医疗保健权:一些跨国比较和美国的政策趋势。

Caroline L. Kaufmann
{"title":"医疗保健权:一些跨国比较和美国的政策趋势。","authors":"Caroline L. Kaufmann","doi":"10.1016/0271-5392(81)90006-X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>All developed, industrialized nations provide some system of health care for the treatment of acute and chronic illness. However, nations differ in terms of their policy toward the provision and distribution of health services. Basic to policy regarding access to medical care is the notion of health care as a right. This paper examines the evolution of the concept of a right to health care in three industrialized nations—the U.S.S.R., Great Britain and the U.S. Trends in the U.S. health care delivery system suggest an emerging policy which favors equity through federally subsidized care for the indigent. However, the U.S. health care system tolerates unequal distribution of services. The U.S.S.R. and U.K. health care systems have adopted explicit policies which support the right of all their citizens to health care. U.S. policy supporting the right to health care has been hampered by two primary factors. First is opposition within the medical profession toward the notion of health care as a right. Second is the inability of federal agencies to develop a comprehensive plan for health care delivery.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":79378,"journal":{"name":"Social science & medicine. Part F, Medical & social ethics","volume":"15 4","pages":"Pages 157-162"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1981-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0271-5392(81)90006-X","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The right to health care: Some cross-national comparisons and U.S. Trends in policy\",\"authors\":\"Caroline L. Kaufmann\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/0271-5392(81)90006-X\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>All developed, industrialized nations provide some system of health care for the treatment of acute and chronic illness. However, nations differ in terms of their policy toward the provision and distribution of health services. Basic to policy regarding access to medical care is the notion of health care as a right. This paper examines the evolution of the concept of a right to health care in three industrialized nations—the U.S.S.R., Great Britain and the U.S. Trends in the U.S. health care delivery system suggest an emerging policy which favors equity through federally subsidized care for the indigent. However, the U.S. health care system tolerates unequal distribution of services. The U.S.S.R. and U.K. health care systems have adopted explicit policies which support the right of all their citizens to health care. U.S. policy supporting the right to health care has been hampered by two primary factors. First is opposition within the medical profession toward the notion of health care as a right. Second is the inability of federal agencies to develop a comprehensive plan for health care delivery.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":79378,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social science & medicine. Part F, Medical & social ethics\",\"volume\":\"15 4\",\"pages\":\"Pages 157-162\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1981-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0271-5392(81)90006-X\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social science & medicine. Part F, Medical & social ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/027153928190006X\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social science & medicine. Part F, Medical & social ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/027153928190006X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

所有发达的工业化国家都为急慢性疾病的治疗提供了某种卫生保健体系。然而,各国在提供和分配卫生服务方面的政策各不相同。关于获得医疗保健的政策的基础是保健是一项权利的概念。本文考察了三个工业化国家——苏联、英国和美国——医疗保健权利概念的演变。美国医疗保健提供系统的趋势表明,通过联邦政府对贫困人口的补贴,一种有利于公平的新兴政策。然而,美国的医疗保健系统容忍服务的不平等分配。苏联和英国的医疗保健系统采取了明确的政策,支持所有公民享有医疗保健的权利。美国支持医疗保健权利的政策受到两个主要因素的阻碍。首先是医学界内部反对将医疗保健视为一种权利。第二,联邦机构没有能力制定一个全面的医疗服务计划。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The right to health care: Some cross-national comparisons and U.S. Trends in policy

All developed, industrialized nations provide some system of health care for the treatment of acute and chronic illness. However, nations differ in terms of their policy toward the provision and distribution of health services. Basic to policy regarding access to medical care is the notion of health care as a right. This paper examines the evolution of the concept of a right to health care in three industrialized nations—the U.S.S.R., Great Britain and the U.S. Trends in the U.S. health care delivery system suggest an emerging policy which favors equity through federally subsidized care for the indigent. However, the U.S. health care system tolerates unequal distribution of services. The U.S.S.R. and U.K. health care systems have adopted explicit policies which support the right of all their citizens to health care. U.S. policy supporting the right to health care has been hampered by two primary factors. First is opposition within the medical profession toward the notion of health care as a right. Second is the inability of federal agencies to develop a comprehensive plan for health care delivery.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信