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 are seen to 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. Both the House and the Senate have passed comprehensive health care reform legislation. On November 7, 2009, by a vote of 220-215, the House approved the Affordable Health Care for America Act ( H.R. 3962 ). The legislation, introduced by Representative Dingell on October 29, 2009, is based on an earlier measure, the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 ( H.R. 3200 ), which was jointly developed and reported by the House Committees on Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and Education and Labor. The Senate passed an alternative health reform bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ( H.R. 3590 , as amended), on December 24, 2009, by a vote of 60-39. The Senate measure is an amalgam of separate bills reported by the Committee on Finance and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP). The House is preparing to vote on H.R. 3590 , as passed by the Senate, and on an accompanying reconciliation bill ( H.R. 4872 ). The reconciliation bill would change several controversial elements in H.R. 3590 and otherwise amend the underlying legislation so that its budgetary impact meets the reconciliation instructions in last year's budget resolution. If the House approves H.R. 3590 , it will be sent to the President to be signed into law. The reconciliation measure, if approved by the House, would then be taken up by the Senate. This report summarizes the workforce, prevention, quality, and related provisions in H.R. 3962 . It begins with some background on health care delivery reform, followed by an overview of the report's content and organization. In a November 2008 report outlining its goals for health reform, the National Priorities Partnership, representing 32 key stakeholder groups in the health sector, identified four major challenges to the delivery of high-quality care. According to the Partnership, 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, 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 encompassed 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—would 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 associated with better patient outcomes or satisfaction, or improved quality of care. Instead of focusing on overall physician supply, many 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 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. In this model, 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, can 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 relies on putting in place mechanisms 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 health information technology, and, most important, 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 change 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. Many 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 moved 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 incorporated the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, which is intended to promote the widespread adoption of health information technology (HIT) for the electronic sharing of clinical data among hospitals, physicians, and other health care stakeholders. It also included $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. 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. H.R. 3962 consists of four divisions. Division A addresses private health insurance. Its provisions would mandate health insurance coverage, establish health insurance exchanges, and create a public health insurance plan. Division B covers the Medicare and Medicaid programs. It would substantially reduce the growth of Medicare's payment rates for most covered services, relative to the growth rates projected in current law, and significantly expand eligibility for Medicaid. Division C, entitled "Public Health and Workforce Development," includes a series of provisions intended to increase the primary care and public health workforce, promote preventive services, and strengthen quality measurement, among other things.