Metacognition Worksheet – Video #1 How to Study Effectively .docx

Metacognition Worksheet – Video #1
How to Study Effectively by Stephen Chew
Watch Video #1 and complete the worksheet:
1.
According to Dr. Chew, what are the “beliefs that make you stu
pid”?
a. ____________________________
b. ____________________________
c. ____________________________
d. ____________________________
2.
Write 2‐3 sentences about when you have been caught in one of
these “beliefs” and what you can do /
have done to overcome it.
_____________________________________________________
_______________________________
_____________________________________________________
_______________________________
_____________________________________________________
_______________________________

_____________________________________________________
_______________________________
3. How does Dr. Chew define metacognition?
_____________________________________________________
_______________________________
_____________________________________________________
_______________________________
4. How does poor metacognition hurt academic success?
_____________________________________________________
_______________________________
_____________________________________________________
_______________________________
5.
Why would metacognition that was good in high school be bad i
n college?
_____________________________________________________
_______________________________
_____________________________________________________
_______________________________
Metacognition Worksheet – Video #4
How to Study Effectively by Stephen Chew
Watch Video #4 and complete the worksheet:

1. What are 2 Strategies for achieving deep processing?
a.
_____________________________________________________
______________
b.
_____________________________________________________
______________
2.
What techniques should you use in taking notes for deep process
ing?
_____________________________________________________
_______________________________
_____________________________________________________
_______________________________
3.
What techniques should you use in reading a textbook for deep
processing?
_____________________________________________________
_______________________________
_____________________________________________________
_______________________________
_____________________________________________________
_______________________________
4. What are the rules for effective group study?
a.

_____________________________________________________
_________
b.
_____________________________________________________
_________
c.
_____________________________________________________
_________
d.
_____________________________________________________
_________
e.
_____________________________________________________
_________
Deep Processing Metacognitive Strategies - Applying to YOU
Ask why, how and what if questions in class and also to self wh
ile doing homework
effective study groups on a regular basis
Practice retrieval by solving problems without first looking at e
xamples or the solution
quality time on the course everyday
Test your understanding of concepts by explaining them out lou
d to someone

everything for test that you are told to memorize
At the end of each module, create your own study guide with go
od test questions
1)
Pick 2 Deep Processing Metacognitive Strategies that you are n
ot currently using and start implementing them today in
this course.
Strategies that I am starting with:
a.
_____________________________________________________
_______________________
b.
_____________________________________________________
________________________
2)
Why did you pick these strategies and how do you think they wi
ll be helpful to YOU specifically?
_____________________________________________________
_______________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_______________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_______________________________________
Metacognition Worksheet video 1.pdfMetacognition Worksheet
video 4.pdfDeep Processing Metacognitive Strategies WS.pdf

From “Sick Care” to Health Care: Reengineering Prevention
into
the U.S. System
Farshad Fani Marvasti, MD, MPH1 and Randall S. Stafford,
MD, PhD1
1Stanford Prevention Research Center and the Department of
Medicine, Stanford University
Medical School, Stanford, CA
Although the United States pays more for medical care than any
other country, problems
abound in our health care system. Unsustainable costs, poor
outcomes, frequent medical
errors, poor patient satisfaction, and worsening health
disparities all point to a need for
transformative change.1 Simultaneously, we face widening
epidemics of obesity and chronic
disease. Cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes now cause
70% of U.S. deaths and
account for nearly 75% of health care expenditures.2
Unfortunately, many modifiable risk
factors for chronic diseases are not being addressed adequately.
A prevention model,
focused on forestalling the development of disease before
symptoms or life-threatening

events occur, is the best solution to the current crisis.
Disease prevention encompasses all efforts to anticipate the
genesis of disease and forestall
its progression to clinical manifestations. A focus on prevention
does not imply that disease
can be eliminated, but rather embraces Fries’ model of
“morbidity compression,”3 in which
the disease-free lifespan is extended through the prevention of
disease complications and the
symptom burden is compressed into a limited period preceding
death. Thus, a prevention
model is ideally suited to addressing chronic conditions that
take decades to develop and
then manifest as life-threatening and ultimately fatal
exacerbations.
Although the need for a prevention model was highlighted
during the recent health care
reform debate, efforts to expand prevention continue to be
thwarted by a system better suited
to acute care. A century after the Flexner report, the acute care
model and its cultural,
technological, and economic underpinnings remain securely
embedded in every aspect of

our health care system.
The organizational structure and function of our medical system
is rooted in fundamental
changes made at the beginning of the 20th century that
emphasized an acute care approach
and marginalized prevention and public health. Breakthroughs
in laboratory sciences led by
Koch and Pasteur provided powerful tools for mechanistically
understanding and treating
infectious diseases. Bolstered by philanthropy and the Flexner
report, U.S. medicine became
Author responsible for correspondence: Randall S. Stafford,
MD, PhD, 251 Campus Drive MC 5411, Stanford, CA 94305-
5411,
Phone: (650) 724-2400, Fax: (650) 725-6247, [email protected]
Reprint requests will not be available from the author.
Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the
full text of this article at NEJM.org.
NIH Public Access
Author Manuscript
N Engl J Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015
February 24.
Published in final edited form as:
N Engl J Med. 2012 September 6; 367(10): 889–891.
doi:10.1056/NEJMp1206230.
N

IH
-P
A
A
u
th
o
r M
a
n
u
scrip
t
N
IH
-P
A
A
u
th
o
r M
a
n
u
scrip

t
N
IH
-P
A
A
u
th
o
r M
a
n
u
scrip
t
http://NEJM.org
reliant on laboratory research.4 This strategy made sense 100
years ago, given the
prominence of acute infectious diseases in a young population;
it makes little sense now.
With the aging of the population, the shift in the burden of
disease toward chronic
conditions has accelerated. The most prevalent preventable

causes of death are now obesity
and smoking, which result in delayed but progressive disease.5
Even in the developing
world, increases in the prevalence of chronic disease are
outstripping reductions in acute
infectious diseases.1 Such epidemiologic evolution demands a
focus on public health and
prevention.
Yet economic and technological factors dating from the early
20th century remain strong
barriers to effective disease prevention. A key feature of U.S.
health care is its use of a
piecemeal, task-based system that reimburses for “sick visits”
aimed at addressing acute
conditions or acute exacerbations of chronic conditions.
Economic incentives encourage
overuse of services by favoring procedural over cognitive tasks
(e.g., surgery vs. behavior-
change counseling) and specialty over primary care. The current
model largely ignores
subclinical disease unless risk factors are “medicalized” and
asymptomatic persons are
redefined as “diseased” to facilitate drug treatment. These
mismatched economic incentives

effectively preclude successful prevention through health
maintenance.
Moreover, our reliance on ever newer, more advanced
technology has perpetuated an
expensive system in which costly new technology is widely
adopted in the absence of
comparative advantage. When combined with economic
incentives for patenting devices and
drugs, these technological factors become self-reinforcing.
Although many preventive
strategies may be cost-effective, they unfortunately have limited
potential for wide adoption
because they cannot be patented or made profitable. Therefore,
the primacy of patentable
therapies impedes research on prevention and diffusion of
prevention approaches that could
cost-effectively address the burden of chronic disease.
The cultural and social underpinnings of our system also inhibit
optimal disease prevention.
Faith in reductionism, which was infused into medicine in the
20th century, has empowered
medical research to pursue only isolated problems and to yield
targeted, immediately

deployable solutions. Consequently, the model for treating acute
infectious disease is being
misapplied to the treatment of chronic disease. For example,
cancer chemotherapy is
modeled after antibiotic therapy; coronary revascularization is
modeled after abscess
incision and debridement. Societal expectations of a “magic
bullet” and a focus on symptom
relief also reflect and reinforce the reductionist approach. These
scientific and societal
values emphasize discovering a “cure” for the major causes of
death. With the advent of
direct-to-consumer advertising for pharmaceuticals and surgical
procedures, these cultural
expectations of immediate, simplistic solutions have been
bolstered by consumerism and
fully exploited to generate demand for therapies that are
marginally indicated and potentially
unsafe. Our very culture thus devalues disease prevention.
Changing the system requires recognition of these cultural,
technological, and economic
obstacles and identification of specific means for overcoming
them through alterations in
medical education, medical research, health policy, and

reimbursement. For example, to
Marvasti and Stafford Page 2
February 24.
N
IH
-P
A
A
u
th
o
r M
a
n
u
scrip
t
N
IH
-P
A
A
u
th

o
r M
a
n
u
scrip
t
N
IH
-P
A
A
u
th
o
r M
a
n
u
scrip
t
combat the primacy of technical knowledge and the profit-based
system for medical

technology, medical schools must teach prevention strategies
alongside treatment
approaches, and emphasize motivational interviewing with a
focus on lifestyle modification.
Payers and the federal government must fully reward use of
appropriate non-patentable
therapies and support research on the development and
dissemination of prevention
strategies.
To change our reductionist way of thinking, we must teach
aspiring physicians about
systems science that addresses psychological, social and
economic determinants of disease.
Taking a patient-centered, whole-person approach focused on
long-term functional status
will also help to address the current fragmentation of care and
allow for standardization of
prevention strategies.
Medical school curricula should emphasize homeostasis and
health, rather than only disease
and diagnosis, and provide training in the science and practice
of cost-effective health
promotion. In turn, payers will need to reimburse for health
maintenance and prevention

activities, primary care physicians will have to act as health
coaches; and all health care
professionals will need to embrace a coordinated
multidisciplinary team approach.
Systematic steps must also be taken to change the culture of
medicine so that primary care is
valued. Renewing primary care will require increasing
ambulatory care training in
community settings and reallocating funding for residency
training away from hospitals to
reimburse appropriately for innovative models such as medical
homes. Furthermore, we
must compensate primary care physicians for their work as care
coordinators by establishing
reimbursement parity for cognitive and procedural care and
accounting for long-term costs
and benefits.
The new approach to medicine endorsed by the Flexner report
succeeded because it was
based on sound science and a radical restructuring of the way
medicine was taught,
organized, and practiced. Today, we face a similar challenge
that requires another

fundamental reordering of our health care system. Although the
need for acute care will
remain, centering our efforts on prevention is the only way to
thwart the emerging pandemic
of chronic disease.
Current health care reform efforts will bring incremental
improvement, but reengineering
prevention into health care will require deeper changes,
including reconnecting medicine to
public health services and integrating prevention into the
management and delivery of care.
Though change is painful, the successful transformation of
medicine at the turn of the last
century demonstrates that it is possible. Ultimately, embedding
prevention in the teaching,
organization, and practice of medicine can stem the unabated,
economically unsustainable
burden of chronic disease.
Acknowledgments
Grant Support
This project was supported by a grant from the National Heart,
Lung, and Blood Institute (K24-HL086703).

February 24.
N
IH
-P
A
A
u
th
o
r M
a
n
u
scrip
t
N
IH
-P
A
A
u
th
o
r M

a
n
u
scrip
t
N
IH
-P
A
A
u
th
o
r M
a
n
u
scrip
t
References
1. Fuster, V.; Kelly, BB., editors. Promoting Cardiovascular
Health in the Developing World: a critical
challenge to achieve global health. Washington, D.C.: The
National Academies Press, Institute of

Medicine; 2010.
2. Healthy People 2020. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services; 2010.
(Accessed June 14, 2012 at
http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/default.aspx)
3. Fries JF. Aging, natural death, and the compression of
morbidity. N Engl J Med. 1980; 303:130–
135. [PubMed: 7383070]
4. Fleming, D.; William, H. Welch and the rise of modern
medicine. Boston, Massachusetts: Little,
Brown; 1954.
5. Mokdad AH, Marks JS, Stroup DF, Gerberding JL. Actual
causes of death in the United States,
2000. JAMA. 2004; 291:1238–45. [PubMed: 15010446]
February 24.
N
IH
-P
A
A
u
th
o
r M

a
n
u
scrip
t
N
IH
-P
A
A
u
th
o
r M
a
n
u
scrip
t
N
IH
-P
A
A
u

th
o
r M
a
n
u
scrip
t
http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/default.aspx
2/5/2020 Health Promotion and Disease Prevention in the
Health Care System - Healthy People 2000 - NCBI Bookshelf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK235764/?report=printa
ble 1/16
NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine,
National Institutes of Health.
Institute of Medicine (US); Stoto MA, Behrens R, Rosemont C,
editors. Healthy People 2000: Citizens Chart the Course.
Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1990.
8. Health Promotion and Disease Prevention in the Health Care
System
Because of the important role it plays in detecting, treating, and
preventing diseases and injuries, the health care
system is critical to implementation of the Year 2000 Health
Objectives. However, according to the nearly 100 people

who addressed this in their testimony, there are severe problems
with ace, s to preventive services and an unfulfilled
potential role for health professionals in preventing disease and
promoting the health of the U.S. population. Some
witnesses digressed from the narrow focus of the objectives to
the broader problems of access to health and medical
care in general.
Milton Roemer of the University of California, Los Angeles
gets directly to the essence of the problem.
Many, if not all, of the priorities of positive health activity on
the national agenda can be substantially influenced
by access to professional health care. To cite just a few
examples, the detection of and intervention against
hypertension and cancer, immunization against preventable
infectious diseases, control of obesity, or the
preventive management of depression require the services of
physicians or other skilled health personnel. Yet
some 35 to 40 million Americans do not have economic access
to doctors through voluntary health insurance,
Medicare, or Medicaid. A larger number lack economic and
physical access to primary health care, although they
may have insurance for hospitalization.
Access to professional care may have very broad impacts on
health promotion. Education and advice from a
doctor can affect lifestyle— smoking, alcohol use,
contraception, exercise, diet, stress—more effectively than the
most skillful messages of mass media. We have long ago
learned that almost any person is more receptive to
advice on changed behavior, if this advice is offered by a health
care provider who is giving treatment for a
specific symptom. Prevention is more effective if it is
integrated with the delivery of medical care. (#277)

The Medical Care Section of the American Public Health
Association (APHA) agrees with this assessment: "The
goals for the year 2000 will not be attained unless all Americans
have access to high quality health care." This is true
across the broad range of national objectives—whether the
health problem being addressed is heart disease and stroke
through the control of hypertension; cancer through screening
and early detection; or infant mortality through the
provision of prenatal care. Consequently, the APHA Medical
Care Section suggests that the Public Health Service add
an additional goal for the year 2000 that "all Americans will be
assured adequate access to quality health care." (#755)
Senator Chet Brooks, Dean of the Texas State Senate, sums up
the political view.
From my perspective as a state legislator, our success in
achieving the national health objectives for the year
2000 will depend to a large extent on improving access to
programs and services we already have in place and on
increasing the availability of information regarding disease
prevention. For example, perhaps the greatest success
in a preventive health effort with significant effect on the
nation's health status was the discovery and uniform
administration of vaccines. The diseases we faced were so
frightening and widespread, we took immediate and
definitive action. Every child had access to immunizations to
prevent these diseases. The results: almost a virtual
elimination of debilitating and life-threatening diseases such as
polio, diphtheria, and smallpox. The undisputed
key to this success was access. As we begin to formulate our
goals for the year 2000 and beyond, we must
determine why certain objectives for 1990 were not achieved. I
suggest we look closely at our policies and
programs to see whether they are accessible to the persons for
whom they are intended. (#234)

Clearly, the Year 2000 Health Objectives can not be achieved
without full participation of health professionals and the
organizations in which they work. This chapter summarizes
testimony on two interrelated issues: the great potential
ble 2/16
value of providing health promotion and disease prevention
services through the health care system, and the serious
problems faced by many in gaining access to that system.
Access to health care in general, and to preventive services
in particular, is primarily a problem of specific populations,
especially the poor and minorities, so the problems
confronting these groups are discussed first. Testimony on
potential contributions of the various health professionals
and the settings in which they work is next, along with
suggestions on strengthening their roles as providers of health
education and preventive services. The next section discusses
problems and solutions in the financing of health
promotion and disease prevention programs, including changes
in existing federal funding programs and in the
insurance system. The last section discusses four issues in the
implementation of health promotion and disease
prevention in health care settings: coordination of services,
training health professionals, underserved areas, and the
need for minority practitioners.
Problems with Access to Health Care
Access to health care is very unevenly distributed in the United

States. As discussed in Chapter 6, the poor, the
homeless, and many racial and ethnic minorities have severe
problems gaining access to preventive services and even
basic health care. People with disabilities have access problems
of a different sort (Chapter 7). To set the stage for the
interventions and changes called for in the latter part of this
chapter, testimony on the problems faced by the poor,
minorities, and the disabled is presented first.
Poor and Homeless
According to many who testified, today's poor and homeless
represent special populations that both are large enough
and include enough of America's most vulnerable citizens to
warrant particular concern in the Year 2000 Health
Objectives. The difficulties these people face in maintaining
their health and attaining access to the medical system go
beyond the obvious economic ones and include the horrendous
physical and social conditions in which they must live.
For these disadvantaged, issues of preventing disease and
promoting good health often are secondary to the problems
associated with everyday survival.
According to Mary Sapp of the San Antonio Health Care for the
Homeless Coalition, the number of homeless people
is growing, and their ranks include families and people at the
highest risk for health problems. Their needs are
exacerbated by special health risks inherent in their lifestyles:
exposure to the elements, poor nutrition, inadequate
sanitation, lack of a place to recuperate from minor illnesses,
vulnerability to violent acts, psychological stress, and
alcohol or substance abuse. This group needs access to every
preventive measure available to the general population
and would benefit more from them than the average person.
(#507)

According to Harold Shoults, the Salvation Army works with
the most "down-and-out," the working poor and those
who "fall through the cracks" in public welfare programs. Their
experience, revealed in reports from Salvation Army
officers around the country, is enlightening. The "barriers to
health care for our clients might be summed up in three
words: access, understanding, and conditions," says Shoults.
The Memphis and Dallas offices discuss access:
One of our biggest problems is lack of medical insurance among
the unemployed, temporarily employed, and
those working for temporary labor providers. These people
would have to apply for Medicaid if they got into a
crisis. There is nothing for minor problems. They must present
themselves to an emergency room and take what
they can get there.
Preventive health service is only able to take life-threatening
cases. As an example, this past winter our local
public hospital had to refuse inpatient care unless an individual
had pneumonia in both lungs.
Others deal with understanding:
Barriers to access include a fragmented system and not
understanding the treatment or instructions.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/n/nap1627/ddd00092/
ble 3/16

There is no continuity of service, they probably see a different
physician every time, never develop a relationship
with a doctor or nurse and get little in the way of health
education.
Finally, there is the question of condition:
The socioeconomic condition of clients creates, perpetuates, and
exacerbates major health problems.
Particularly in the case of a homeless family, there are multiple
needs that must be addressed. Stress related
problems of the families we see today may be due to (1)
unemployment or underemployment, (2) inadequate
public assistance programs, (3) substandard housing, (4)
exorbitant utility costs, (5) poor health care, (6) lack of
transportation, (7) inadequate support systems, and (8) lack of
experience and education about good parenting.
Many children are being raised in a state of sheer survival. As a
result, they are faced with some serious malaise:
malnutrition, long-term sleep deprivation, depression,
developmental lags, educational deprivation, dental and
other chronic health problems; these can only bring
perpetuation of the homeless syndrome. (#579)
Stephen Joseph, New York City Commissioner of Health, writes
that "the health problems of New York inevitably
reflect the conditions of poverty in which too many families
live. Confronting these environments means confronting
the failures of our formal and informal education systems,
chronic unemployability, the too-frequent drift into a
lifetime of crime and drugs, the collapse of the nuclear family,
and a worsening housing crisis." (#437)

As an example of what needs to be done to prevent disease and
promote the health of the homeless, consider the
situation of New York City. In 1987 the city provided room for
over 27,000 homeless people, including more than
5,000 families, in shelters, temporary apartments, and hotels.
For homeless families living in hotels the infant
mortality rate is twice the city average. According to Joseph,
the Homeless Health Initiative is being expanded to
provide essential health screening and referral services to
homeless individuals and families. New York City has 25
public health nurses working in 37 hotels that house
approximately 90 percent of the city's homeless; these nurses
refer residents to medical or social service agencies, and teach
them about proper nutrition and prenatal or pediatric
care. To reduce the infant mortality rate and reach women who
traditionally have not sought prenatal or pediatric care,
the Department of Health is implementing a plan in which 30
public health nurses and 35 public health advisers will
work with community groups to refer pregnant women and
infants to local providers of medical and social services.
(#437)
Racial and Ethnic Minorities
The problems that minorities face in attaining access to health
care are severe and complex (see Chapter 6). They are
caused not only by socioeconomic factors, but also by different
cultural attitudes and beliefs about health and
medicine.
According to Daniel Blumenthal of the Morehouse School of
Medicine, millions of Americans—especially Blacks—
lack adequate access to quality health services. The reasons for
this include (1) lack of insurance (even "adequate"
insurance does not cover preventive services); (2) living in rural
or inner-city areas that are poorly served by

physicians; and (3) the shortage of Black physicians. Although
12 percent of the U.S. population is Black, fewer than
3 percent of U.S. physicians are Black. (#255) The APHA
Medical Care Section reports that a substantial portion of
the disparities in Black and minority health "may be attributed
to differences in access to health care, both preventive
and curative between the two population groups." (#755)
Osman Ahmed of Meharry Medical College writes that "Blacks
are known to delay seeking health care within the
traditional health care system, preferring to rely upon family,
friends, and even spiritualists and healers, during
periods of economic and emotional stress." Unique value
systems, together with medical care expenses, may prevent
Blacks from utilizing the health care system. Since different
"loci of control are operating in Blacks, different health
promotion strategies should be used to reach them. Eliminating
barriers to care seeking and behavior change will
1
ble 4/16
require new, culturally sensitive approaches to information
dissemination, health planning and resources management,
and may even require the institutionalization of new health
policies." (#269)
As an example of what should be done to improve access to

preventive services, Ahmed cites Meharry Medical
College's "Community Coalition on Minority Health." This
coalition, led by Meharry, consists of local governmental,
professional, voluntary, community, and religious organizations
and tries to "bring together the knowledge, expertise,
and resources to provide solutions." The coalition's objective is
to decrease diet-and nutrition-related cancer and
cardiovascular disease risk factors and hypertension in the
Black community. (#269)
Other minority groups have similar difficulties with access to
health care. The National Coalition of Hispanic Health
and Human Services Organizations says that Hispanics are more
than twice as likely to be without either public or
private health insurance than non-Hispanic Whites or Blacks.
Hispanic mothers are more likely than non-Hispanic
Whites or Blacks to begin prenatal care in the third trimester or
not at all; Hispanics are less likely to have a regular
source of health care; 30 percent of Hispanics lack this,
compared to 20 percent of Blacks and 16 percent of Whites.
Hispanics are also less likely to receive public health messages.
(#193)
''Hispanics, in particular Puerto Ricans, continue to have poorer
health status, and excess morbidity and mortality
compared to the majority population," according to Eric Munoz
of the Long Island Jewish Medical Center in New
York. Munoz suggests that this disparity is due in part to less
access to health care and preventive services in
particular. For example, fewer Puerto Rican women undergo
breast exams and mammography, or Pap smears and
gynecological exams. Puerto Ricans also have inadequate
detection and treatment of hypertension. (#431)
People with Disabilities

"Adults with chronic disabilities," write Alfred Tallia, Debbie
Spitalnik, and Robert Like of the University of
Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, "either those who have
developmental disabilities or chronic mental illness,
individually and as a collective group, have a history of
inadequate health care and a lack of access to quality medical
services, including preventive health services." They say that
deinstitutionalization of the chronically disabled from
large, congregate institutions assumes the availability and
accessibility of health services in the community, but
services are not being delivered adequately to this population.
Chronic disabilities are accompanied by complex needs
for an array of preventive health, social, educational,
vocational, and other supportive services; health services for the
chronically disabled, however, tend to be targeted to specific
problems, and general preventive health needs tend to go
unattended or are poorly "coordinated." Furthermore, Tallia,
Spitalnik, and Like say that the nature of chronic
disabilities may create barriers to participation in a primary
care setting with preventive health measures; problems
include economic disadvantages due to difficulty in sustaining
employment, physical access issues, difficulties in
obtaining adequate health histories, and negative prejudicial
attitudes from health care workers. (#209)
Health Promotion and Disease Prevention in the Health Care
System
Implementation of the national objectives for health promotion
and disease prevention in medical and health care
settings depends on the participation of physicians, other health
professionals, and the organizations in which they
work. Those who testified had many recommendations about
how to make better use of health professionals in
disease prevention and health promotion programs. The
suggestions generally included changes in training programs,
compensation and reimbursement systems, and recruitment.

Physicians
Many who testified felt that physicians can play a much larger
role in health promotion and disease prevention than
they currently do. The evidence of their effectiveness is strong,
according to witnesses. Testimony, therefore, called
for enhanced training opportunities and changes in insurance
payment policies to allow physicians to become more
active.
According to the American Academy of Family Physicians:
2
ble 5/16
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
Physicians in primary care can have a positive effect on health

behaviors in very cost effective ways. For
example, the simple offering by a general practitioner of advice
to stop smoking to patients who come to the
doctor for some reason other than smoking, results in a 5
percent quit rate at the end of one year.
To take advantage of the opportunities presented by physicians,
the American Academy of Family Physicians makes
four recommendations:
Insurance should cover scientifically supported disease
prevention and health promotion interventions in the
doctor's office and other outpatient settings.
Office-based systems for health risk assessment and
longitudinal tracking for both screening examinations and
health behaviors should be developed and adopted.
Disease prevention and health promotion curricula must be
developed in medical schools and residencies and put
on a par with other medical education topics.
Research to determine appropriate assessments and
interventions, as well as their frequencies and effectiveness,
needs to be funded. (#072)
Donald Logsdon reports on a series of studies funded by the
insurance industry under the banner of Project INSURE,
which he directs. These studies have shown that (1) physicians
are interested in clinical prevention; they will
effectively provide preventive services, including patient
education in their practices, if they receive practice-based
training and if the financial barriers to preventive care are
removed; (2) such interventions can be effective in
changing risk behaviors; and (3) their costs can be controlled.
Therefore, Logsdon suggests that the Year 2000 Health

Objectives include clinical preventive services provided by
physicians. He also sees a need for continuing medical
education programs and incentives for physicians to become
more effective at preventive health services and health
promotion. (#463)
According to Michael Eriksen, Director of Behavioral Research
at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Hospital:
The potential impact of health professionals, especially
physicians, in furthering our disease prevention and
health promotion goals is vast. However, they were rarely
included in the 1990 Objectives. The Year 2000 Health
Objectives should stipulate specific health promotion objectives
for each patient encounter, consistent with the
guidelines being developed by the U.S. Preventive Services
Task Force.
Eriksen offers this example: "Smoking patients should be
counseled by their physician to stop smoking during 75
percent of routine office visits." (#309)
Other Health Professionals
Witnesses discussed the roles that a wide range of health
professionals can play in implementing health promotion and
disease prevention objectives. The professional groups include
pharmacists, nurses, midwives, public health
professionals, and allied health professionals. In many cases,
these groups are oriented to disease prevention and
health promotion and are reportedly effective at it, so that
minimum changes in training and funding patterns can have
important effects.
The American Pharmaceutical Association (APhA), for instance,
urges recognition of the important role pharmacists

play in health promotion and disease prevention. Their
testimony addresses the following matters:
The pharmacists' role as health educators and medication
counselors: Pharmacists provide education and
information to patients regarding the control of high blood
pressure, family planning, sexually transmitted
diseases, poison prevention, smoking and health, nutrition and
weight control, and the control of stress.
The role of pharmacists in promoting rational prescription drug
therapy: The 1990 Objectives focus on adverse
3
ble 6/16
3.
drug reactions, but counseling should be much broader and
should emphasize the correct use of all medication to
avoid complications. Pharmacists also play a role in assuring
the quality of drug therapies on the regulatory level.
The need to pay all health care providers for counseling that
fosters health promotion and disease prevention:
Unless there are economic incentives for pharmacists (like other
care providers) to provide health education, the
APhA feels that their maximum effort will not be brought to
bear on the problem. (#564)

Many witnesses testified about the contributions that nurses
already make to health promotion and disease prevention
efforts and stressed the role that they can play in implementing
the Year 2000 Health Objectives. Patty Hawken, Dean
of the School of Nursing at the University of Texas Health
Science Center at San Antonio, says that because nurses
have traditionally been the constant care giver in the community
and in the home, they are well prepared to assist with
health promotion and disease prevention. (#501)
Sharon Grigsby, President of the Visiting Nurse Foundation in
Los Angeles, reports that the initial efforts of visiting
nurses a century ago concentrated on the prevention of disease
through education on the rudiments of good hygiene
and helped reduce maternal and infant mortality, as well as the
spread of infectious diseases. Visiting nurses have kept
up with technological advances in medicine, she reports, but
their historical commitment to community-based care
has not lessened. Grigsby still sees a role for visiting nurses in
preventing illness and disability through education.
Their efforts would be most effective for vulnerable populations
such as the elderly, pregnant women, and infants.
(#074)
Sapp reports on her coalition's goal of promoting the utilization
of nurse practitioners to the fullest extent of their
training and skills in all programs targeting the homeless.
(#507)
However, according to Hawken the number of new nurses is
declining. The current shortage of professional nurses
has a critical impact on health care in the country. (#501) As the
population ages, the shortage of nurses to care for the
elderly will become particularly acute, says Anita Beckerman of
the College of New Rochelle in New York. She

suggests that federal and state governments develop programs to
facilitate the entrance of prospective nursing students
into the profession, perhaps through full tuition payments with
service payback provisions, scholarships, grants, or
capitation payments to nursing schools. (#436) Hawken suggests
that encouraging groups in health care to highlight
the importance of nurses in meeting national health care
objectives would help ease the shortage. (#501)
Mary Mundinger, Dean of the Columbia University School of
Nursing, says that the major reasons for the
unavailability of nurses are their low status within the medical
system, low salaries, and shift work. To prevent a
nursing shortage and restore nursing to a viable and useful
profession, funding changes must be initiated at the federal
level. These would include transferring federal resources for
training physicians (who are in oversupply) to nurse
training programs; using National Health Service Corps funds to
bring nurses into underserved areas; finding ways to
bring nonworking nurses back into the work force; and changing
credentialing practices to recognize and reward
nurses at the highest levels of education and practice. (#589)
A number of testifiers discussed the preventive services that
midwives can provide, especially high-quality prenatal
care and obstetrical services. Representatives of the American
College of Nurse-Midwives believe that nurse
midwives can deliver quality services at low cost and would be
particularly effective for low-income populations.
Thus, they urge the removal of barriers to practice, such as
noncompetitive salaries, restraint of trade by physicians,
and the malpractice crisis. (#268; #292; #690)
Allan Rosenfield, Dean of the Columbia University School of
Public Health, reports on a shortage of well-trained
public health professionals. "Only a small percentage of the

people working in city, county, and state departments of
health and in other parts of the public health infrastructure have
been formally trained in public health." (#633)
Bernard Goldstein of the University of Medicine and Dentistry
of New Jersey notes that one impediment to reaching
the important goal of a sufficient number of trained public
health professionals is the 'poor geographical distribution
and relative lack of outreach of our existing accredited graduate
training facilities in public health." He suggests the
development of easily accessible, rigorous graduate education
programs. (#625)
ble 7/16
According to Keith Blayney, Dean of the School of Health-
Related Professions at the University of Alabama at
Birmingham, allied health professionals engage in millions of
patient interactions each week and thus represent a
tremendous potential for disease prevention and health
promotion efforts. (#258) According to John Bruhn, Dean of
the School of Allied Health Sciences at the University of Texas
Medical Branch at Galveston, physician's assistants,
physical and occupational therapists, dental hygienists, and
other allied health professionals are in positions to provide
one-on-one patient education regarding lifestyles and habits that
can prevent illness. 'Teachable moments' are not
limited to the physician-patient dyad." (#235)
To make them a potent force for implementing the Year 2000
Health Objectives, Blayney feels that every allied health

professional in the country should be cross-trained to provide
patient and public education and services in the area of
health promotion and disease prevention. (#258)
Lisa Fleming, President of the Alabama Dental Hygienists'
Association, wants to "emphasize the role that dental
auxiliaries can play in the Year 2000 Health Objectives. As
education and prevention professionals, dental hygienists
can have a significant role in meeting these objectives. With
proper education, hygienists can actively participate in
educational and preventive programs to reduce dental caries,
apply preventive procedures to periodontal patients, and
educate the public about the prevention of accidents and oral
cancer." (#262)
Health Care Settings and Organizations
Health professionals, especially nonphysicians, generally work
in organizations, and the policies and structure of
these organizations have an important effect on access to
preventive services. Along these lines, witnesses discussed
health promotion and disease prevention activities in hospitals,
community health centers, health maintenance
organizations, group practices, and long-term care facilities.
The general feeling is that these facilities are interested in
providing more preventive services and health promotion
programs, but funding patterns inhibit their ability to do so.
For instance, the American Hospital Association (AHA) reports:
As chronic disease has replaced acute infectious disease as the
major cause of morbidity and mortality, as the
locus of care has shifted to the outpatient setting, and as the
research base for broadly defined health
promotion/disease prevention services has solidified, hospitals
have expanded the range of services they offer.

During the 1980s, hospitals across the United States became
major providers of health promotion services and
active partners with other local organizations in addressing
community health problems. Historically, patient
education has been the primary focus of hospital health
promotion services as a complement to acute medical
services. A 1979 policy statement recognized hospitals'
responsibility ''to take a leadership role in helping to
insure the good health of their communities."
According to the AHA, hospitals now have a wide variety of
health promotion activities such as cardiac rehabilitation,
care giver education, wellness programming, and occupational
health services. Increasingly, hospitals are recognizing
the limits of their acute inpatient and outpatient services in
meeting the needs of patients with chronic conditions, and
are establishing linkages with self-help/mutual aid groups.
(#576)
However, AHA reports that changes in hospital are—more
outpatient services, shorter inpatient stays, and more care
of chronic than acute illness—mean hat hospitals have less
opportunity to offer prevention or health promotion
education to patients. Also, work force shortages, especially in
nursing, and inadequate resources or reimbursement
may prevent health care professionals from offering the range of
educational efforts called for in the 1990 Objectives,
such as counseling in safety belt use, nutrition education,
physical fitness regimens, and stress-coping kills. Given the
lack of progress toward some key objectives such as infant
mortality among minorities and the lack of access to
private health insurance, "it s perhaps time to elevate financing
for preventive services to the status of an objective if
risk reduction and health status objectives are to be achieved for
all populations." (#576)

The National Association of Community Health Centers reports
that these centers present a good opportunity for
implementing the objectives in poor and minority communities.
Clients of these centers are largely poor, minorities,
ble 8/16
1.
2.
3.
women, and children, and he illnesses reported are preventable
if diagnosed early. For example, among the top 10
diagnoses reported at community health centers around the
country were hypertension, upper respiratory infections,
pregnancy, and diabetes. (#635)
Health maintenance organizations (HMOs) have "several
distinct advantages" that enable them to efficiently deliver
preventive and health promotion services, according to David
Sobel of the Permanente Medical Group in Oakland,
California. (#780)
Their financial incentives are such that the organization benefits
from the implementation of efficient, cost-
effective preventive services.
Large HMOs and group practice models can achieve economies

of scale and efficiency in delivering these
services through such mechanisms as health education centers,
group classes, and telephone tapes or advice
nurses.
Centralized medical records and patient profiles provide
outstanding opportunities for evaluation of health
promotion initiatives.
But, Sobel cautions that even the physicians who work in HMOs
may not be skilled or comfortable in providing
health education and counseling. Thus, to be successful, HMOs
must
define and specify a basic benefit package of prenatal,
immunization, and age-related periodic health evaluation
services to assure consistency;
use nonphysician health professionals, such as nurses, nurse
practitioners, dietitians, and pharmacists, to
provide health education and prevention services; and
include self-care education to help people understand when to
seek medical and preventive care, and when or
how to use self-treatment safely. (#780)
Financing Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Programs
in the Health Care
System
Many testifiers identified problems with financing health
promotion and disease prevention programs as an obstacle
to implementing the national objectives. Robert Black of
Monterey, California, states, "Health promotion and disease
prevention have been the stepchild of the American health care
system and there is no incentive or reward for keeping
people healthy. The financial structure needs complete revision

and arrangement differently than it is presently
conceived." (#796)
Some saw the problem in the context of a larger concern about
overall health expenditures in the United States, and
proposed changes in Medicare and Medicaid or in already
existing federal grant programs. Most of those who
testified on these issues, however, proposed major changes in
the financing of health care, including a national health
insurance policy.
According to the APHA Medical Care Section, "Access to
health care for those most in need of care has actually been
reduced since the Surgeon General's goals were first published.
This is because of cutbacks in the several programs
that have been established to increase access for the
underprivileged and because of increasing corporatization of
health care." (#755)
William Hagens, a senior research analyst for the Washington
State Legislature, said that the number one health
problem facing Olympia and all other state capitals is the
question of financing. At a time when access to health care
for low-income people is declining and costs are rising, there is
the feeling that all the money spent is not contributing
to happier, healthier people. Therefore, it is important that no
new program be added, but that those already on the
books be implemented more aggressively. Hagens feels that
people must to be taught to be more responsible for their
own health, and that prevention activities by businesses should
be expanded. (#694)

ble 9/16
1.
2.
Federal Funding Programs
Many witnesses suggested that already existing federal funding
programs could do more to finance health promotion
and disease prevention, and to improve the access to health care
generally. In particular, testifiers addressed the
possibilities of changing Medicare reimbursement policies for
preventive services; increasing the coverage of
Medicaid to include more poor people and more services,
especially maternal health services; and better coordinating
block and categorical grant programs with the national
objectives.
Medicare
A number of speakers suggested that Medicare should cover
more health promotion and disease prevention services.
Paul Hunter of the American Medical Student
Association/Foundation, for instance, says that Medicare should
reimburse at least 50 percent of the costs of the following
preventive services: "health screenings, health-risk
appraisals, immunizations, nutrition counseling, stress
reduction, injury prevention, alcohol and drug abuse
counseling, smoking cessation, and medication use." (#612)
Medicaid
A number of witnesses suggested changes in the Medicaid

system to improve access to preventive services for the
poor. These proposals ranged from changes for specific
services, especially prenatal care, to an overall expansion of
the number of people insured and the services covered.
Milton Arnold of the American Academy of Pediatrics, for
example, says that adequate prenatal care is the single
most important factor in reducing infant morbidity and
mortality, and he calls for more complete Medicaid
reimbursement for it. With better prenatal care, he says, many
of the 40,000 deaths that occur annually to babies in
their first year of life can be prevented. However, he cites a
General Accounting Office (GAO) report that found
insufficient prenatal care for women of all races, ages, and
economic groups, but especially for low-income
minorities. According to the GAO report, 81 percent of
privately insured women surveyed received adequate
prenatal care compared to 36 percent of those who qualify for
Medicaid and 32 percent of uninsured women. The
American Academy of Pediatrics would like to see prenatal care
made available to all pregnant women early in
pregnancy; Medicaid can help meet this goal by providing a
regularly updated list of approved and reimbursable
services and procedures and by improving reimbursement and
paying claims promptly. (#678)
Other witnesses complained that Medicaid is not realizing its
potential. The APHA Medical Care Section says that
"the Medicaid program still does nothing to improve access to
health care for the majority of low-income Americans.
The program actually covers less than half of all persons living
in poverty; even those who are technically covered are
often unable to find a physician who will accept Medicaid
patients." (#755)
Judith Glazner of the Denver Department of Health and

Hospitals says that federal and state cutbacks in the early
1980s resulted in some of the poor becoming ineligible for
Medicaid; she recommends that all states be required to
use the same Medicaid eligibility standards. (#377) The Health
Policy Agenda for the American People, a
collaborative effort of nearly 200 health, health-related,
business, government, and consumer groups to promote
health sector change, recommends that
Medicaid be revised to establish national standards that result in
uniform eligibility, benefits, and adequate
payment mechanisms for services across jurisdictions; and
Medicaid eligibility standards be expanded to include the
medically indigent and payments be related to their
ability to pay. (#583)
Block Grants
A number of state and local health officers suggest that federal
block grant funds should be an important tool in
financing prevention activities called for in the objectives. Mark
Richards, Secretary of Health for the Commonwealth
4
5
6

ble 10/16
of Pennsylvania, says that all recipients of block and categorical
grant funds should demonstrate clearly how they will
help meet the appropriate objectives. (#387)
Thomas Halpin and Karen Evans of the Ohio Department of
Health say that federal preventive health and health
services block grants were crucial to the success of the
objectives in Ohio and should continue with the Year 2000
Health Objectives. (#129) Diana Bonta suggests using Title X
family planning grants to implement family planning
objectives. (#024) Maternal and child health block grants and
the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women,
Infants, and Children (WIC) can help improve access to early
prenatal care and other services for pregnant women,
infants, and children. (#044)
Health Insurance
Many witnesses called for some form of national health
insurance system that would pay for preventive services,
saying that without major changes in the current system, from
which many are disenfranchised and which provides
little preventive care for those who are covered, it will be
difficult to make progress in the Year 2000 Health
Objectives. Although some witnesses felt that a national health
system or at least a national health insurance system is
the only answer, others proposed changes in the existing private
insurance system.
According to Rosenfield:
There should be a much greater emphasis on disease
prevention/health promotion as a number one national
health priority with adequate funding at federal, state, and local

levels. Health care financing in this country
remains a tragic problem for an unacceptably large percentage
of the population. As the only Western nation
without some form of national health insurance or health
service, a sizable percentage of our population is either
unserved or under-served. The problem is greatest for the
uninsured working poor, the homeless, and the poor
generally. A national health insurance program remains an
urgent, if misunderstood, national priority. (#633)
Derrick Jelliffe of the University of California, Los Angeles
goes further:
Until the country has some form of national health insurance
coverage or other national health system enabling
preventive and curative health services to be available to all
economic levels in the country, the rest of the
deliberations on the objectives border on the farcical. Unless
one is careful, a potpourri of fragmented programs
of limited extent and coverage may emerge in the usual sort of
way. There is no way that the country can move
from being a second-class nation as far as health services are
concerned until a national health coverage has been
achieved. (#271)
"Millions of people are going without needed medical care, both
therapeutic and preventive, because of financial
barriers," writes Marjorie Wilson of Olympia, Washington.
It is time for us to stop Band-Aiding a sick medical system. It is
time now to start implementing a comprehensive
national health plan. In addition to preventing serious
conditions caused by neglect of early diagnosis and
treatment, the national health plan should provide other
preventive services such as: (1) primary prevention of
mental conditions, early screening, and tertiary prevention for

symptom control; (2) age-related health screening
for all citizens with emphasis on the very young and the very
old; (3) mammograms, Pap smears, and cholesterol
and diabetic screening, as risk related; (4) health education in
the community, the workplace, and the schools for
healthy living; and (5) environmental and personal changes for
injury prevention. (#346)
Members of the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine at a
hearing on the national objectives suggested the
following objective: "The number of Americans not covered by
health insurance, currently 37 million, should be
reduced by at least half—and preferably more; alternatively,
more than 95 percent of Americans should have health
ble 11/16
insurance that covers 90 percent of hospital and 80 percent of
outpatient costs, including primary and secondary
prevention, as recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services
Task Force." (#143)
According to Glazner, insurance coverage is a key factor in
gaining access to preventive health care, and lack of
insurance particularly affects the young, the old, and the poor.
Without health insurance, low-income families must rely on a
frequently fragmented and difficult-to-use public
system of health care. Regular preventive care, including
prenatal care, immunization, and well-child care, is

sometimes difficult to get, and its availability may not be well
understood. Only when families do not have to
make a choice between food on the table and a visit to the
doctor or clinic will adequate care for those most at
risk be provided.
Because health insurance in the United States is largely
employment based, 'the practical focus of increasing
insurance coverage at this time must primarily be on employers
that don't provide health insurance and on the insurers
themselves." (#377)
Thus, Glazner suggests adding a new category to the objectives,
"Improvement of Economic Access to Health Care."
Its aim would be to reduce the number of Americans not
covered by public or private insurance programs, including
Medicare and Medicaid, to less than 7.5 percent (a reduction of
50 percent), and she suggests a number of specific
changes in legislation and regulation to achieve this goal.
(#377)
The Health Policy Agenda for the American People also is
addressing the current insurance system, especially its
coverage. The Health Policy Agenda has developed a "basic
benefits package" to serve as the foundation for private
health insurance plans and for public programs that finance
health care. The package includes the following
prevention and health promotion activities: maternal and child
care, dental examination and teeth cleaning,
immunizations, and periodic medical examinations. (#583)
Implementation within the Health Care System
Witnesses also identified four interrelated implementation
issues especially relevant to assuring access to preventive
services: coordination of services, training of health
professionals, underserved areas, and the lack of minority

practitioners.
Coordination of Services
Helen Farabee, representing the March of Dimes Birth Defects
Foundation, suggests as an objective that "by 2000, all
pregnant women and infants should have access to and at least
95 percent shall receive quality care and case
management from a coordinated and comprehensive system of
public and private health-care providers." According to
Farabee, recent efforts in Texas have (1) expanded services, to
make prenatal care available in every county; (2)
instituted a comprehensive managed care program for pregnant
women with high-risk conditions; and (3) tried to
better coordinate services that should be targeted toward the
poor, such as the WIC program, family planning
programs, infant care programs, and early childhood
intervention programs. (#289)
George Silver of Yale University writes of the need "to focus on
the inadequacies, inefficiencies, uncontrollable
inflation of cost, and evidence of poor quality plaguing the U.S.
medical care system" in order to meet the Year 2000
Health Objectives. However, in implementing programs, he
emphasizes the need to start with a state, rather than a
full-scale national, program because the "national tradition in
connection with social policy has always been to start
with a state model." (#510)
Training of Health Professionals
Many testifiers identified training issues as key in realizing the
potential of health professionals, especially physicians,
in implementing the objectives. One issue is the necessity for
more specialists in preventive medicine. Other

ble 12/16
witnesses called for better integration of the knowledge and
skills needed for health promotion and disease prevention
in the basic education of all health professionals.
William Scheckler of the University of Wisconsin, for instance,
notes a decline in choice of primary care careers by
medical students, despite an increasing need for such
specialists. He suggests that training grants in these areas be
increased, residency programs in primary care be promoted, and
medical schools be encouraged to emphasize primary
care. (#194)
The American Occupational Medicine Association (AOMA)
makes a similar suggestion about training more
specialists in occupational medicine. (#071) The Society of
Teachers of Family Medicine (STFM) calls for a 25
percent increase in the number of residency graduates in family
medicine and general preventive medicine who plan
to emphasize clinical preventive medicine in their practice, as
well as development of a clinical preventive medicine
fellowship to meet this objective. (#118)
The Association of Preventive Medicine Residents agrees with
this approach and recommends creation of a specific
objective dealing with the training of health professionals in
disease prevention and health promotion, with emphasis
on training physicians in preventive medicine. Although
shortages of preventive medicine specialists are predicted,

the federal government has cut funding for preventive medicine
residencies in recent years; thus, the association
recommends that this funding be restored at least to the earlier
level. (#560)
The other approach suggested in testimony is incorporation of
health promotion and disease prevention material into
the general medical curriculum. Sue Lurie of the Texas College
of Osteopathic Medicine points to the importance of
prevention in the training of physicians and physician's
assistants. She feels that integration of specific topics into the
existing curriculum is the most effective approach and that
increasing the clinical training of physicians in outpatient
settings would increase their focus on preventive health care.
(#136) The AOMA recommends that broad-based
orientation courses in occupational medicine be established in
the curriculum of all schools of medicine and
osteopathy. (#071) The STFM calls for a 25 percent increase in
the curriculum time spent in medical schools and
primary care residency programs on health promotion and
disease prevention. (#118) The National Board of Medical
Examiners sets certification standards for practicing physicians
and develops tests to evaluate current medical
education and practice. It reports that the major priority areas of
the 1990 Objectives are covered in the examination
and that the "educational imperative" of the Year 2000 Health
Objectives will be reflected in new examinations. Thus,
setting appropriate objectives will have some impact on medical
practice. (#221)
The National Council for the Education of Health Professionals
in Health Promotion (NCEHPHP) suggests that
students of medicine, nursing, dentistry, and the allied health
professions be adequately prepared to intervene
effectively with those patients at risk and to organize health

promotion/disease prevention services. Therefore,
those responsible for the education, training, and certification
of health professionals must develop goals and
objectives to assure that health promotion and disease
prevention becomes an integral part of the repertoire of
skills of those charged with the responsibility of providing
health care.
The NCEHPHP also addresses specific recommendations for the
health professions curriculum, academic institutions
and faculty, accreditation, certification and licensure, and
continuing education. (#169)
Underserved Areas
According to some witnesses, the problem is not a shortage of
health professionals but rather their distribution. Many
inner cities and rural areas have few physicians or other health
professionals; furthermore, according to witnesses, the
primary federal program for addressing this problem, the
National Health Service Corps, is insufficient. The solutions
proposed involve the medical education system, reimbursement,
and substituting one kind of professional for another.
According to the APHA's Medical Care Section, "Millions of
Americans who live in rural or inner-city areas lack
access by reason of living in these areas. The National Health
Service Corps, which offered one approach to this
ble 13/16

1.
2.
3.
problem, has been all but phased out over the last several
years." (#755)
Donna Denno, representing the American Medical Student
Association, says that the health objectives cannot be
attained without a consistent health care work force available to
implement them, particularly to serve the indigent in
health manpower shortage areas. Despite reports of a physician
surplus, the manpower shortage is increasing,
particularly of primary care physicians in underserved regions.
The steps Denno lists to address the problems include
funding the National Health Service Corps, exposing medical
students to health manpower shortage areas during their
training period, and recruiting minority medical students.
(#717)
In a more specific case, according to Lisa Kane Low and
colleagues from the Michigan chapter of the American
College of Nurse-Midwives:
The distribution of health care providers is a main contributor
to the problem of patient access to maternity
services. While major urban and resort areas have long had
ample numbers of physicians, there are many areas
of Michigan that have far fewer physicians than necessary, and
despite the ample number of providers, all
women are not provided equal access to these resources. Many
of the underserved areas are rural, geographically
removed from the social and professional benefits of large

urban areas. However, a number of urban areas in
Michigan contain "pockets" of underserved populations.
They offer three recommendations for dealing with these
problems:
Reestablish the National Health Service Corps or provide
incentives for states to develop their own programs.
Reimburse certified nurse midwives and other nurses in
advanced practice for services they are qualified to
deliver.
Improve reimbursement rates for services provided to Medicaid
recipients and provide parity in reimbursement
for the same services provided by various health care
professionals, including nurse midwives. (#628)
Minority Practitioners
The problems of underserved areas often intersect with the lack
of access for minority populations. A number of
testifiers suggested that one solution to this joint problem could
be found in training more minority health
professionals at all levels.
One testifier who calls himself "a state health commissioner
with a vision toward the new millennium," says that
"ultimately, achievement of the nation's health objectives will
depend not only on clearly articulated measures, but
also on the availability of appropriately trained personnel who
are representative of the communities served, and who
recognize the fact that health is the outcome of many complex
factors, involving individual, institutional, and
community behavior patterns." Objectives for the year 2000
should include training health professionals in culturally

appropriate interventions and recruiting health personnel from
the communities most in need of interventions. (#599)
More specifically, the APHA Medical Care Section says that
"the continued shortage of Black physicians exacerbates
access problems for Black Americans. (#755) Denno adds that
minority physicians tend to work in health manpower
shortage areas more often than their White counterparts; thus,
recruiting minority medical students through specific
grant and loan programs would help underserved areas. (#717)
James Young, Dean of the School of Allied Health Sciences at
the University of Texas Health Science Center at San
Antonio, says that allied health professionals have an important
potential role in promoting and achieving the nation's
health goals, specifically as they concern minorities. Young's
recommendations include (1) increasing minority
representation in the allied health professions, and assessing the
incentives that exist to encourage student, faculty, and
clinician entry into needed areas; (2) aggressively recruiting
students from underserved communities; and (3)
developing strategies and incentives to attract allied health
professionals to enter practice in underserved areas and to
increase the number of minority students who practice in these
settings. (#497)
ble 14/16
1.

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
References
U.S. Bureau of the Census: Statistical Abstract of the United
States, 1987 (107th Edition). Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1986.
National Center for Health Statistics: Health United States,
1984 (DHHS Publication No. [PHS] 85-1232), 1985.
Russell MAH, Wilson C, Taylor C, et al.: Effect of general
practitioners' advice against smoking. Brit Med J
2:231-235, 1979. [PMC free article: PMC1595592] [PubMed:
476401]
Hughes D, Johnson K, Rosenbaum S, et al.: The Health of
America's Children: Maternal and Child Health Data
Book. Washington, D.C.: Children's Defense Fund, 1988.
U.S. General Accounting Office: Prenatal care: Medicaid
recipients and uninsured women obtain insufficient care.
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources
and Intergovernmental Relations, Committee on
Government Operations, House of Representatives. GAO/H D
87-137, September 1987.
Ibid.
Testifiers Cited in Chapter 8
024 Bonta, Diana; Los Angeles Regional Family Planning
Council
044 Corry, Maureen; March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation

071 Givens, Austin; American Occupational Medical
Association
072 Graham, Robert; American Academy of Family Physicians
074 Grigsby, Sharon; The Visiting Nurse Foundation
118 Kligman, Evan; Society of Teachers of Family Medicine
129 Halpin, Thomas and Evans, Karen; Ohio Department of
Health
136 Lurie, Sue; Texas College of Osteopathic Medicine
143 Martin, Robert; Society of Teachers of Family Medicine
169 Osterbusch, Suzanne; National Council for the Education of
Health Professionals in Health Promotion
193 Delgado, Jane; The National Coalition of Hispanic Health
and Human Services Organizations (COSSMHO)
194 Scheckler, William; University of Wisconsin
209 Tallia, Alfred, Spitalnik, Debbie, and Like, Robert;
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey
221 Volle, Robert; National Board of Medical Examiners
234 Brooks, Chet; Texas State Senate
235 Bruhn, John; University of Texas Medical Branch at
Galveston
255 Blumenthal, Daniel; Morehouse School of Medicine

258 Blayney, Keith; University of Alabama at Birmingham
262 Fleming, Lisa; Alabama Dental Hygienists' Association
268 Work, Rebecca; University of Alabama at Birmingham
269 Ahmed, Osman; Meharry Medical College
271 Jelliffe, Derrick; University of California, Los Angeles
277 Roemer, Milton; University of California, Los Angeles
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1595592/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/476401
ble 15/16
289 Farabee, Helen; Benedictine Health Promotion Center
(Austin)
292 Wente, Susan; Jefferson Davis Hospital (Houston)
309 Eriksen, Michael; University of Texas Health Science
Center at Houston
346 Wilson, Marjorie; Olympia, Washington
377 Glazner, Judith; Denver Department of Health and
Hospitals
387 Richards, N. Mark; Pennsylvania Department of Health

431 Munoz, Eric; Long Island Jewish Medical Center
436 Beckerman, Anita; College of New Rochelle (New York)
437 Joseph, Stephen; New York City Department of Health
463 Logsdon, Donald; INSURE Project (New York)
497 Young, James; University of Texas Health Science Center
at San Antonio
501 Hawken, Patty; University of Texas Health Science Center
at San Antonio
507 Sapp, Mary; Benedictine Health Resource Center (San
Antonio)
510 Silver, George; Yale University
560 Salive, Marcel and Parkinson, Michael; Association of
Preventive Medicine Residents
564 Schlegel, John; American Pharmaceutical Association
576 Owen, Jack; American Hospital Association
579 Shoults, Harold; The Salvation Army
583 McCarthy, Diane; Health Policy Agenda for the American
People (Chicago)
589 Mundinger, Mary; Columbia University
599 Adams, Frederick; Connecticut Department of Health
Services

612 Hunter, Paul; American Medical Student
Association/Foundation
625 Goldstein, Bernard; University of Medicine and Dentistry
of New Jersey, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School
628 Low, Lisa Kane; American College of Nurse-Midwives
633 Rosenfield, Allan; Columbia University
635 White, Francine; National Association of Community
Health Centers
678 Arnold, Milton; American Academy of Pediatrics
690 Carr, Katherine; American College of Nurse-Midwives
694 Hagens, William; Washington State House of
Representatives
717 Denno, Donna; University of Michigan
755 Blumenthal, Daniel; American Public Health Association,
Medical Care Section
780 Sobel, David; The Permanente Medical Group
796 Black, Robert; Monterey, California

ble 16/16
Copyright © 1990 by the National Academy of Sciences.
Bookshelf ID: NBK235764
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/about/copyright/
Surgeon General’s Perspectives
–December 2011 /
Volume 126
THE NATIONAL PREVENTION
STRATEGY: SHIFTING THE NATION’S
HEALTH-CARE SYSTEM
I know the pain and hardship that can strain a family
when they experience the loss of a loved one. I lost my
mother to smoking-related lung cancer, my father to a
stroke, and my brother to human immunodeficiency
virus (HIV)/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome
(AIDS), all of which are preventable diseases. It is
my mission to keep other Americans from having to
experience such preventable losses. For this reason, it
is my hope to pioneer our nation’s first-ever prevention
movement. The National Prevention Strategy,1 called
for in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,2
will shift our nation’s health-care system from one based
on sickness and disease to one focused on prevention
and wellness. We need to stop diseases before they start
and allow all Americans to be healthy and fit.
The health and vitality of Americans are critical

to the productivity and innovation essential for our
nation’s future. Students who are healthy and fit come
to school ready to learn; employees who are free from
mental and physical conditions take fewer sick days, are
more productive, and help strengthen the economy;
and older adults who remain physically and mentally
active are more likely to live independently.1 Therefore,
we need to weave disease prevention into the every-
day fabric of our lives, including where we live, work,
learn, and play.
Although the U.S. spends more on health care than
any other country, our nation ranks lower than several
other nations in life expectancy, infant mortality, and
other healthy life indicators.3 Our government is striv-
ing to change our health-care system for the better,
and prevention is essential. A 2006 study by Maciosek
et al. determined that increasing the use of preventive
services—including tobacco cessation screening, alco-
hol abuse screening, and aspirin use—to 90% of the
recommended levels could save $3.7 billion annually
in medical costs.4 Shifting our nation’s focus toward
preventive health will not only result in cost savings
but, more importantly, will save and improve lives.
STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS AND PRIORITIES
The National Prevention Strategy is a guide for our
nation to provide the most useful and attainable means
for leading a healthy lifestyle. This comprehensive plan
encompasses four strategic directions that serve as the
foundation for all prevention efforts.
Healthy and safe community environments
Our nation must build healthy and safe community

environments. Health should be omnipresent and
universal—in our homes, schools, and workplaces. By
enhancing the quality of our nation’s air, land, and
water, we can lessen people’s exposure to environmen-
tal hazards and the associated risks of these exposures
on health. By designing and promoting affordable,
accessible, and safe housing that is free from toxins,
hazards, and pollutants, we can give all people an equal
opportunity at healthy living.
Clinical and community preventive services
We must maintain and enhance our clinical and com-
munity preventive services. We know that when people
receive preventive care, such as immunizations and
cancer screenings, they have better health and lower
health-care costs. For example, by focusing on improv-
ing our nation’s cardiovascular health, we can save
tens of thousands of lives each year. While preventive
services are traditionally delivered in clinical settings,
some can be delivered within communities, worksites,
schools, residential treatment centers, or homes.
VADM Regina M. Benjamin,
Surgeon General
Public Health Reports / November–December 2011 / Volume
126
Clinical preventive services can be supported and rein-
forced by community-based prevention, policies, and
programs. Community programs can also play a role in
promoting the use of clinical preventive services and

assisting patients in overcoming barriers to preventive
services (e.g., transportation, child care, and patient
navigation issues).
Empowered people
We must empower people to make responsible,
informed, and healthy choices. By providing people
with the tools and information to make healthy deci-
sions, we can lead our country to become an indepen-
dent and reliable manager of its own health. People
want to be healthy; we need to provide them with
easy and affordable options to maintain their health.
These options include access to healthy food, places
to exercise, appropriate nutrition information, and
positive social interactions.
Elimination of health disparities
Finally, we must eliminate the health disparities that
exist in our nation. No population should shoulder
a disproportionate burden of illness and disease.
Unfortunately, many health concerns, including
heart disease, asthma, obesity, and HIV/AIDS, dis-
proportionately affect certain populations of people.
Without education and employment, people are often
ill-equipped to make healthy choices. Education can
increase health knowledge and allow people to make
better-informed choices for themselves and their
families. Employment can provide access to health
coverage and prevention care, allow people to live
in healthy and safe neighborhoods and housing, and
enable families to afford healthy food and other basic
goods. Programs and policies to reduce high school
dropout rates make advanced education more attain-
able, promote job growth, and, ultimately, have a large
impact on people’s ability to make healthy choices.1

With a strategic focus on the communities at greatest
risk, and those that require the greatest support, we
can work toward providing all Americans with a chance
to live a healthy and fi t life.
Priority areas
In addition to these strategic directions, the National
Prevention Strategy has identifi ed seven priority areas
that require immediate focus to improve the health
of the American people, particularly those who are
disproportionately affected by disease and injury:1
• Tobacco-free living
• Preventing drug abuse and excessive alcohol use
• Healthy eating
• Active living
• Injury- and violence-free living
• Reproductive and sexual health
• Mental and emotional well-being
In focusing on these priorities, the National Prevention
Strategy seeks to address the underlying causes—e.g.,
tobacco use, misuse of alcohol and other substances,
obesity, and community stressors such as discrimination
and violence—of chronic conditions (e.g., heart disease
and diabetes) and unintentional injuries.
A NATION’S EFFORT
While the core of this prevention movement will come

from a trained and knowledgeable prevention work-
force that is attuned to community and population
conditions and disparities, and equipped to serve the
needs of an aging nation, many other stakeholders
will need to help ensure the success of this National
Prevention Strategy.
Public and private sectors alike can improve the
coordination and collaboration of prevention-driven
services and programs that address key health needs.
For instance, businesses can support workplace well-
ness, health providers can enhance health-care quality
and delivery, and educators can incorporate prevention
competencies into relevant curricula.
On the individual level, we can all make changes
to incorporate prevention activities into our day-to-day
lifestyle. Using alternative transportation such as bik-
ing or walking, purchasing energy-effi cient household
products and recycling, and better managing personal
health through technology such as text reminders
and phone applications are all simple ways to make
informed, responsible, and healthy choices.
This strategy for disease prevention must become
America’s plan. All of us, together, must take ownership
of our health, and we must collaborate and cooperate
to achieve a healthy and fi t America.
Regina M. Benjamin, MD, MBA
VADM, U.S. Public Health Service
Surgeon General
The author thanks Arndreya D. Price, Neha A. Deshpande, and
Jo Ellen Russ for their contributions to this article.

Public Health Reports / November–December 2011 / Volume
126
REFERENCES
1. National Prevention Council (US). National Prevention
Strategy:
America’s plan for better health and wellness. Washington:
Depart-
ment of Health and Human Services, Office of the Surgeon
General
(US); 2011. Also available from: URL:
http://www.healthcare.gov/
center/councils/nphpphc/strategy/report.pdf [cited 2011 Jul 14].
2. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Pub. L. No. 111-
148
(2010).
3. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (US), Office of
the
Actuary, National Health Statistics Group. National health
expen-
ditures 2009 highlights [cited 2011 Aug 22]. Available from:
URL:
http://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/
highlights.pdf
4. Maciosek MV, Coffield AB, Flottemesch TJ, Edwards NM,
Solberg
LI. Greater use of preventive services in U.S. health care could

save
lives at little or no cost. Health Aff (Millwood) 2010;29:1656-
60.
2/5/2020 Health Care Industry Insights: Why the Use of
Preventive Services Is Still Low
https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2019/18_0625.htm 1/5
Preventing Chronic Disease
Top
Health Care Industry Insights: Why the Use of
Susan Levine, DVM, PhD ; Erin Malone, MPH ; Akaki
Lekiachvili, MD, MBA ; Peter
Briss, MD, MPH (View author a�liations)
Suggested citation for this article: Levine S, Malone E,
Lekiachvili A, Briss P. Health Care Industry Insights: Why the
Use of Preventive Services Is Still Low. Prev Chronic Dis
2019;16:180625. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd16.180625 .
Chronic diseases are a tremendous burden to both patients and
the health care system. In 2014, 60% of adult Americans had
at least one chronic disease or condition, and 42% had multiple
diseases (1). Chronic diseases, including heart disease, cancer,
chronic lung disease, stroke, Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes,
osteoarthritis, and chronic kidney disease, are the leading
causes
of poor health, long-term disability, and death in the United
States (2,3). One-third of all deaths in this country are

attributable
to heart disease or stroke, and every year, more than 1.7 million
people receive a diagnosis of cancer (2). During the past
several decades, the prevalence of diabetes increased
dramatically; in 2015 more than 29 million Americans had
diabetes and
another 86 million adults had prediabetes, increasing their
chance of developing type 2 diabetes (3). Diabetes increases the
risk of developing other chronic diseases, including heart
disease, stroke, and hypertension, and is the leading cause of
end-
stage renal failure (4).
Chronic diseases can profoundly reduce quality of life for
patients and for their families, a�ecting enjoyment of life,
family
relationships, and �nances (5). Working can be di�cult for
people with chronic diseases: rates of absenteeism are higher
and
income is often lower among people who have a chronic disease
compared with people who do not have one. Functional
limitations can be distressing, and depression, which can reduce
a patient’s ability to cope with pain and worsen the clinical
course of disease, is a common complication (6).
Chronic diseases are also the leading drivers of health care
costs in the United States (2). In 2016, total direct costs for
health
care treatment of chronic diseases were more than $1 trillion,
with diabetes, Alzheimer’s, and osteoarthritis being the most
expensive (2,7). If lost economic productivity is also
considered, the total cost of chronic diseases increases to $3.7
trillion,
which is close to one-�fth of the entire US economy (7,8).
These costs are expected to increase as the population ages —
projections indicate that by 2030, more than 80 million people

in the United States will have at least 3 chronic diseases (7).
Clinical preventive strategies are available for many chronic
diseases; these strategies include intervening before disease
occurs (primary prevention), detecting and treating disease at an
early stage (secondary prevention), and managing disease to
slow or stop its progression (tertiary prevention). These
interventions, combined with lifestyle changes, can
substantially
reduce the incidence of chronic disease and the disability and
death associated with chronic disease (9). However, clinical
preventive services are substantially underutilized despite the
human and economic burden of chronic diseases, the
availability of evidence-based tools to prevent or ameliorate
them, and the e�ectiveness of prevention strategies (9–11). For
example, in 2015, only 8% of US adults aged 35 or older
received all recommended, high-priority, appropriate clinical
preventive services, and nearly 5% received none (12).
Interview Study
It is far better to prevent disease than to treat people after they
get sick (13). This is particularly true for chronic diseases,
which are associated with su�ering, large numbers of deaths,
and high health care costs (2,7). Given the gap between the
burden of chronic diseases and the utilization of preventive
services, we set out to obtain from health care industry experts
their perspectives on the levers and in�uencers that have the
potential to increase utilization of clinical preventive care. The
ESSAY — Volume 16 — March 14, 2019
This article is part of the Health Care Systems, Public Health,
and Communities: Population Health
Improvements collection.
1 1 2

2
https://www.cdc.gov/
https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/index.htm
http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd16.180625
https://www.altmetric.com/details.php?domain=www.cdc.gov&c
itation_id=57022296
https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/collections/Healthcare_Systems_2019.
htm
Top
p p p p
objective of our study was to gather experience-based insights
that would be valuable to policy makers in developing
strategies, programs, and partnerships across the health care
industry to increase utilization of preventive services. We
selected a qualitative interview study design for this
investigation, which was conducted from December 2017 to
June 2018.
This project involved domain experts rather than human
subjects as de�ned by 45 CFR part 46, and therefore
institutional
review board approval was not required.
Recruitment of experts

We �rst identi�ed experts with a background in working with
decision makers in health care. We then narrowed our selection
to 12 experts, each of whom had at least 10 years of experience
in working with one or more types of organizations, including
health systems, hospitals or physician groups, commercial
payers, or state Medicaid agencies. We then conducted a short
screening interview to con�rm appropriate expertise and
willingness to participate. After this initial selection process,
we
scheduled a 1-hour semistructured interview with each of 9
participants. Before beginning the interviews, the participants
con�rmed that they had no con�icts of interest that might bias
their comments and that they would not disclose any
con�dential or proprietary information about the organizations
for which they currently or previously worked. We tabulated
details of their expertise (Table 1).
Interview questions
Increasing uptake of preventive services requires multifaceted
strategies, including but not limited to organizational
leadership, education, measurement, and reimbursement. With
this in mind, we developed an interview guide (Table 2),
which included a series of questions focused on how payers,
health systems, and physicians determine their clinical and
business priorities for resource allocation and quality
improvement e�orts. We asked about opportunities to include
incentives for the use of preventive services under current and
emerging designs of models for payment and delivery. We
included questions about examples of successful implementation
of preventive services strategies or models and about
clinical–community linkages that focus on chronic disease
prevention.
Although primary prevention was not excluded, much of the
discussion focused on secondary and tertiary prevention related
to health care system interventions and community interventions

linked to clinical services. Throughout the interviews, the
participants were encouraged to draw from their experiences
with organizations of various capacities and not to focus only
on high-level performers or models that would be di�cult for
average organizations to adopt and replicate. Each interview
was conducted via teleconference and facilitated by the �rst
author (S.L.), a senior scientist with expertise in qualitative
research methods.
Interview Findings
Across all interviews, 4 �ndings emerged as major levers or
in�uencers of preventive care. These �ndings cut across all
health
care industry sectors and organization types.
Financial and economic considerations. The most prominent
theme was �nances. All interviewees highlighted the
importance
of �nancial and economic considerations when organizations
determine priorities and make decisions. These decisions
include where to invest resources, what health bene�ts to cover,
or how to bill for clinical services. In the words of one
interviewee, “With no margin, there is no mission.”
Use of metrics to drive change in the health care system. The
second �nding was related to metrics and the importance of
using metrics to drive change in the health care system.
Interviewees stressed that measures continue to play a crucial
role in
the delivery of care, but the “right” metrics — outcome-
focused, aligned across payers, and with su�cient �nancial
incentives
or risk — are needed to drive uptake of chronic disease
preventive services. One participant, emphasizing that reporting
and
monitoring can drive change, noted, “Once external reporting is

in place, measured outcomes are prioritized.” However,
interviewees cautioned about the “metrics fatigue” that is
plaguing health care providers, the misalignment of measures
for
reporting and quality ratings, and the current lack of �nancial
risk for outcome measures associated with preventive care; in
other words, payments to providers are not based on
improvements in their patients’ health status.
Role of health care payers. The third �nding focused on the
role of health care payers (commercial payers/health plans,
Medicaid, and particularly Medicare) in in�uencing uptake of
preventive care services. Findings coalesced around the
opportunities for payers to drive change in practice. As risk-
bearing entities, they provide the payment models and the
Top
Top
Top
Top
in�uence and incentives that can a�ect uptake of chronic
disease preventive services. Several interviewees highlighted
the
importance of data for payers. As one expert explained, “Payers
have the data that can often drive adoption or uptake of

programs and interventions.”
Rapid changes in health care reimbursement models. The fourth
�nding focused on the pace of change in health care
reimbursement models. The shift from volume-based
reimbursement has been at the forefront of debate and
discussion for
years, but for typical health care delivery organizations, the
transition to value-based reimbursement is still in early stages
and is uneven across payers. As a result, the transition has not
reached the “tipping point” for providers to change their
practice patterns. As one interviewee observed, “There is some
emphasis on value-based care, including focus on outcomes
and reduced spending, but the view is generally short-term.”
The health care industry will continue to move in the direction
of
value-based care, but changes in provider practice vary across
systems and markets. There is also considerable room for
continuing experimentation and evaluation to determine what
reimbursement models work best and for whom.
Discussion
Industry experts participating in this stakeholder interview
process made it clear that most players in the health care system
are aware of recommended preventive care services and
understand the bene�t of preventing disease for the patient and
the
larger health care system. Underutilization of preventive
services is largely the result of an implementation gap rather
than an
information gap; in other words, providers do not prioritize
preventive care services although they know that preventive
services can reduce the incidence and burden of chronic
diseases. A major reason the implementation gap exists is that
�nancial incentives do not align with a focus on preventing
chronic diseases. Currently, most providers, including hospitals

and physicians, are paid to treat rather than to prevent disease.
Payers have the potential to increase utilization of preventive
services with value-based payment models and contractual
requirements that include reporting on preventive health quality
measures.
As the participants in our study o�ered their perspectives on
the barriers and in�uences surrounding the coverage and
delivery of preventive care services, much of the conversation
focused on the in�uence of �nancial considerations on uptake
of preventive care. However, participants generally agreed that
�nancial incentives alone are unlikely to result in positive
changes in the absence of a multipronged approach to increasing
preventive services among people at risk of or living with
chronic diseases. A multipronged approach would include
strong organizational leadership, shifts in institutional culture,
team-based care, systems of care that accommodate preventive
services, and willingness of patients to seek out and engage
in preventive care.
Acknowledgments
No �nancial support was received for this essay. The �ndings
and conclusions are solely the responsibility of the authors and
do not represent the o�cial views of Deloitte Consulting, LLP,
or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Author Information
Corresponding Author: Akaki Lekiachvili, MD, MBA, Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy NE, MS
F-80,
Chamblee Campus, Bldg 107, Atlanta, GA 30341. Telephone:
770-488-5317. Email: [email protected]
Author A�liations: Deloitte Consulting, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia.
O�ce of the Medical Director, National Center for Chronic
Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.

References
1. Buttor� C, Ruder T, Bauman M. Multiple chronic conditions
in the United States. Santa Monica (CA): Rand Corp; 2017.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/tools/TL221.html. Accessed October
18, 2018.
2. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health
Promotion. Health and economic costs of chronic diseases.
Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, US
Department of Health and Human Services; 2018.
https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/about/costs/index.htm.
Accessed October 18, 2018.
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National
diabetes statistics report, 2017. Atlanta (GA): Centers for
Disease
Control and Prevention, US Department of Health and Human
Services; 2017.
https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pdfs/data/statistics/national-
diabetes-statistics-report.pdf. Accessed October 18, 2018.
1 2
mailto:[email protected]
Top
4. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney

Diseases. Current burden of diabetes in the US
https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/communication-
programs/ndep/health-professionals/practice-
transformation-physicians-health-care-teams/why-
transform/current-burden-diabetes-us. Accessed October 18,
2018.
5. Golics CJ, Basra MK, Salek MS, Finlay AY. The impact of
patients’ chronic disease on family quality of life: an experience
from 26 specialties. Int J Gen Med 2013;6(6):787–98. CrossRef
PubMed
6. Turner J, Kelly B. Emotional dimensions of chronic disease.
West J Med 2000;172(2):124–8. CrossRef PubMed
7. Waters H, Graf M. The costs of chronic diseases in the US.
Santa Monica (CA): Milken Institute; 2018.
http://www.milkeninstitute.org/publications/view/938. Accessed
October 18, 2018.
8. Asay GRB, Roy K, Lang JE, Payne RL, Howard DH.
Absenteeism and employer costs associated with chronic
diseases and
health risk factors in the US workforce. Prev Chronic Dis
2016;13:E141. CrossRef PubMed
9. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health
Promotion. The power of prevention. Chronic disease . . . the
public health challenge of the 21st century. Atlanta (GA):
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, US Department of
Health and Human Services; 2009.
https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/pdf/2009-Power-of-
Prevention.pdf. Accessed
November 3, 2018.
10. Healthy People.gov. Clinical preventive services.

Washington (DC): O�ce of Disease Prevention and Health
Promotion,
US Department of Health and Human Services.
https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/leading-health-
indicators/2020-lhi-
topics/Clinical-Preventive-Services. Accessed November 3,
2018.
11. Adepoju OE, Preston MA, Gonzales G. Health care
disparities in the post–A�ordable Care Act era. Am J Public
Health
2015;105(Suppl 5):S665–7. CrossRef PubMed
12. Borsky A, Zhan C, Miller T, Ngo-Metzger Q, Bierman AS,
Meyers D. Few Americans receive all high-priority, appropriate
clinical preventive services. Health A� (Millwood)
2018;37(6):925–8. CrossRef PubMed
13. National Prevention Council. National prevention strategy.
Washington (DC): U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, O�ce of the Surgeon General; 2011.
Tables
Table 1. Areas of Focus of Subject Matter Experts (N = 9)
Participating in a Qualitative Interview Study
Designed to Gather Information for Developing Strategies,
Programs, and Partnerships Across the Health Care
Industry to Increase Utilization of Preventive Services, 2018
Industry
Sector Role Areas of Focus
Payers Set payment models for
preventive services or
programs

Health plan collaborations with focus on value-based care
transformation, population health, and consumerism
Policies, processes, strategies, and information technology
systems associated with successful Medicaid and Children’s
Health Insurance Program programs, and other human services
programs
Health
systems
Develop and manage delivery
of preventive services
Quality management for large health systems, including
implementing health information technology and electronic
health record transformations
Strategy and operations effectiveness of health systems,
including care management, vendor management, system
design and implementation, post-merger integration, enterprise
cost reduction
Clinical transformation among health systems with focus on pay
for performance and patient safety
Providers
and
physicians
Deliver or prescribe preventive
services
Customer/patient experience strategies and digital
transformation for health care providers

Physician services design and implementation, including
clinical integration, patient retention and physician loyalty,
physician alignment, productivity and compensation, regulatory
compliance, and ambulatory operations
Table 2. Interview Questions Used in a Qualitative Interview
Study Designed to Gather Information for
Developing Strategies, Programs, and Partnerships Across the
Health Care Industry to Increase Utilization of
Preventive Services, 2018
Theme Questions
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S45156
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24092994
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ewjm.172.2.124
http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd13.150503
http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302611
http://dx.doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1248

Top
Theme Questions
Organizational leadership and
decision making
How do health systems, payers, or providers determine their
priorities (eg, deciding which strategies to focus on and what
metrics to
pay attention to, holding their physicians accountable for
certain strategies, prioritizing certain interventions over
others)?
What are the primary drivers in the current health care delivery
system – including both payment and delivery model designs –
that
shape guidelines, standards of care, or financial incentives?
Facilitators and barriers
(measurement and
reimbursement)
Could you describe facilitators and barriers that a typical health
system faces when considering or implementing chronic disease
prevention services?
What additional opportunities (eg, performance measures,
reimbursement structures) can be leveraged to drive uptake of
prevention

services among health system stakeholders?
Under the current and emerging designs for models of payment
and delivery, what are opportunities to better incentivize
preventive
services?
Successful models of prevention Among the health systems you
have worked with, are you familiar with successful
implementation of preventive services, strategies, or
models?
Are you aware of any health systems that have implemented
innovative community prevention programs or models that focus
on
chronic disease prevention?
Page last reviewed: March 14, 2019
BioMed Central
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities
in Medicine
ss
Open AcceBook review
Book review of Introduction to U.S. Health Policy: The
Organization,
Financing and Delivery of Health Care in America by Donald A.
Barr
Audrey R Chapman

Address: Division of Medical Humanities, Health Law and
Ethics, Department of Community Medicine and Health Care,
University of
Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, CT 06030, USA
Email: Audrey R Chapman - [email protected]
Abstract
Donald A. Barr's Introduction to U.S. Health Policy: The
Organization, Financing, and Delivery of Health
Care in America (second edition, 2007) offers a lucid and
informative overview of the U.S. health
system and the dilemmas policy makers currently face. Barr has
provided a balanced introduction
to the way health care is organized, financed, and delivered in
the United States. The thirteen
chapters of the book are quite comprehensive in the topics they
cover. Even those knowledgeable
about the U.S. health care system are likely to find much to
stimulate their thinking in the text. The
book can also appropriately serve as a basic text for a health
policy course or in the medical or
nursing school curriculum.
Book details
Barr Donald A: Introduction to U.S. Health Policy: The Organi-
zation, Financing and Delivery of Health Care in America 2nd
edition. Baltimore, MD, The Johns Hopkins University Press;
2007. xiv + 303 pages, ISBN – 13:978-0-8018-8574-7 (hard-
cover) and 13:978-0-8018-8574-4 (pbk)
Review
Currently there is widespread dissatisfaction with the
health system in the United States. Health care reform has
once again emerged as a priority domestic policy issues at
the national level, and it is likely to play an important role
in the forthcoming U.S. presidential election. Following

the example of Massachusetts, several states are also con-
sidering health care reform initiatives. Notably, even
organizations like the American Medical Association and
major corporations, which once ardently opposed com-
prehensive health care reform, are advocating for major
structural changes in the U.S. health care system.
Several trends account for much of the current momen-
tum toward health care reform. The first is escalating
health costs. While in 1970 people in the United States
spent an average of $341 per person on all types of health
care, by 2003 this figure had risen to about $5,670 per
person, a figure which is more than 50 percent higher
than any other industrialized country and 140 percent
above the average for OECD (Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development) countries [1]. Although
other developed countries also face the pressure of rising
health care costs, primarily from covering the cost of new
and more expensive technologies and pharmaceuticals
and meeting the health care needs of aging populations,
the U.S. problem is more severe [2].
A second issue is gaps in coverage and access to care. The
U.S. is the only industrialized democracy that does not
recognize a right to health care and/or provide universal
health insurance for its citizens. Despite escalating health
costs and the highest per capita investment in health care
in the world, one-sixth of the U.S. population lacks health
insurance, and the numbers are rising every year. Disturb-
ingly, the absence of health care insurance falls dispropor-
Published: 3 March 2008
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 2008, 3:9
doi:10.1186/1747-5341-3-9

Received: 15 February 2008
Accepted: 3 March 2008
This article is available from: http://www.peh-
med.com/content/3/1/9
© 2008 Chapman; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in
any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Page 1 of 4
(page number not for citation purposes)
http://www.peh-med.com/content/3/1/9
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0
http://www.biomedcentral.com/
http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/charter/
tionately on vulnerable groups, specifically low-income
Americans and ethnic minorities, particularly blacks, His-
panics, and native Americans. As might be anticipated,
lack of health insurance for these groups often translates
into the failure to obtain timely and appropriate health
care.a
Yet another factor accounting for the support for health
care reform is that the system of employer-based insur-
ance on which the U.S. uniquely relies is unraveling.
While the costs of health insurance benefits were once
modest, today health coverage for a family of four is esti-

mated to be more than $10,000 [3]. Given the financial
pressures, many employers are reducing health insurance
benefits, transferring more costs onto employees, or drop-
ping insurance for some or all employees. In 2005, nearly
eight in ten uninsured people, equivalent to more than
one-fifth of the adult work force, came from families with
at least one full time worker [4].
In addition, there are problems with the quality of health
care. Indicators on health performance show that the U.S.
health system compares unfavorably with other advanced
and even some middle income countries in terms of life
expectancy, infant mortality rates (with the U.S. having
the lowest of 23 industrialized countries), and avoidance
of preventable mortality [5]. A 2000 WHO study ranked
the overall performance of the U.S. health system as 37th
of 191 countries [6].
A variety of approaches to health care reform have been
put forward, but with quite different goals and emphases.
Several, including a Canadian style single-payer approach
and various proposals to impose individual and or/corpo-
rate mandates for health insurance, seek to find ways to
cover some or all of the 47 million U.S. citizens who are
currently without health insurance. In contrast, the
emphasis in other plans, as for example health savings
accounts, is on preserving or increasing choice and reduc-
ing health-related costs. It is difficult, however, to assess
the proposals being put forward to reform the U.S. health
system without understanding the factors leading to the
problems noted above and the reasons that major health
care reform initiatives were unsuccessful in the past.
Donald A. Barr's Introduction to U.S. Health Policy: The
Organization, Financing, and Delivery of Health Care in

America (second edition, 2007) can serve as such a needed
resource. The book offers a lucid and informative over-
view of the U.S. health system and the dilemmas policy
makers currently face. Barr, who is trained both as a phy-
sician and a sociologist and holds an appointment as an
Associate Professor of Sociology and Human Biology at
Stanford University, has provided a balanced and inclu-
sive introduction to the way health care is organized,
financed, and delivered in the United States. The volume
provides a helpful introduction to the U.S. health care sys-
tem for anyone wishing to understand how the U.S. can
simultaneously have the best and worst of health care sys-
tems among industrialized countries. Even those knowl-
edgeable about the U.S. health care system are likely to
find much to stimulate their thinking in the text. The book
can also appropriately serve as a basic text for a health pol-
icy course or in the medical or nursing school curriculum.
The thirteen chapters of the book are quite comprehensive
in the topics they cover. The first chapter opens with a
brief historical description of the unique history of health
care in the U.S. and the policy decisions that have shaped
the current system. The chapter provides data about the
costs of healthcare, and the burdens that these increases
impose on both the public and the private sectors. It also
briefly compares the U.S. with other developed countries
in terms of the amount we spend on health care and the
overall health status of our population. The introduction
has sections on concerns about the quality of health care
and additionally introduces the problem of the growing
number of the uninsured, another characteristic unique to
the U.S. health care system among industrialized demo-
cratic countries.
The second chapter describes many of the institutional

norms, cultural values, and expectations that have shaped
the unique character of the U.S. health care system. It
highlights American "exceptionalism" by briefly compar-
ing the U.S. and Canadian health systems. One particu-
larly insightful section of this chapter examines how
fundamental cultural and value differences and between
the U.S. and Canada are reflected in their respective health
care systems.
The third chapter addresses the professional structure of
U.S. health care. It covers the history of medical education
and the medical profession as well providing a brief anal-
ysis of the development of the nursing profession. It
examines the structure of hospitals and other types of spe-
cialized referral centers. This chapter documents the unu-
sually dominant role physicians and the American
Medical Association have played in shaping the character
of the medical system. Barr also mentions how the medi-
cal profession organized to block previous efforts to
reform the system.
The next few chapters offer an overview of health care
structures. Chapter 4 focuses on health insurance and the
development of health maintenance organizations. Chap-
ters 5 and 6 describe the history of Medicare and Medicaid
and explore the policy questions confronting these two
major government health care programs. Chapter 7 con-
siders the increasing role of for-profit health care in the
Page 2 of 4
delivery of health care and some of the consequences for

the health care system.
Chapter 8 focuses on pharmaceutical policy and the rising
cost of prescription drugs examining the way the U.S.
health system organizes, pays for, and delivers pharma-
ceutical products to patients. Some of the topics included
in this discussion of what has become one of the central
issues of U.S. health policy are pharmaceutical research
and the development of "me-too" drugs; the marketing of
new drugs to physicians; the lack of meaningful oversight
of physicians' relationships with the pharmaceutical
industry; past efforts to control pharmaceutical costs; and
the 2006 Medicare prescription drug benefit.
Long-term care is the subject of chapter 9. The topics dis-
cussed include the growing need for long-term care
among frail elderly people, home health care, hospice
care, and life-care communities as an alternative to long-
term care.
Chapters 10 and 11 return to the problem of access to
health care. Chapter 10 deals with the uninsured, and
chapter 11 addresses factors other than health insurance
that impede access to health care. Barr points out that the
U.S. is alone among developed countries in maintaining
national policies that exclude segments of the population
from health insurance coverage and explains how and
why this has occurred. He analyzes who the uninsured are
and projects what the future numbers are likely to be
unless there are new initiatives to provide coverage. Non-
insurance barriers that Barr identifies include out-of-
pocket expenses, the inadequacy of Medicaid coverage,
disparities in treatments offered to members of different
racial groups, and the organizational complexity of the
health care system.

The final two chapters explore topics related to health care
reform. Chapter 12 focuses on key policy issues for decid-
ing on the direction. According to Barr, to be successful in
restructuring the U.S. system of health care, we will need
to deal simultaneously with the three problems that lie at
the center of U.S. health policy: constraining the cost of
care, maintaining and improvement the quality of care,
and increasing access to care. He also considers whether
rationing health care is inevitable and under what kinds of
conditions it might be acceptable. Chapter 13 concludes
with a brief consideration of some of the options for
health care reform.
One of the strengths of this book is that Barr consistently
places the health care system in a broad social and cultural
context. He draws on theories from fields as diverse as
economics, sociology, and organizational behavior to
assess the broad social forces that coalesce to create the
structure of U.S. health care and the problems inherent in
it. His discussion of the cultural expectations and institu-
tions that drive the U.S. health care system is particularly
insightful.
Barr contrasts the primacy accorded to the rights of the
individual in the U.S. with the greater emphasis on the
common good in other countries, like Canada, that pro-
vide universal health care. He points out that this differ-
ence in disposition has resulted in very different
organizing principles for the Canadian and U.S. health
care systems. In Canada health care is a basic right; the
power of the medical profession is limited by its social
obligation; health care is organized through a single-payer
system; and there is one standard of health care for all
Canadians. In addition, Canadian political culture recog-
nizes the need for limits in health care expenditures and

accepts the appropriateness of the system allocating scarce
health care resources to those in greatest need, measured
in terms of the risk to their life or health.
In contrast, Barr shows that the principles around which
the U.S. health care system has come to be organized are
quite different and contribute to current problems. In the
U.S., health care is considered to be a market commodity
to be distributed according to the ability to pay rather
than a basic right; power over the organization and deliv-
ery of health care has historically been concentrated in the
medical profession without a strong countervailing tradi-
tion of social obligation; even as its contribution to
financing the health system has grown, government has
historically had relatively little role in guiding the system
of health care; and there is no uniform standard of care as
in Canada, but instead, the quality of care received often
reflects the ability to pay. In addition, Barr points out that
the U.S. culture lacks a sense of the need for limits in
expenditures on health care. Thus there is an always rising
public demand for access to new pharmaceuticals and
technologies, even when there is no evidence that they are
necessarily more effective.
Given the importance of health care reform, it is disap-
pointing that Barr does not give this issue more attention.
His analysis clearly underscores that the current U.S. sys-
tem of health care is not sustainable. Barr shows that there
are simply too many areas of potential crisis and financial
instability for the system to survive without substantial
reform. Nevertheless, he offers a superficial discussion of
the options. A short final chapter of only 13 pages pro-
vides a very brief description of four alternative
approaches and with a few phrases highlights their poten-
tial strengths and weaknesses. It does not assess the pros-
pects for adoption of any of these models or alternative

plans. This is an important issue, especially in light of the
multiple past attempts to reform the U.S. health care sys-
Page 3 of 4
Publish with BioMed Central and every
scientist can read your work free of charge
"BioMed Central will be the most significant development for
disseminating the results of biomedical research in our
lifetime."
Sir Paul Nurse, Cancer Research UK
Your research papers will be:
available free of charge to the entire biomedical community
peer reviewed and published immediately upon acceptance
cited in PubMed and archived on PubMed Central
yours — you keep the copyright
Submit your manuscript here:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/publishing_adv.asp
BioMedcentral
tem. Perhaps the third edition of the book will cover this
issue in greater depth or, even better, be able to provide an
analysis of successful future health care reforms.

Endnote
a. See the Kaiser Family Foundation website particularly
"Key Facts: Race, Ethnicity and Medical Care 2007
Update," "The Uninsured: A Primer," and "How Trends in
the Health Care System Affect Low-Income Adults: Identi-
fying Access Problems and Financial Burdens" [7].
About the author
Dr. Chapman is the Joseph M Healey, Jr. Professor of
Medical Humanities and Ethics at the University of Con-
necticut Medical School. She is the author, coauthor, or
editor of sixteen books and numerous articles and reports
dealing with ethical, human rights, theological, and intel-
lectual property issues related to health, genetic develop-
ments, and pharmaceuticals. She also has published
works on economic, social and cultural rights; health care
reform; transitional justice; reconciliation; and develop-
ment issues.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
References
1. Anderson GF, Hussey PS, Frogner BK, Waters HR: Health
Spend-
ing in the United States and the Rest of the Industrialized
World. Health Affairs 2005, 24:905.
2. Anderson GF, Hussey PS, Frogner BK, Waters HR: Health
Spend-
ing in the United States and the Rest of the Industrialized
World. Health Affairs 2005, 24:903-914.
3. Krugman P, Wells R: The Health Care Crisis and What to Do

About It. The New York Review of Books 53:39. March 23,
2006
4. National Coalition on Health Care: Health Insurance
Coverage.
[http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml].
5. Commission on a High Performance Health System: A High
Per-
formance Health System for the United States: An Ambi-
tious Agenda for the Next President. The Commonwealth Fund
75: [http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/
publications_show.htm?doc_id=584834]. November 15, 2007
6. World Health Organization: The World Health Report 2000 –
Health
Systems: Improving Performance Geneva: WHO; 2000.
7. Kaiser Family Foundation [http://www.kff.org]
Page 4 of 4
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&d
b=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16136632
http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_s
how.htm?doc_id=584834
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_s
how.htm?doc_id=584834
http://www.kff.org
http://www.biomedcentral.com/
http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/publishing_adv.asp

http://www.biomedcentral.com/AbstractBook
detailsReviewEndnoteAbout the authorCompeting
interestsReferences
Paper 1: The Focus of U.S. Health Care
Course: Health Care Systems and Policies
Spring 2020
Requirements:
1. Title page: title of paper, author, course, date.
2. Word count 1500 words minimum (2000 max).
3. Single-spaced (standard 11pt font) with page numbers.
4. Organization for a formal academic essay includes an
intro/thesis, body, and a conclusion.
5. This is formalize writing: DO NOT use first person (“I”)
language.
6. Submission: DO upload a separate .doc or .pdf file for your
assignment.
7. Review the rubric for grading criteria.
8. References required. APA citation style required. (References
not included in word count.)
Paper 1
Writing Prompt:
1) Explain the focus of the U.S. health care system on treatment
of disease compared to disease prevention /health promotion.
2) Describe how this focus(foci) is/are reflected at the
individual (patient/provider), organizational
(hospital/clinic/company), and societal (norms/policy/laws)
levels using examples (your profession-specific related
examples.) Demonstrate professional credibility by using

citations for your chosen examples. 3) Summarize the
problems/barriers that occur for patient care when these foci are
in conflict with each other.
1) Explain the focus of the U.S. health care system on treatment
of disease compared to disease prevention /health promotion
the topic of U.S health care system is seen to be controversial.
Controversial meaning, there a various factors that play a huge
role in determining the quality of the health care system.
Factors such as quality of disease prevention enforcement,
efficiency in treatment of disease.
in the sense that The issue of the policy makers of the health
care system t

Metacognition Worksheet – Video #1 How to Study Effectively .docx

Metacognition Worksheet – Video #1 How to Study Effectively .docx

More Related Content

Similar to Metacognition Worksheet – Video #1 How to Study Effectively .docx (20)

More from endawalling (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Metacognition Worksheet – Video #1 How to Study Effectively .docx