Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Access to health care is the ability of the patient to gain entry to the system for care that is available, timely, appropriate, and affordable. Public policy debate has focused on access as the 10th goal of the U.S. surgeon general in the Healthy People 2010. In this report, the surgeon general advances the goal to “improve access to comprehensive, high-quality health care services” as a public health goal for the nation. Recent public attention to access has focused on economic barriers to care and resultant health disparities among population groups, but the surgeon general acknowledges broader and more complex roots involving “the patient, provider, and system of care.”

Specific policy objectives to measure and evaluate access have been proposed as national access objectives. Notable among these objectives are “the reduction to 0% of the proportion of children and adults younger than 65 without health care coverage; increasing to 95% the proportion of people with a specific source of primary care; and increasing to at least 90% the proportion of individuals who have access to rapidly responding prehospital emergency medical services” (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Access to Quality Health Services,” Healthy People 2010, pp. 1–13. As these disparate objectives demonstrate, the concept of access is complex and has far-reaching policy implications for the health system.

The study of access to health care has an extensive history and several critical dimensions that make the problem of access of key interest to policymakers.

These dimensions of access can be understood as variations on a set of critical “A” terms: availability, affordability, appropriateness (quality), and acceptability. Solving any one of these problems does not assure solution to the overall political problem of access, which has plagued health policy makers with a ferocity nearly equal to that of societal concern for health care expenditures.

Availability

Health policy makers initially concentrated on availability of health care services during the “golden era” of American medicine when fee-for-service physician payment and charge-based hospital reimbursement were the norm. The 1946 passage of the landmark Hospital Construction Act (P.L. 79-725), better known as the Hill-Burton Act after its congressional sponsors, provided direct support through grants and loans for the construction and refurbishment of the nation's hospitals. A national standard of access, defined as four hospital beds for each 1000 people, was established, presumably to benefit largely rural locations without hospital facilities. During the early years of the program established by Hill-Burton, the policy emphasis was clearly on expanding the nation's supply of beds. Unrecognized at this time was a key provision of the act, to be enforced 30 years later, that mandated facilities receiving these funds to furnish a “reasonable volume of services to those unable to pay” and to make their services “available to all persons residing in their service areas” (P.L. 79-725). These provisions are clearly obligations to facilities to assure access to care in return for receipt of federal funds. The act was later amended in 1954 to include nursing homes, rehabilitation facilities, chronic disease centers, and diagnostic or treatment facilities.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading