Home Duke University Press
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     
  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents


Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 2001 26(1):7-36; DOI:10.1215/03616878-26-1-7
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (5)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Patashnik, E.
Right arrow Articles by Zelizer, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Duke University Press

Paying for Medicare: Benefits, Budgets, and Wilbur Mills's Policy Legacy

Eric Patashnik
UCLA

Julian Zelizer
State University of New York-Albany

Abstract.

Medicare features an unusually complex financing design. The Hospital Insurance Trust Fund pays for Part A of Medicare (hospital stays), while the Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund finances Part B (doctor visits, outpatient care, and certain home health services). At a time when Medicare policy is generating debate, this article takes a new analytical look at the origins and consequences of the program's peculiar bifurcated structure. Addressing historians of the U.S. welfare state as well as contemporary health policy reformers, the article focuses on the crucial role of legendary Ways and Means Committee chair Wilbur Mills in Medicare's enactment in 1965. The central theme of the article is that fiscal conservatism and a commitment to budgetary restraint constitute important elements of Medicare's original political understanding. Contrary to analysts who argue that Medicare's financing design has produced "perverse" effects, we argue that it has served a valuable social function by encouraging policy makers to confront periodically the costs of one of the largest and fastest-growing federal programs. An argument can be made that Medicare's original division requires modification in order to integrate health care delivery changes of the past few decades. It is crucial, however, for reformers not to lose sight of the policy goals, including fiscal rectitude, that motivated the adoption of Medicare's bifurcated structure in the first place.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of Health Politics, Policy and LawHome page
C. Grogan and E. Patashnik
Between Welfare Medicine and Mainstream Entitlement: Medicaid at the Political Crossroads
Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, October 1, 2003; 28(5): 821 - 858.
[Abstract] [PDF]




  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents


Copyright 2001 by Duke University Press