Oregon Health Services Commission, Prioritization of health Services: A Report to the Governor and the Legislature (Salem, Oregon), 1991.Google Scholar

For a well informed account of the political intentions and goals of major legislative actors in Oregon, see Fox, D. and Leichter, H., “Rationing Care in Oregon: The New Accountability” 10(3) Health Affairs 7 (Summer 1991).Google Scholar

Welch, J. and Larson, G., “Dealing with Limited Resources: The Oregon Decision to Curtail Funding for Organ Transplantation,” 319 New England journal of Medicine 171 (1989).Google Scholar

Schwartz, William B. and Aaron, Henry J., “The Achilles Heel of Health Care Rationing,” New York Times, July 9, 1990, Op-Ed Page.Google Scholar

Caplan, Arthur L., “How Can We Deny Health Care to Poor While Others Get Face Lifts?” Los Angeles Times, April 25, 1989, (Opinion Page).Google Scholar

Higgins, Tom, “Oregon Plan Doesn't Merit a Medicaid Waiver,” Healthweek, May 21, 1990, p. 20.Google Scholar

Oregon Health Services Commission, Prioritization of Health Services, pp. 69–71.Google Scholar

Adapted from Oregon Health Services Commission, Prioritization of Health Services, Appendix G, pp. G-11 to G12.Google Scholar

Personal Communication from Darren Coffman, Oregon Health Services Commission Staff Statistician.Google Scholar

Kaplan, Robert M. and Anderson, J. P., “A General Health Policy Model: Update and Applications,” HSR: Health Services Research, vol. 23 (June 1988), p. 203–235.Google Scholar

Oregon Health Services Commission, Prioritization of Health Services, Appendix C, pp. C-7 and C-8.Google Scholar

Hasnain, Romana and Garland, Michael, Health Care in Common: Report of the Oregon Health Decisions Community Meetings Process, April 1990 (Oregon Health Decisions, 921 S.W. Washington, Portland, Oregon). The report is included in the Oregon Health Services Commission, Prioritization of Health Services, Appendix F.Google Scholar

Garland, Michael J. and Hasnain, Romana, “Health Care in Common: Setting Priorities in Oregon,” Hastings Center Report, vol. 20 (September/October 1990), pp. 16–18.Google Scholar

Oregon Health Services Commission, Prioritization of Health Services, Appendix E.Google Scholar

Oregon Health Services Commission, Prioritization of Health Services, pp. 18–22 and Appendix G.Google Scholar

Klevit, Harvey D. and others, “Prioritization of Health Care Services: A Progress Report by the Health Services Commission,” Archives of Internal Medicine, vol. 151 (1991), 912–916.Google Scholar

Personal communication from Paige Sipes-Metzler, Executive Director of the Health Services Commission.Google Scholar

Daniels, Norman, “Is the Oregon Rationing Plan Fair?” JAMA, May 1, 1991, pp. 2332–2335.Google Scholar

Health Services Commission, Prioritization of Health Services, p. 10 and Appendix D, pp. D-16 and D-17.Google Scholar

Oregon Health Services Commission, Prioritization of Health Services, pp. 23–28 and Appendix D.Google Scholar

Health Services Commission, Prioritization of Health Services, Appendix 1: Actuarial Analysis. The full report from Coopers & Lybrand is contained in this Appendix.Google Scholar

Himmelstein, D. and Woolhandler, S., “A National Health Program for the United States: A Physicians' Proposal” New England Journal of Medicine 320 (1989), 102–108; Roybal, E., “The ‘US Health Act:’ Comprehensive Reform for a Caring America” JAMA 265 (1991)2545-2548.; Fein, R., “The Health Security Partnership: A Federal-State Universal Insurance and Cost-Containment Program” JAMA 265 (1991) 2555-2558.Google Scholar

A Call for Action: Final Report of the Pepper Commission. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1990; Boronow, R., Beltran, R., Cohen, S., and others, “The Physicians Who Care Plan: Preserving Quality and Equitability in American Medicine” JAMA 265 (1991), 2511–2515; Health Access America: The AMA Proposal to Improve Access to Affordable, Quality Health Care. Chicago: American Medical Association, 1990; Nutter, D., Helms, C., Whitcomb, M. and Weston, D. “Restructuring Health Care in the United States; a Proposal for the 1990s” JAMA 265 (1991), 2516-2520; Davis, K., “Expanding Medicare and Employer Plans to Achieve Universal Health Insurance” JAMA 265 (1991), 2525-2528; The Kansas Employer Coalition on Health, Task Force on Long Term Solutions, “A Framework for Reform of the US Health Care Financing and Provision System” JAMA 265 (1991), 2529-2531; Enthoven, A. and Kronick, R., “A Consumer Choice Health Plan for the 1990s” New England Journal of Medicine 320 (1989) 29-37, 94-101; Butler, S., “A Tax Reform Strategy to Deal with the Uninsured” JAMA 265 (1991), 2541-1544; National Leadership Commission of Health Care, For the Health of a Nation. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press (1989).Google Scholar

Blendon, R. and Edwards, J., “Caring for the Uninsured: Choices for Reform” JAMA 265 (1991), 2563–2565.Google Scholar

President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Securing Access to Health Care: A Report on the Ethical Implications of Differences in the Availability of Health Services, Volume One: Report, Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983, p. 35.Google Scholar

Higgins, Tom, “Oregon Plan Doesn't Merit a Medicaid Waiver,” Healthweek, May 21, 1990, p. 20.Google Scholar

“Poor Children and Women Targeted for Medicaid Reductions in Oregon,” CDF Reports, August 1990 (Children's Defense Fund, 122 C Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.), pp. 1, 6–7; Morell, Virginia, “Oregon Puts Bold Health Plan on Ice,” Science, Aug. 3, 1990, pp. 470–71; Budetti, Peter B., “Medicaid Rationing in Oregon: Political Wolf in a Philosopher's Sheepskin.” Health Matrix: Case Western Reserve University Journal of Law-Medicine, Vol. 1 (Summer 1991), pp. 205–25.Google Scholar

See note 18 supra.Google Scholar

Ibid.Google Scholar

See, for example, Caplan, A., “Minnesota, Hawaii, not Oregon are on the right health insurance track,” an editorial published in the Oregonian, September 22, 1991, p. B4. Caplan, Director of the Center for Biomedical Ethics at the University of Minnesota Medical School, has evidently not kept informed of the actual products of the Oregon Plan, since he clearly assumes the plan is a net loss to current eligibles. “That state has enacted legislation that gives the uninsured some access to a miserly set of health services by cutting the benefits available to poor women and children who receive coverage from the state's Medicaid program.”Google Scholar

Fleck, Leonard, “The Oregon Medicaid Experiment: Is it Just Enough?” Business and Professional Ethics Journal, vol. 9 (Fall-Winter 1990): pp 201–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Testimony of Anita Hendrix, House Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, September 16, 1991.Google Scholar

Callahan, D., “Ethics and Priority Setting in Oregon,” 10 (2) Health Affairs 78–87 (Summer 1991).Google Scholar

Brown, L., “The National Politics of Oregon's Rationing Plan,” Health Affairs 10: 50 (Summer 1991).Google Scholar

See note 35 supra.Google Scholar

Information sheet provided by the State of Oregon, Office of Medical Assistance Programs, August 1991.Google Scholar

Office of Medical Assistance Programs, Oregon Department of Human Resources, Waiver Application, Oregon Medicaid Demonstration Project, Salem, Oregon, August, 1991.Google Scholar

See note 18 supra.Google Scholar

Ibid.Google Scholar

See, for example, Sandel, M. (Ed.), Liberalism and its Critics. New York, New York University Press (1984); Kelly, M. (Ed.), Hermeneutics and Critical Theory in Ethics and Politics. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press (1990).Google Scholar