The purpose of this paper is to encourage reflection about the harm that could result if the positive aspects of team-organized health care are compromised during the health care reform process. While other models of health care delivery could replace teamwork and serve patients as well or better, the interdisciplinary health care team (IHCT) probably will not be abandoned. However, one or more disciplines whose members play important roles on various teams may be sacrificed in the hasty effort to define essential health care. Moreover, a significant proportion of the types of IHCTs in existence could be rashly eliminated from health plans. These changes should not take place randomly or by default.

The regulation of narcotic medications used in narcotic addiction treatment is unique in medical therapeutics. Physicians who want to use narcotics for this indication must obtain a separate annual registration from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Annual registration is contingent on compliance with both the DEA's security regulations (inventory, record-keeping, and physical security) as well as treatment regulations jointly promulgated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).

During the last decade, a number of events have occurred that persuaded NIDA that it is time to reevaluate the current method by which the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regulates methadone treatment. As a result of research during the past twenty years, we have learned about the effective components of methadone treatment. In comparison to other available treatment modalities for opioid addiction, methadone treatment is uniquely effective when administered by well-trained medical staffs.

The chair of the ethics committee of a major medical center agonized over how he, as a physician, and his organization should deal with Initiative 119, which, if passed, would legalize physician involvement in active, voluntary euthanasia in Washington State. In the end, he said, he could not vote for aid-in-dying because, “However much I want to reduce suffering, I myself just couldn’t do it to one of my patients.” He spoke of a personal distaste for the potential act, of a profound desire not to have to do it. It was not an ethical argument, but an honest and compelling expression of feelings.

Why can’t this sincere man do it, even for patients who request such aid? In a 1991 poll, taken in Washington State prior to the vote on Initiative 119, 49 percent of the physicians surveyed supported the initiative, but 75 percent did not want to participate in aid-in-dying.

When her baby was born last June, Rossana Dalla Corte, age sixty-two, was thought to be the oldest woman ever to have given birth. Her pregnancy was achieved at a private fertility clinic in Italy, the same clinic that treated “Jennifer F.,” a London woman who, on Christmas day, 1993, at the age of fifty-nine, gave birth to twins. The reproductive procedure, likely to become more common during the next few years, has received intense scrutiny from health officials in Great Britain, France, and Italy. Moral questions concerning that procedure already have been taken up by the popular press in the United States. Such questions can be expected to take on a new urgency as the United States considers reshaping its health care system and, specifically, the circumstances under which coverage for infertility treatment will be provided.

In the United States, screening the urine of employees or job applicants for the presence of drugs has become commonplace. A survey of 794 large- and mediumsized companies, conducted by the American Management Association in January 1994, found that 87 percent of them now test job applicants for drug use. In 1987, a similar survey found that 22 percent screened job applicants. Federally mandated drug testing programs with random testing requirements affect millions of workers in the transportation industry, the nuclear power industry, and the United States civil and military services.

As some of these programs pass their fifth anniversary since being instituted, it is important to assess the forces that led to their creation. Whether or not these programs are considered successful depends on what one expects to achieve by such widespread testing.

Since its recognition in the early 1980s, the global HIV/AIDS pandemic has continued to grow relentlessly. Early efforts in HIV prevention sought to influence behavior by providing information about the dangers of AIDS along with recommendations for safe behavior. This approach helped to alert people about AIDS, but was insufficient to promote or sustain behavioral change.

The second approach attempted to promote individual behavioral change by designing AIDS programs that would deliver a mix of information, materials, and services. This program-based approach emerged within communities, was gradually adopted by some countries, and was subsequently articulated by the World Health Organization as the first Global AIDS Strategy. The emphasis during this period was to ensure that each community and country developed its own comprehensive program by adapting a global model to local and national circumstances.

Health care reform that includes universal coverage could lower a major barrier to care for people of color and ethnic minorities—the inability to pay for care. But universal coverage alone, even with comparable fee-for-service payment or appropriately risk-adjusted capitated reimbursement, will not eradicate the racial and ethnic inequities in health care delivery. Restrictive admissions practices, geographic inaccessibility, culture, racial stereotypes, and the failure to employ minority health care professionals will still create barriers to minority health care. In addition to universal financing, health care reform should include new civil rights legislation to address and reduce these noneconomic barriers to minority health care.

A relatively healthy forty-six-year-old woman with mild hypertension receives a prescription for an antihypertensive medication. One of the medication's adverse effects is its potential to cause severe depression. Four months later, she is diagnosed with anxiety, an early manifestation of depression. An antianxiety drug is prescribed, but her anxiety worsens. Her physician then diagnoses her as having a depressive disorder, and prescribes a new antidepressant medication. She is still on the same antihypertensive.

A seventy-two-year-old man is given furosemide and digoxin to control a mild case of congestive heart failure and hypertension. Because furosemide deletes potassium from the body, his physician also places him on a potassium supplement. Six months later, the physician tells the patient to stop taking the furosemide and prescribes an angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor. An effect of ACE inhibitors is to reduce the body's excretion of potassium thereby reducing the digoxin's effectiveness.

As during other eras of American history, both the current debate and attempts to reform the health care system are fraught with vested interests and conflict among policy makers, consumers, the health and medical complex, insurers, and the business community. The process reflects both the strengths and the limitations of our democratic system, and demonstrates the factional battles that must be waged to attain fundamental social change in American society.

Although racial justice is not the dominant issue, the parallels between the present congressional deliberations and polemics and the passage of civil rights legislation in the 1960s are inescapable. For one, a major goal is to codify the basic human right of health care for all, regardless of medical or socioeconomic condition—that is, universal health insurance. Second, although a general feeling exists among the public that considerable change is needed in our health care system, elected representatives cannot agree on an appropriate course of action.

This is a tale of two social structures, health care and education. Both systems are undeniably critical to our social fabric, and even to our national prosperity. Both systems also provide services that are uniquely personal and vital to individual well-being. And both systems are now widely perceived as being in “crisis,” as needing “fundamental reform.”

At the same time, there are fundamental differences in the ways the two sectors are organized and understood. Health care is essentially a system of private relationships; education a system of public responsibilities. Although each system is extraordinarily complex and contains elements that defy neat categorization, by highlighting the contrasting visions and structures of the two, one gleans useful insights both into the distinctive failings of each and into potential directions for reform.

The last year, June 1992 through September 1993, has seen a great deal of ferment with respect to access to and financing of health care in the United States. The elections of 1992 portend dramatic changes in the American health care system, and vigorous debate regarding both expansion of access to health care and transformation of the health care financing system is taking place at the federal and the state levels. In fact, however, the time period covered here produced remarkably few changes in the law, particularly at the federal level. The one piece of Medicare and Medicaid legislation passed by Congress in the fall of 1992, H.R. 11, was vetoed by President Bush immediately after the election. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (ORBA) of 1993 contained a host of minor adjustments to the Medicare and the Medicaid programs, but only the Medicaid asset transfer provisions and extensions to the self-referral provisions of the fraud and abuse laws, discussed below, are of import to us.

Pain is one of the most frequent presenting symptoms for patients who come to a physician's office. Despite the frequency of this presentation, little consistent, systematic information is provided to medical students or physicians about the treatment of pain. In addition, relatively little information is given about the recognition and prevention of drug abuse and about how to prescribe analgesics rationally to minimize the chances for abuse. This lack of educational preparation for both pain and addiction contributes to significant fear and inability on the part of health professionals to diagnose and treat both conditions. It creates a barrier of fear to prescribe adequate doses of pain medications for patients who present with both acute and chronic pain problems. Inadequate medicating can be caused by the physician's overriding worry about creating addiction in a patient. Morgan has called this problem “opiophobia.”

One understanding of health conceives of it as a state of freedom from pathology, achieved by an individual, through the mediation of a doctor. On this view, improvements in health flow from the application of science to specific ills of the body, and access to medical care is the chief determinant of health. This “medicalized” view of health underlies the current debate over medical care payment reform. This is the dominant way of talking about health.

An alternative is the view of health commonly associated with the practice of public health. On this view, health is an attribute of communities in social and physical environments. Health takes its shape in large numbers—in morbidity and mortality statistics—and, ideally, includes not just a high level of well-being for some, but also its even distribution throughout a society. Improvements in health are seen to arise from healthful changes in the environment.

Nurses in all practice roles and settings need to understand the therapeutic use and potential for abuse of prescription drugs. Nursing roles, which include the administration and prescription of medication, health teaching and the implications of application, and the detection of drug-related problems, require that such education be timely and comprehensive. This paper discusses the state of knowledge dissemination about prescription drugs within the general context of nursing education. It highlights educational needs and explores the attitudinal factors and knowledge deficits that influence the nursing practices of prescribing, pain management, nursing assessment, and care of persons with drug problems.

Standard educational requirements in all nursing curricula undergird teaching about licit and illicit drugs and medication, as well as their therapeutic use, misuse, and abuse. It has been recognized widely since the early 1980s, however, that clinical experiences and didactic content on licit and illicit drugs presented in nursing programs is inadequate.

A recent New York Times/CBS poll shows that nearly 80 percent of respondents think the American “health care system is headed toward a crisis because of rising costs.” Indeed, the public has become well acquainted with ominous-looking graphs that detail the nation’s health care spending. The increasingly steep slope of the graph showing the percentage of gross domestic product spent on health care invites tongue-in-cheek projections for when health care spending will finally consume it all.

High aggregate health care expenditures result from the low prices individuals pay for coverage. On average, patients pay only five cents out-of-pocket for every dollar of hospital charges they generate. The remainder is paid by private or public health insurance. Patients pay slightly more for physicians’ services—nineteen cents on each dollar. For health care of all types, patients pay approximately twenty-four cents on each dollar. With individuals paying what amount to fire sale prices for health care, it should come as no surprise that they purchase a great deal of coverage.

“Big ticket” items in medicine pose a moral puzzle. We can call it the “Coby Howard puzzle,” after the boy whose need for an expensive bone marrow transplant forced Oregonians to reassess their policy of prohibiting this and other expensive “big ticket” procedures in favor of more low-tech, apparently cost-efficient interventions. The Oregon rationing debate was stimulated by the concern that expenditures on “big ticket” medical treatments for life-threatening disease were coming at the expense of low-tech, preventive “basic” care like immunizations, wellbaby clinics, and prenatal care.

Another recent example was the public controversy over expenditures of over $1,800 per day on a project to try to separate Siamese twins conjoined at the heart. The physicians, prior to the procedure, claimed there was a one percent chance of success. It was reported that 50,000 children in Philadelphia could be immunized at the cost of that innovative therapy. Cost-benefit analysis suggests that much greater good would be done in the long run if we ignored the expensive, long-shot, high-risk projects and focused on basic medical needs.