Spending for Prenatal vs. End of Life Care
In a climate characterized by limited economic and other resources for delivering high quality and universally accessible prenatal and/or end of life care, stakeholder groups attempt to influence resource allocation in many different ways and with varying degrees of success. According to Reinhardt, Hussey, and Anderson (10-12), there is widespread belief among both policymakers and third party payers that allocating resources to prenatal care is more cost effective than spending on end of life care in that early preventive medical treatments and interventions reduce long-term health care system use and expenditures.
However, groups such as the American Association for Retired People (AARP) are determined to enhance funding for end of life and hospice care. Consumers tend to be influential only to the extent that they affiliate with one another in large groups (Salkeld, Henry, Hill, Lang, Freemantle, & D'Assuncao, 94). Making the rules of health care resource allocation transparent is a challenge for government and it appears likely that a combination of providers and payers may be most influential in shaping government policy on these issues (Salkeld, et al, 95). Major interest groups also have substantial influence because of their electoral clout and may therefore be better positioned to influence this question than providers, managers, or health care quality organizations.
Reinhardt, Uwe E., Hussey, Peter S., and Anderson, Gerard F.
"U.S. Health Care Spending in an International Context."
Salkeld, Glenn, Henry, David, Hill, Suzanne, Lang, Danielle,
Freemantle, Nick, and D'Assuncao, Jefferson. "What Drives
Health-Care Spending Priorities?" PLoS Medicine, 2007,
...