Health care quality improvement through social participation.
J. Walton,J. Berry,M. DeHaven
2002-07-01
Proceedings
Abstract:Dr. Enrique Ruelas' article, “Health care quality improvement in Mexico,” reviews the Mexican government's National Health Program, which was developed to address the leading challenges facing their health care system, namely, equity between the rich and poor, financial protection for consumers from catastrophic care expenses, and quality in health care delivery. Although the National Health Program has 4 objectives, with corresponding strategies, the centerpiece of the effort is the National Crusade for Quality in Health Care. The crusade's general objectives are to improve the quality of health care, decrease variations throughout the system, and improve perceptions of the health care system. This aggressive campaign relies on collaboration between private and public entities and promotes the concept of joint ownership so that the crusade will develop momentum regardless of government support.
The National Health Program described by Dr. Ruelas is a welcome addition to discussions related to quality improvement that are currently occurring in the USA. The challenges facing the US health care system are surprisingly similar to those found in Mexico and are described in a report from the Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, Institute of Medicine (1). The report documents the need for the US health care delivery system to be more attentive to equity, in addition to improving safety, timeliness, patient centeredness, efficiency, and effectiveness. Similar to the situation in Mexico described by Dr. Ruelas, the quality of care delivered in the USA varies, depending on a patient's personal characteristics such as race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (SES). Generally speaking, members of racial and ethnic minorities and those of lower SES are more likely to experience poorer health outcomes compared with those of members of other demographic groups.
Studies from as far back as the Black report, published in 1982, demonstrate that health outcomes are related to SES, with lower levels of SES (e.g., low educational attainment and lower income) being associated with relatively poorer outcomes (2). Although access to care is a necessary component of improving health outcomes, it alone is not sufficient. Rather, health is dependent on multiple determinants and relies on an individual's unique biology, family history, social and physical environment, and behavior and lifestyle (3). Given the multidimensional character of health, solutions for improving the health of specific groups tend to transcend the more narrow focus of health care delivery, and cross over into political discussions of how to actually increase the SES or improve the quality of life of those who are at the greatest risk of poor health outcomes. Consequently, the outcomes of discussions about improving the health status of vulnerable populations frequently depend more on political philosophy than they do on what may be reasonable from a medical or public health perspective.
One of the most pressing issues related to equity in health outcomes in the USA concerns the challenge of how to best provide care to the country's estimated 40 million uninsured adults. A project being pilot tested in Dallas, Texas, is evaluating the effectiveness of a community collaborative of volunteer physicians, hospitals, businesses, and the faith community in meeting the needs of the uninsured through providing access to health care and related services. Although he does not define the term, Dr. Ruelas anticipates an important role for “social participation” in health care improvement. “Social participation” is similarly important in the USA and in our view centers on the possible role and contribution of faith-based organizations (FBOs). Increasingly, scientific research suggests that health-related activities of churches, mosques, temples, and other FBOs can contribute to health improvement in the inner city, especially among minority populations (4). However, despite the apparent efficacy of faith-based health partnerships in improving health, the use of FBOs as an adjunct to government-sponsored programs is currently mired in a political debate related to the separation of church and state and related concerns.
Although inevitable, the introduction of political concerns into the debate over the uninsured is regrettable. As Dr. Ruelas notes, the Mexican National Health Plan will rely on the collaboration and active participation of multiple social actors to encourage joint ownership of the program, a reasonable strategy that makes sense from the perspective of promoting acceptance of the plan. However, this strategy also makes sense from the perspective of what is called subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is the principle of providing only “necessary help” and emanates from Catholic social theory, first articulated by Pope Pius XI in the 1931 encyclical Quadragesimo anno. This principle suggests that individuals should act as autonomous human beings to address their own problems until they are no longer capable of doing so. When individuals require help, they should appeal to the family, community, and/or government to receive the “necessary help” that will allow them to resolve their particular dilemma and thereby regain autonomy over their lives. In short, subsidiarity means that the individual interacts with his or her community and/or government through a process of empowerment.
The principle of subsidiarity is directly applied to the lives of individuals through the participation of “mediating structures.” In their 1977 text, Berger and Neuhaus describe 4 types of “mediating structures,” including the neighborhood, the family, the church, and voluntary associations (5). These institutions empower individuals by creating and instilling life values such as honest labor, property ownership, commitment to family and community, and commitment to religious values. Applying this principle in the setting of health care quality improvement, one can see where mediating structures might play a strategic role. When these entities reach their limits in the process of empowerment, then there would be allowance for the more direct participation of government to provide only “necessary help.” In this example, the principle of subsidiarity and its incorporation of mediating structures would engage social participation to influence individual behavior and improve health outcomes as an adjunct to increasing health care access.
The application of subsidiarity to mediating structures or “social participation” may provide a good framework for the development of sound social policy. In the case of the USA, as mediating institutions, FBOs themselves are not capable of addressing all of our social problems, especially ones as large as improving the equity of health care access and outcomes. Nationwide studies reveal that only 10% of congregations surveyed actually address social issues that extend beyond basic “corporal works of mercy” such as providing food, clothing, and housing (6). Indeed, these institutions would require strategic support from other social service providers in order to serve the poor in the health care arena. Additionally, we must trust that FBOs are not engaged in social welfare issues to simply proselytize their specific religious point of view. However, as a mediating structure, FBOs (i.e., congregations) can express compassion for the needy in ways that a bureaucracy cannot. Thus, the provision of “necessary help” to those in need would seem to clearly require collaboration between all of the relevant governmental and nongovernmental community resources, including FBOs.
In both Mexico and the USA, it may be who we engage and how we engage those individuals or groups in social participation that will determine the success of our attempt to increase equity and improve the quality of health care. As long as FBOs continue to represent an important “mediating structure,” we will need to sustain past successes and explore new, creative partnerships with faith communities. Although political concerns are relevant to the debate over how to improve the health of vulnerable populations, they must not be the only or even the dominant concern. Rather, the dominant concern must be to determine the best way to eliminate the disparities in health outcomes associated with SES, race, and ethnicity characteristics. A system designed to provide equitable care can only be developed through the active participation of the relevant individuals, families, organizations, communities, and other stakeholders—including FBOs. Creation of the system can be facilitated by government, but cannot be controlled by government. As Dr. Ruelas wisely points out, a system that is designed to improve equity and quality must be able to sustain itself regardless of government support. Such a system must be embedded in the cultural and spiritual values of the community, not in the principles and practices of variable governmental funding requirements.