When asked who pays for health care in the United States, the usual answer is "employers, government, and individuals." Most Americans believe that employers pay the bulk of workers' premiums and that governments pay for Medicare, Medicaid, the State Children'sHealth Insurance Program (SCHIP), and other programs.

However, this is incorrect. Employers do not bear the cost of employment-based insurance; workers and households pay for health insurance through lower wages and higher prices. Moreover, government has no source of funds other than taxes or borrowing to pay for health care.

Failure to understand that individuals and households actually foot the entire health care bill perpetuates the idea that people can get great health benefits paid for by someone else. It leads to perverse and counterproductive ideas regarding health care reform.

As promised during his campaign, and under pressure from many quarters, President-elect Barack Obama may seek badly needed changes in the way the United States finances and delivers health care. Responding to public interest and perceived need, several previous presidents have attempted to enact some kind of national health insurance: Harry Truman in the 1940s, Richard Nixon in the 1970s, and most recently Bill Clinton in the 1990s. These attempts went nowhere. In pursuing comprehensive health care reform, President-elect Obama should be aware of four major reasons why, in the past, we heard so much talk and saw so little action.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Only 31% of Americans with hypertension have their blood pressure (BP) under effective control. We describe a study that tests 3 different interventions in a randomized controlled trial using home BP telemedicine monitoring.

METHODS:

A sample of hypertensive patients with poor BP control at baseline (N = 600) are randomized to 1 of 4 arms: (1) control group--a group of hypertensive patients who receive usual care; (2) nurse-administered tailored behavioral intervention; (3) nurse-administered medication management according to a hypertension decision support system; (4) combination of the 2 interventions. The interventions are triggered based on home BP values transmitted via telemonitoring devices over standard telephone lines. The tailored behavioral intervention involves promoting adherence with medication and health behaviors. Patients randomized to the medication management or the combined arm have their hypertension regimen changed by the study team using a validated hypertension decision support system based on evidence-based hypertension treatment guidelines and individualized to patients' comorbid illnesses. The primary outcome is BP control: < or = 140/90 mm Hg (nondiabetic) and < or = 130/80 mm Hg (diabetics) measured at 6-month intervals over 18 months (4 total measurements).

CONCLUSIONS:

Given the increasing prevalence of hypertension and our inability to achieve adequate BP control using traditional models of care, testing novel interventions in patients' homes may improve access, quality, and outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the prevalence of HIV in both inpatient and outpatient settings in 6 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care sites. METHODS: We collected demographic data and data on comorbid conditions and then conducted blinded, anonymous HIV testing. We conducted a multivariate analysis to determine predictors of HIV infection. RESULTS: We tested 4500 outpatient blood specimens and 4205 inpatient blood specimens; 326 (3.7%) patients tested positive for HIV. Inpatient HIV prevalence ranged from 1.2% to 6.9%; outpatient HIV prevalence ranged from 0.9% to 8.9%. Having a history of hepatitis B or C infection, a sexually transmitted disease, or pneumonia also predicted HIV infection. The prevalence of previously undocumented HIV infection varied from 0.1% to 2.8% among outpatients and from 0.0% to 1.7% among inpatients. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of undocumented HIV infection was sufficiently high for routine voluntary screening to be cost effective in each of the 6 sites we evaluated. Many VA health care systems should consider expanded routine voluntary HIV screening.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether gaps exist in published cost-utility analyses as measured by their coverage of topics addressed in current HIV guidelines from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).

DESIGN: A systematic review of US-based cost-effectiveness analyses of HIV/AIDS prevention and management strategies, based on original, published research.

METHODS: Predefined criteria were used to identify all analyses pertaining to prevention and management of HIV/AIDS; information was collected on type of strategy, patient demographics, study perspective, quality of the study, effectiveness measures, costs, and cost-effectiveness ratios.

RESULTS: One hundred and six studies were identified; 62 described strategies for averting new HIV infections, and 44 dealt with managing persons who are HIV positive. The quality of studies was generally high, but gaps were found in all studies. Especially common were omissions in reporting data abstraction methodology and discussions of direction and magnitude of potential biases. Among the 22 most highly rated papers (score of 90 or higher), only 1 was cited in the guidelines, and 3 papers reported on interventions that were superseded by newer approaches. Using a USD 100,000 threshold, the guidelines usually endorsed interventions found to be cost-effective. Exceptions included recommending postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) for populations in which PEP is unlikely to be cost-effective and not recommending primary resistance testing in treatment-naive persons, although the intervention was reported to have a cost-effectiveness ratio of less than USD 50,000.

CONCLUSIONS: Despite an abundant literature on the cost-utility of HIV/AIDS-targeted strategies, guidelines cite relatively few of these papers, and gaps exist regarding assessments of some strategies and special populations.

To analyze temporal patterns of antiretroviral (ARV) prescribing practices relative to nationally defined guidelines in treatment-naive patients with HIV-1 infection. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: We evaluated ARV prescribing patterns among ARV treatment-naive veterans who were receiving care within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) from 1992 through 2004 in comparison to evolving adult HIV-1 treatment guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 15,934 patients initiated ARV treatment. Since 1999, >94% of patients initiated at least a 3-ARV medication combination, although the percentage of patients who initiated a guideline "preferred" or "alternative" regimen never rose to greater than 72% and was significantly associated with being black and with region of care. After 1999, 20% of patients started 4 or more active ARV agents in combination, which was significantly associated with lower baseline CD4 cell count, higher viral load, and receiving care in the western United States. The proportion of patients receiving guideline "not recommended" regimens (virologically undesirable or overlapping toxicities) was <1% after 1997. VA prescribing trends generally predated guideline recommendations by 6 to 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: VA prescribing patterns for ARV initiation adhere to treatment guidelines that maximize safety. Guidelines designed to maximize efficacy were not followed as stringently. Evaluating clinical practice patterns against contemporary treatment guidelines can inform guideline development.

We developed a mathematical model to simulate the impact of various partially effective preventive HIV vaccination scenarios in a population at high risk for heterosexually transmitted HIV. We considered an adult population defined by gender (male/female), disease stage (HIV-negative, HIV-positive, AIDS, and death), and vaccination status (unvaccinated/vaccinated) in Soweto, South Africa. Input data included initial HIV prevalence of 20% (women) and 12% (men), vaccination coverage of 75%, and exclusive male negotiation of condom use.

We explored how changes in vaccine efficacy and postvaccination condom use would affect HIV prevalence and total HIV infections prevented over a 10-year period. In the base-case scenario, a 40% effective HIV vaccine would avert 61,000 infections and reduce future HIV prevalence from 20% to 13%. A 25% increase (or decrease) in condom use among vaccinated individuals would instead avert 75,000 (or only 46,000) infections and reduce the HIV prevalence to 12% (or only 15%). Furthermore, certain combinations of increased risk behavior and vaccines with <43% efficacy could worsen the epidemic. Even modestly effective HIV vaccines can confer enormous benefits in terms of HIV infections averted and decreased HIV prevalence. However, programs to reduce risk behavior may be important components of successful vaccination campaigns.