The decade ahead will test the nation's nearly 4 million nurses in new and complex ways. Nurses live and work at the intersection of health, education, and communities. Nurses work in a wide array of settings and practice at a range of professional levels. They are often the first and most frequent line of contact with people of all backgrounds and experiences seeking care and they represent the largest of the health care professions. A nation cannot fully thrive until everyone - no matter who they are, where they live, or how much money they make - can live their healthiest possible life, and helping people live their healthiest life is and has always been the essential role of nurses. Nurses have a critical role to play in achieving the goal of health equity, but they need robust education, supportive work environments, and autonomy. Accordingly, at the request of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, on behalf of the National Academy of Medicine, an ad hoc committee under the auspices of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine conducted a study aimed at envisioning and charting a path forward for the nursing profession to help reduce inequities in people's ability to achieve their full health potential. The ultimate goal is the achievement of health equity in the United States built on strengthened nursing capacity and expertise. By leveraging these attributes, nursing will help to create and contribute comprehensively to equitable public health and health care systems that are designed to work for everyone. The Future of Nursing 2020-2030: Charting a Path to Achieve Health Equity explores how nurses can work to reduce health disparities and promote equity, while keeping costs at bay, utilizing technology, and maintaining patient and family-focused care into 2030. This work builds on the foundation set out by The Future of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing Health (2011) report.

Among the issues confronting America is long-term care for frail, older persons and others with chronic conditions and functional limitations that limit their ability to care for themselves. Improving the Quality of Long-Term Care takes a comprehensive look at the quality of care and quality of life in long-term care, including nursing homes, home health agencies, residential care facilities, family members and a variety of others. This book describes the current state of long-term care, identifying problem areas and offering recommendations for federal and state policymakers. Who uses long-term care? How have the characteristics of this population changed over time? What paths do people follow in long term care? The committee provides the latest information on these and other key questions. This book explores strengths and limitations of available data and research literature especially for settings other than nursing homes, on methods to measure, oversee, and improve the quality of long-term care. The committee makes recommendations on setting and enforcing standards of care, strengthening the caregiving workforce, reimbursement issues, and expanding the knowledge base to guide organizational and individual caregivers in improving the quality of care.

In addition to standard Medicaid payments, hospitals receive supplemental payments for uncompensated costs of care provided to uninsured and Medicaid patients. These supplemental payments are referred to as disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments. Hospitals may also receive non-DSH supplemental payments. In fiscal year 2006, DSH payments totaled about $17 billion and non-DSH supplemental payments exceeded $6 billion. Hospitals' DSH payments are limited to their uncompensated care costs, that is, their costs for covered care less Medicaid and other payments. Concerns have been raised about the accuracy of DSH payment limits, particularly as states may estimate limits using data that are not audited or up to date. GAO was asked to examine (1) how state DSH payments in 2006 compared to DSH payment limits, and (2) certain aspects of states' calculations of 2006 DSH payment limits. In selected states, GAO analyzed state Medicaid payment data and interviewed officials from the states and from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the federal agency that oversees Medicaid.

In addition to standard Medicaid payments, hospitals receive supplemental payments for uncompensated costs of care provided to uninsured and Medicaid patients. These supplemental payments are referred to as disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments. In FY 2006, DSH payments totaled about $17 billion and non-DSH supplemental payments exceeded $6 billion. Hospitals' DSH payments are limited to their uncompensated care costs, that is, their costs for covered care less Medicaid and other payments. This report examined: (1) how state DSH payments in 2006 compared to DSH payment limits; and (2) certain aspects of states' calculations of 2006 DSH payment limits. Charts and tables.

This is the definitive work on Medicare’s prospective payment system (PPS), which had its origins in the 1972 Social Security Amendments, was first applied to hospitals in 1983, and came to fruition with the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Here, Rick Mayes and Robert A. Berenson, M.D., explain how Medicare’s innovative payment system triggered shifts in power away from the providers (hospitals and doctors) to the payers (government insurers and employers) and how providers have responded to encroachments on their professional and financial autonomy. They conclude with a discussion of the problems with the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 and offer prescriptions for how policy makers can use Medicare payment policy to drive improvements in the U.S. health care system. Mayes and Berenson draw from interviews with more than sixty-five major policy makers—including former Treasury secretary Robert Rubin, U.S. Representatives Pete Stark and Henry Waxman, former White House chief of staff Leon Panetta, and former administrators of the Health Care Financing Administration Gail Wilensky, Bruce Vladeck, Nancy-Ann DeParle, and Tom Scully—to explore how this payment system worked and its significant effects on the U.S. medical landscape in the past twenty years. They argue that, although managed care was an important agent of change in the 1990s, the private sector has not been the major health care innovator in the United States; rather, Medicare’s transition to PPS both initiated and repeatedly intensified the economic restructuring of the U.S. health care system.