Health care is an issue in the United States that touches all the major bases: personal, political, economic and social. It is an issue the outcome of which is pretty much a foregone conclusion: everyone needs good health, therefore, good health care is a necessary part of the equation. The health system in America is not working, though: costs are high and steeply rising; tens of millions of Americans are without health insurance, or are inadequately covered, or have only intermittent coverage. As more than one observer has noted, the American health care system is no "system" at all, rather, it is a hodgepodge of private sector enterprises and government programs that were put together in no particular order, overlapping in some parts, leaving huge gaps in medical service delivery in other areas. In recent years both the government and the private sector have become aware of the need to organize American health care into some sort of systematic entity. One of the concepts growing in persuasiveness is that of the "integrated delivery" system. The integrated delivery system promises to address several of the key issues dividing Americans on health care. It will be the focus of this paper to describe the context of American health care debate and how integrated delivery systems appear to be the evolutionary direction of progressive, cost-effective/patient-oriented medical services in this country. As part of that description, also examined will be how integrated delivery systems can be fit into the planning process of health care vis-a-vis the business community and the government regulatory process - and the economic aspects this can have on the community as a whole.
"Health Care" was the political slogan of the 1992 election campaign. In that year, in the midst of a recessionary economic cycle, Americans spent 14% of the Gross National Product on health care - twice the percentage of GNP that other industrialized natio...