I am currently caring for a child named Priscilla who is ventilator-dependent and whose care confronted me with questions of justice. Priscilla was born at the County Hospital after a normal pregnancy to a 17-year-old single mother. At birth, she was noted to have some dysmorphic features: widely spaced eyes, low-set ears, and a cleft palate. Her chest X-ray showed hypoplastic ribs and scapulae. Her chromosome studies were normal. Eventually, a diagnosis of a rare dwarfing syndrome campomelic dysplasia – was made.

If economics has been the “dismal science” of the past century, health policy promises to be that of the next. Health policy issues evoke far less passion than the emotion-laden immediacies of bedside decision making. Nevertheless, it is patent that “macro” issues in all their obscurity and complexity are unavoidable if the health care delivery system of the future is to be fiscally sound and publicly acceptable. In addition, as Americans are now learning, options for care at the bedside are ineluctably constrained by seemingly distant societal choices.

Mr. Bernard was a homeless man, aged 58. His medical history revealed alcohol abuse, seizure disorder, and two suicide attempts. Brought to the emergency room at a local hospital after being found “semi-comatose,” his respiratory distress led to his being intubated and placed on a ventilator. The healthcare team suspected the patient ingested antifreeze. Transferred from that hospital to the intensive care unit (ICU) of the university hospital, his diagnosis was “high osmolar gap with high-anion gap metabolic acidosis, most likely secondary to ethylene glycol ingestion and renal insufficiency.”

Among the many striking features of modern medicine is one that has rarely received its due, save by those specialists in the arcane and remote: medical historians. Medicine is a profoundly historical enterprise, deeply marked by and in continuous, if only implicit, dialogue with its own history. Historical reflection on medicine is therefore an especially compelling undertaking. A case in point: scratch almost any physician today and you find an abiding commitment to “Hippocmtic morality.”

Several inquires about healthcare over the past several decades have shown that the evolution of healthcare practices exhibit their own microcosm of local and political influences. Likewise, other studies have shown clearly the ways in which both external and internal institutional factors establish the sectors within which healthcare is delivered. Although restrictions have always been present in some form, it seems obvious that whatever the precise form of healthcare delivery that results from current changes in its organization, there are going to be broader restrictions not only on the choices that providers will be able to make about individual patients' care and needs, but also regarding the character of their clinical judgments. Indeed, there are already reports of instances where physicians' contracts with managed care organizations forbid them to disclose the existence of services not covered by a plan.

What proportion of available healthcare funds should be allocated to hip replacement operations and what proportion to psychiatric care? What proportion should go to cardiac patients and what to newborns in intensive care? What proportion should go to preventative medicine and what to treating existing conditions? In general, how should limited healthcare resources (people, facilities, equipment, drugs…) be distributed If not all demands can be met?

The healthcare systems of the United States and United Kingdom are vastly different. The former relies primarily on private sector incentives and market forces to allocate medical care services, while the latter is a centrally planned system funded almost entirely by the public sector. Therefore, each nation represents divergent views on the relative efficacy of the market or government in achieving social objectives in the area of medical care policy. Since its inception in 1948, the National Health Services (NHS) of the United Kingdom has consistently emphasized equity in the allocation of medical services. It has done so by creating a system whereby services are universally free of charge at the point of entry. Conversely, the United States has relied upon the evolution of a perplexing array of public and private sector insurance schemes centered more around consumer choice than equity in allocation.

Issues of social justice have traditionally been given short shrift by American healthcare professionals, feeling that justice at the bedside is inapplicable and possibly even misplaced. However, perhaps motivated by the realization that escalating costs and maldistribution of healthcare represent an intolerable situation, an ever-growing amount of medical literature and healthcare ethics literature is turning to considerations of justice.

The U.S. healthcare system has been subject to unprecedented scrutiny over the past three years; one of the results of this scrutiny has been recognition of the serious problems that exist in both healthcare delivery and reimbursement mechanisms. While the verbal debate in Washington has essentially ceased, within the healthcare community a historic shift has taken place in the way healthcare reimbursement is structured: increasingly, traditional fee-for-service reimbursement methods are being replaced with capitation reimbursement methods. While this phenomenon originated on the West Coast, it has spread to all geographic sectors of the United States in varying degrees and can be expected to dominate the funding patterns of healthcare over the next decade.