration effort to a network of close to a thousand modern health care organizations serving nearly 15 million people. In a series of personal accounts and interviews with national leaders and dozens of health care workers, patients, and activists in five communities across the United States, she shows how health centers have endured despite cynicism and inertia, the vagaries of politics, and ongoing discrimination.

\"Separate Beds is the shocking story of Canada's system of segregated health care. Operated by the same bureaucracy that was expanding health care opportunities for most Canadians, the 'Indian Hospitals' were underfunded, understaffed, overcrowded, and rife with coercion and medical experimentation. Established to keep the Aboriginal tuberculosis population isolated, they became a means of ensuring that other Canadians need not share access to modern hospitals with Aboriginal patients. Tracing the history of the system from its fragmentary origins to its gradual collapse, Maureen K. Lux describes the arbitrary and contradictory policies that governed the 'Indian Hospitals, ' the experiences of patients and staff, and the vital grassroots activism that pressed the federal government to acknowledge its treaty obligations. A disturbing look at the dark side of the liberal welfare state, Separate Beds reveals a history of racism and negligence in health care for Canada's First Nations that should never be forgotten.\"-- Provided by publisher.

The past half-century has been marked by major changes in the treatment of mental illness: important advances in understanding mental illnesses, increases in spending on mental health care and support of people with mental illnesses, and the availability of new medications that are easier for the patient to tolerate. Although these changes have made things better for those who have mental illness, they are not quite enough. In Better But Not Well, Richard G. Frank and Sherry A. Glied examine the well-being of people with mental illness in the United States over the past fifty years, addressing issues such as economics, treatment, standards of living, rights, and stigma. Marshaling a range of new empirical evidence, they first argue that people with mental illness—severe and persistent disorders as well as less serious mental health conditions—are faring better today than in the past. Improvements have come about for unheralded and unexpected reasons. Rather than being a result of more effective mental health treatments, progress has come from the growth of private health insurance and of mainstream social programs—such as Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, housing vouchers, and food stamps—and the development of new treatments that are easier for patients to tolerate and for physicians to manage. The authors remind us that, despite the progress that has been made, this disadvantaged group remains worse off than most others in society. The \"mainstreaming\" of persons with mental illness has left a policy void, where governmental institutions responsible for meeting the needs of mental health patients lack resources and programmatic authority. To fill this void, Frank and Glied suggest that institutional resources be applied systematically and routinely to examine and address how federal and state programs affect the well-being of people with mental illness.

Context: Interrelated publications between 1988 and 1992 have influenced health policy and clinical practice: The Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials (ODPT), Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth (ECPC), A Guide to Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth (GECPC), and Effective Care of the Newborn Infant (ECNI). These publications applied and advanced methods that had a substantial history in the medical, biological, physical, and social sciences. Their unique contribution was to demonstrate the feasibility of organizing and sustaining programs to conduct systematic reviews across an entire field of health care. The publications also influenced subsequent advances in the methodology of systematic reviews and contributed to their proliferation; in large measure, but not entirely, because their editors and many of the authors participated in organizing and developing the Cochrane Collaboration. This article describes how and why these publications attracted favorable attention and resources from policymakers in numerous countries. Methods: This article applies historical methods to the analysis of primary sources that help explain the influence of systematic reviews, mainly on health policy. These methods guide an analysis of the rhetoric of the two volumes of ECPC and of primary sources generated as systematic reviews influenced health policy. The analysis of rhetoric employs the methods of intellectual history and social studies of science. The analysis of policymaking uses the methods of political and policy history, political science, and public administration. Because the focus of this article is how science influenced policy it alludes to but does not describe in detail the literature on the methods, production, and publication of systematic reviews. Findings: The influence of the four publications on policy was mainly a result of (1) their powerful blending of the rhetoric of scientific and polemical discourse, especially but not exclusively in ECPC; (2) a growing constituency for systematic reviews as a source of \"evidence-based\" health care among clinicians, journalists, and consumers in many countries; and (3) recognition by significant policymakers who allocate resources to and within the health sector that systematic reviews could contribute to making health care more effective and to containing the growth of costs. Conclusions: Analysis of this aspect of the history of producing and applying systematic reviews informs understanding of how knowledge derived from research informs policy.