Financing a First Nations and Inuit Integrated Health System - A Discussion
Aboriginal/Indigenous Health Systems
The United States Experience
The United States has already implemented the concept of block grants which encompass all
functions and activities of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Indian Health Service
(IHS). In 1975, the Indian Self Determination and Educational Assistance Act initially gave
tribes a limited scope to negotiate 'self-determination contracts' for the planning, implementation
and administration of federal programs for their benefit. The 1988 amendments to this Act have
included a block grant provision, providing a limited number of tribes with the option of complete
responsibility over all services from the Bureau and the IHS, in a self-government style
arrangement.
These self-government arrangements are commonly known as 'compacts.' They
are analogous to the reforms suggested in this paper, as self-government
in the American context refers to the devolution of control of
programs delivered by the BIA and IHS (the Canadian counterparts
are the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (DIAND) and
the Medical Services Branch (MSB).) Compacting is very contentious
among tribes, and the concerns raised about self-government are
very similar to those raised among Canadian First Nations to Health
Transfer and self-government. These criticisms include:(Note 33:
Concerns have been summarized from the following reports published
by the National Indian Health Board and posted on its web site:
Southwest Regional Forum on Health Care, Scottsdale, Arizona, June
14-16, 1995; Minneapolis Regional Forum, Bloomington, Minnesota,
May 31 - June 2, 1995; Aberdeen Regional Forum, Bismark, North
Dakota, July 19 - 21, 1995.)
- Compacting is being forced on tribes due to budget cutting. Why should a tribe want to
take over a system that presently does not have enough funding to make it work?
- It is a harbinger of termination. Tribes are worried that the federal trust responsibility will
diminish with compacting, similarly to other federal policies which led to termination of
Indian status.
- It will pit tribes against each other, competing to get limited resources.
- The time is not right for self-government, and some tribes want to undergo such a change
on their own terms.
- Tribes are worried that if they wait to negotiate a self-government agreement, there will
be less funds available to them. As tribes access compacting resources from the IHS, they
are entitled to charge an indirect cost on those funds. Because there is no additional
funding for this support, the Indian Health Service must divert funding from other
programs to meet this additional need. Tribes still receiving services from IHS are
concerned that their programs are being cut to fund the indirect costs of compacting.
Despite these concerns, many tribes have entered into self-government
arrangements. The compacting tribes which were in the initial demonstration
phase, have reported success in increasing the health services
that tribal members receive. One tribe, the Mississippi Band of
Choctaw Indians which participated in the demonstration project
and then signed a self government compact in 1994, has reported
an increased immunization rate to above 90%, reduced teen pregnancy
from 50% to 17% and reduced mortality rates.(Note 34: National
Indian Health Board. South and Eastern Forum on American Indian
Health Care, Nashville, Tennessee, July 31 - August 2, 1995. (Mitchell,
Alba et al. undated. Utilization of Nurse Practitioners in Ontario:
Executive Summary. School of Nursing, McMaster University: Hamilton.))
Success in compacting with the IHS and BIA has prompted tribes
to consider compacting other programs in the Department of Health
and Human Services and the Department of the Interior. Such funding
would include Head Start, the Administration for Native Americans,
and programs on aging, rehabilitation, welfare and other funding.
Tribes, similarly to their Canadian counterparts, find that too
much time and resources are taken up in dealing with multiple funding
agencies. An expanded self-government arrangement would enable
tribal organizations to expand and strengthen services in a comprehensive
and consolidated manner. The authority to do this already exists
in legislation and executive orders. (Note 35: National Indian
Health Board. (Mitchell, Alba et al. undated. Utilization of Nurse
Practitioners in Ontario: Executive Summary. School of Nursing,
McMaster University: Hamilton.)..
The IHS has had to accommodate budget cuts from government downsizing. Furthermore, the
new financing arrangements are removing its mandate as a direct care delivery system. Future roles for the IHS that have been suggested include a continued presence in national health data
collection, training and technical assistance to tribes, development of standards of care, and the
creation of new purchasing arrangements to facilitate individual tribes in gaining purchasing
power previously enjoyed by IHS.
United-States (US) tribes have also had experience with direct
contracting for services, as this is an alternative option to compacting
funds for health services. Tribes which have chosen contracting
are no longer required to receive services from the IHS and instead
receive direct funding. Problems with this system include escalating
costs of contractors in areas where there are no market forces
to control costs and inability of small tribes to absorb costs
of catastrophic cases or major illnesses. Although there is a Catastrophic
Health Emergency Fund, it does not provide an adequate safety net
for these tribes, as this fund generally runs out of money mid
way through its annual budget.(Note 36: National Indian Health
Board. Minneapolis Regional Forum, Bloomington, Minnesota, May
31 - June 2, 1995.) This will be an emerging concern in the Canadian
context as the non-insured health benefits (NIHBs) are transferred
to community control. (Note 37: The federal government is proceeding
with a five-year transitional approach to transfer of the NIHB
program.)
|