A graveyard for grand theory.

We have failed as a nation to make decent medical care available to all and to control costs. Competing, entrenched interests, more focused on what they have to lose than what they stand to gain, have stymied successive visions of reform. The American public's aversion to risk has compounded the challenge.

Consumer-directed health care and the disadvantaged.

Broad adoption of "consumer-directed health care" would probably widen socioeconomic disparities in care and redistribute wealth in "reverse Robin Hood" fashion, from the working poor and middle classes to the well-off. Racial and ethnic disparities in care would also probably worsen. These effects could be alleviated by adjustments to the consumer-directed paradigm.

Race, money and medicines.

Taking notice of race is both risky and inevitable, in medicine no less than in other endeavors. On the one hand, race can be a useful stand-in for unstudied genetic and environmental factors that yield differences in disease expression and therapeutic response. Attention to race can make a therapeutic difference, to the point of saving lives.

Tax preferences for nonprofits: from per se exemption to pay-for-performance.

Defenders of tax preferences for nonprofit hospitals and health plans, including Mark Schlesinger and Brad Gray, contend that nonprofits deserve government support because they provide greater "community benefit" than their for-profit counterparts. This argument is unconvincing. There is some evidence that nonprofits deliver marginally more "community benefit" but no evidence that tax exemption is the cause.

American medicine and the politics of race.

Straw men play a major role in the debate over racial disparity in American medicine. Most have been deployed by the disparities-denying right, but progressives intent on "outing" racism have sent forth their share. This essay flushes out the straw men while attempting to understand the competing moral premises that drive the politics of health care disparity.

A quiet revolution: law as an agent of health system change.

This paper considers law's impact on health system change. Federal courts and state regulators have remade the rules of the medical marketplace, restricting the methods available to managed care organizations to control costs. Legal conflict, however, has had a larger effect through its influence on market actors' perceptions and expectations.