Lengthy travel distances may explain why relatively few veterans in the United States use VA hospitals for inpatient medical/surgical care. We used two approaches to distinguish the effect of distance on VA use from other factors such as access to alternatives and veterans' characteristics. The first approach describes how disparities in travel distance to the VA are related to other characteristics of geographic areas. The second approach involved a multivariate analysis of VA use in postal zip code areas (ZCAs). We used several sources of data to estimate the number of veterans who had priority access to the VA so that use rates could be estimated. Access to hospitals was characterized by estimated travel distance to inpatient providers that typically serve each ZCA. The results demonstrate that travel distance to the VA is variable, with veterans in rural areas traveling much farther for VA care than veterans in areas of high population density. However, Medicare recipients also travel farther in areas of low population density. In some areas veterans must travel lengthy distances for VA care because VA hospitals which were built over the past few decades are not located close to areas in which veterans reside in the 1990s. The disparities in travel distance suggest inequitable access to the VA. Use of the VA decreases with increases in travel distance only up to about 15 miles, after which use is relatively insensitive to further increases in distance. The multivariate analyses indicate that those over 65 are less sensitive to distance than younger veterans, even though those over 65 are Medicare eligible and therefore have inexpensive access to alternatives. The results suggest that proximity to a VA hospital is only one of many factors determining VA use. Further research is indicated to develop an appropriate response to the needs of the small but apparently dedicated group of VA users who are traveling very long distances to obtain VA care.

The 35 chapters of The Handbook of Health Economics provide an up-to-date survey of the burgeoning literature in health economics. As a relatively recent subdiscipline of economics, health economics has been remarkably successful. It has made or stimulated numerous contributions to various areas of the main discipline: the theory of human capital; the economics of insurance; principal-agent theory; asymmetric information; econometrics; the theory of incomplete markets; and the foundations of welfare economics, among others. Perhaps it has had an even greater effect outside the field of economics, introducing terms such as opportunity cost, elasticity, the margin, and the production function into medical parlance. Indeed, health economists are likely to be as heavily cited in the clinical as in the economics literature. Partly because of the large share of public resources that health care commands in almost every developed country, health policy is often a contentious and visible issue; elections have sometimes turned on issues of health policy. Showing the versatility of economic theory, health economics and health economists have usually been part of policy debates, despite the vast differences in medical care institutions across countries. The publication of the first Handbook of Health Economics marks another step in the evolution of health economics.

In recent years, the hospital industry has been undergoing massive change and reorganization with technological innovations and the spread of managed care. As a result, the total number of hospitals countrywide has been declining, and a growing number of not-for-profit hospitals have converted to for-profit status. These changes raise two fundamental questions: What determines a hospital's choice of for-profit or not-for-profit organizational form? And how does that form affect patients and society?

This timely volume provides a factual basis for discussing for-profit versus not-for-profit ownership of hospitals and gives a first look at the evidence about new and important issues in the hospital industry. The Changing Hospital Industry: Comparing Not-for-Profit and For-Profit Institutions will have significant implications for public-policy reforms in this vital industry and will be of great interest to scholars in the fields of health economics, public finance, hospital organization, and management; and to health services researchers.

In recent years, the hospital industry has been undergoing massive change and reorganization with technological innovations and the spread of managed care. As a result, the total number of hospitals countrywide has been declining, and a growing number of not-for-profit hospitals have converted to for-profit status. These changes raise two fundamental questions: What determines a hospital's choice of for-profit or not-for-profit organizational form? And how does that form affect patients and society?

This timely volume provides a factual basis for discussing for-profit versus not-for-profit ownership of hospitals and gives a first look at the evidence about new and important issues in the hospital industry. iThe Changing Hospital Industry: Comparing Not-for-Profit and For-Profit Institutions will have significant implications for public-policy reforms in this vital industry and will be of great interest to scholars in the fields of health economics, public finance, hospital organization, and management; and to health services researchers.

Health care report cards - public disclosure of patient health outcomes at the level of the individual physician and/or hospital - may address important informational asymmetries in markets for health care, but they may also give doctors and hospitals incentives to decline to treat more difficult, severely ill patients. Whether report cards are good for patients and for society depends on whether their financial and health benefits outweigh their costs in terms of the quantity, quality, and appropriateness of medical treatment that they induce. Using national data on Medicare patients at risk for cardiac surgery, we find that cardiac surgery report cards in New York and Pennsylvania led both to selection behavior by providers and to improved matching of patients with hospitals. On net, this led to higher levels of resource use and to worse health outcomes, particularly for sicker patients. We conclude that, at least in the short run, these report cards decreased patient and social welfare.

In this classic book, Professor Victor Fuchs draws on his deep understanding of the strengths and limitations of economics and his intimate knowledge of health care institutions to help readers understand the problems every nation faces in trying to allocate health resources efficiently and equitably. Six complementary papers dealing with national health insurance, poverty and health, and other policy issues, including his 1996 presidential address to the American Economic Association, accompany the original 1974 text.

Health professionals, policy makers, social scientists, students and concerned citizens will all benefit from this highly readable, authoritative, and nuanced discussion of the difficult choices that lie ahead.