A review of the 'welfare state' and alternative ways of delivering health care.

There was no such thing as a public policy for quality health care in the inception of what we now address as the 'welfare state'. The main objectives of those supporting the idea, epitomized by the 'freedom from want' that Beveridge postulated in his now famous November 1942 Report on Social Insurance and Allied Services, was to extend the benefits of social insurance, that is access to services such as health care, to every individual. In the same fashion, post World War II initiatives in Latin America somewhat disregarded the intrinsic quality of health care services, provided they were distributed equally, at least among the urban people. Therefore, it is licit to ascertain that the main, albeit implicit, quality feature of health care was access, that is the ability to reach the entire population with the available services. The health care reform movement following the welfare state crisis, from the Jackson Hole group and Einthoven's managed competition in the United States to the internal markets proposals in different European countries, started when universal coverage had been achieved where it had been pursued, and disregarded elsewhere. In other words, access as a measure of health care quality was not the point. Instead, the subject of both academic research and administrative initiatives was the quality of the health services effectively provided to the population. Furthermore, the World Health Organization in its World Health Report 2000 explicitly excluded access as an item to be assessed in the process of evaluating health systems, although many countries had not achieved, nor were even near, universal coverage. Therefore, notwithstanding the relevance of the continuous quality improvement of the health services actually delivered to the people, access should always be the first quality concern to those health systems lacking universal coverage of the population they are supposed to serve.