Health care reform is at the top of the domestic policy agenda for the 111 th Congress, driven by concerns about the growing ranks of the uninsured and the unsustainable growth in spending on health care and health insurance. Improving access to care and controlling rising costs will require changes to both the financing and delivery of health care. Experts point to a growing body of evidence of the health care system's failure to consistently provide high-quality care to all Americans. In a November 2008 report outlining its goals for health reform, the National Priorities Partnership, representing all the major stakeholder groups in the health sector, identified four major challenges to the delivery of high-quality care. The first is to improve patient safety by eliminating medical errors and other adverse events. These errors mostly result from faulty systems, processes, and conditions that lead to mistakes. The second challenge is to eradicate disparities in care. Racial and ethnic minorities and low-income groups face disproportionately higher rates of disease, disability, and mortality, largely because of variations in access to care, and quality of care. The third challenge is to reduce the burden of chronic disease, which affects almost half of all Americans and accounts for three-quarters of health care spending. The final challenge is to eliminate unnecessary and ineffective care that compromises quality, drives up costs, and neglects the needs of patients. According to the Institute of Medicine (IOM), an estimated 30%-40% of health care spending is wasted on unnecessary and even unsafe care. While primarily focused on health care financing issues, the health reform debate has generated a number of proposals to address these challenges and improve the delivery of health care services. They include initiatives to encourage individuals to adopt healthier lifestyles, and to change the way that physicians and other providers treat and manage disease. Delivery reform proposals focus on (1) expanding the primary care workforce, (2) encouraging the use of clinical preventive services, and (3) strengthening the role of chronic care management. The current system places a high value on specialty care, rather than primary care. Patients with multiple chronic conditions often receive care from several providers in different settings. Among other things, this can compromise patients' understanding of their conditions and ways to manage them. And the incomplete or inaccurate transfer of information among providers can lead to poor outcomes. Care coordination is seen as an important aspect of health care that helps avoid waste, and the over- and underuse of medications, diagnostic tests, and therapies. Health workforce policy has emerged as an important component of the health reform debate. Transforming the nation's health care delivery system—from one that is focused on fragmented specialty care for acute illness to one that places a greater emphasis on primary care, disease prevention, and the coordination and management of care for chronic illness across settings—will require significant changes in health professions education and training. While some advisory groups have warned of a future physician shortage, based on the growing patient demand for services, others caution that simply adding more physicians to the current health care system will increase costs and not improve accessibility or quality. Currently, the number of physicians per capita varies significantly across the country. But that variation is largely driven by where physicians like to live and practice, rather than by patient need. Moreover, higher physician supply is not necessarily associated with better patient outcomes or satisfaction, or improved quality of care. Instead of focusing on overall physician supply, health policy analysts recommend a workforce policy that couples the training of more primary care physicians (and other primary care providers) with the promotion and development of integrated systems of care. Expanding the use of clinical preventive services is a key goal of delivery reform and often touted as having the potential to reduce health care costs. Such services include immunizations and other interventions that prevent the onset of disease (known as primary prevention), and screening tests that detect the presence of an incipient disease (known as secondary prevention). While there is clear evidence that clinical preventive services can improve health and may be cost-effective (i.e., providing good value for their cost), few of these interventions are projected to be cost-saving. Proponents of delivery reform have also embraced the concept of a medical home, intended to improve the quality of care through partnerships between patients and specially trained primary care physicians. The physician helps the patient manage his or her own care and coordinates services across settings (specialists' offices, hospitals, and laboratories) and types of care (acute, chronic, and preventive). Concern about the rising costs of treating chronic disease and the lack of coordination of care also has generated keen interest in disease management programs. These programs, typically focused on a specific disease such as diabetes, help patients manage their own care. Program elements include patient education, symptom monitoring, and adherence to treatment plans. Disease management programs share similarities with the medical home concept. But whereas the medical home is built around a physician-patient partnership, disease management programs typically are run by health plans or specialized vendors. Health care delivery reform cannot happen unless mechanisms are in place to drive change in the systems of care. Key drivers include performance measurement and the public dissemination of performance information, comparative effectiveness research, adoption of HIT, and, perhaps most importantly, alignment of payment incentives with high-quality care. Most health policy experts concede that improvements in the quality of health care will not be fully realized unless providers have financial incentives to modify the way they deliver health care services. Under fee-for-service, the predominant method of payment, physicians are paid based on the volume of billable services, rather than the value or quality of care they provide. Increasingly, public and private payers are linking a portion of provider payments to their performance on a set of quality measures. Policymakers are interested in expanding these pay-for-performance initiatives to incentivize other changes to the health care delivery system. The use of performance measures to track the quality of care is growing in both the private and public health sectors, though concerns about the development and use of such data remain. The public reporting of quality information is seen as a necessary step in helping patients make informed choices about health care services and the organizations that provide them. Congress took one step toward reforming the health care delivery system when it enacted the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA; P.L. 111-5 ) in February 2009. ARRA included $17 billion in supplemental funding for biomedical research, public health, and other health-related programs within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), including $1.1 billion for comparative effectiveness research. It also established an interagency advisory panel to help coordinate and support the research. In addition, ARRA incorporated the HITECH Act, which is intended to promote the widespread adoption of HIT for the electronic sharing of clinical data among hospitals, physicians, and other health care stakeholders. Included in the ARRA health funding was $2 billion to fund HIT grant programs authorized by the HITECH Act. HIT, which generally refers to the use of computer applications in medical practice, is widely viewed as a necessary and vital component of health care reform. It encompasses interoperable electronic health records (EHRs)—including computerized systems to order tests and medications, and support systems to aid clinical decision making—and the development of a national health information network to permit the secure exchange of electronic health information among providers. The promise of HIT comes not from automating existing practices, but rather its use as a tool to help overhaul the delivery of care. HIT has the potential to enable providers to render care more efficiently; for example, by eliminating the use of paper-based records and reducing the duplication of diagnostic tests. It can also improve the quality of care by identifying harmful drug interactions and helping physicians manage patients with multiple conditions. Moreover, the widespread use of HIT could provide large amounts of clinical data for comparative effectiveness research, performance measurement, and other activities aimed at improving health care quality. On October 19, 2009, Senator Max Baucus introduced a comprehensive health care reform bill entitled the America's Healthy Future Act of 2009 ( S. 1796 , S.Rept. 111-89 ). The legislation is based on the Chairman's Mark which was ordered reported, as amended, by the Senate Finance Committee on October 13, 2009. S. 1796 consists of six titles. Title I addresses private health insurance, and would establish both a health insurance exchange and an individual mandate. Title II includes provisions related to prevention and wellness, and generally promotes preventive services. Title III addresses the quality and efficiency of health care, and would strengthen quality measurement. Title IV would promote transparency and integrity in the Medicare program. Title V includes a series of provisions intended to prevent health care fraud and abuse. Finally, Title VI contains revenue raising provisions. This report summarizes the workforce, quality, prevention, and other provisions in Titles I, II, III, IV, and VI of S. 1796 . The report groups the bill's provisions under the following headings: (1) health workforce; (2) health care quality; (3) health information technology; (4) prevention and wellness; (5) maternal and child health services; (6) health disparities; (7) emergency care; (8) health care for veterans; (9) elder justice; and (10) miscellaneous. In most instances, each section begins with some background on current law and practice so as to provide context for the subsequent brief descriptions of the bill's provisions. Unless otherwise stated, references to "the Secretary" refer to the Secretary of HHS. A list of all the acronyms used in the report can be found in Appendix . A companion report, CRS Report R40831, Public Health, Workforce, Quality, and Other Provisions in the Affordable Health Choices Act (S. 1679) , summarizes comparable provisions in the Senate HELP Committee's health reform legislation, the Affordable Health Choices Act ( S. 1679 ).