The Complexity of the Health Care System

The Complexities of the Health Care System and its Future With all that is before us as a society of human beings, health care is far reaching and of the highest attribute next to our existence. Without proper health care life becomes a hollow existence. We push through each day with painful thoughts about life, or what we think we know about it. While we focus on negative feelings of weakness and doom, wishing for better days. Always hoping for a peace that we know will never come in this life without our health. Health care is something everyone is not privilege to have.

Billions of people around the world are suffering everyday from lack of proper health care. Unfortunately many have no idea what it is to be healthy, or what it feels like to feel good. They have no idea they are sick, all they know is that they exist. To be numb is what they know, how unfortunate. Here in America, most people know what it is to have a feeling of health, to feel good, mentally, physically and to some extent spiritually. With the existing health care system many are feeling the pains of being sick, no longer able to exist with that feel good spirit.

Suffering is becoming the norm, filled with depression more often than not because of their failing health. Not being able to afford adequate health care, which is now far out of their reach, mainly because they can not afford it. They no longer have the health coverage they once had, now having to rely on aide and assistance that is not guaranteed. Their existence is now in the hands of the politicians, government agencies and advocates who now speak for them. We are slowly losing because of the quality of health care that has become a commodity for those who can afford it.

Unfortunately everyone is not always entitled to life saving health care with the current system of health care. Can that person who is mentally ill walking the street get adequate health care? What about the homeless person without a place to lay their head at night. Where has quality health care gone, or did we ever really have it? Is there any hope for our future health care system? Although the hospital is of the most appreciated and unfortunately the most maligned and least understood institution in the U. S. ociety, with great regret, the present complexities of the United States health care system will unfortunately and inevitably affect the quality of future health care While the hospital and health care system is one that is very much needed, the maligned and misunderstanding interferes with its nobility. How is it that we live in the 21 century, and have major misunderstanding which we are experiencing within our health care system here in the United State? With all the stakeholders within the U. S. health care industry, it is no wonder we are now facing the complex dilemma in our current health care system.

Due to the benchmark developments in U. S. health care, we are now at a standstill with problematic issues. The major influences with the advances and other changes are factors causing the complexities we are facing. With the legislative, political, economical, as well as organizational and professional influences, the once noble stature of the health care industry is now compromised greatly. Unfortunately the ill effects of medical education, technological advances, with rising cost along with changing population demographics, the American values are now being affected.

Our major health care institutions – medical schools, groups of specialist physicians, general hospitals, and research organizations – have together overshot the level of patients care actually needed or used by the vast majority of patients: (Christensen, Bohmer, and Kenagy 2000). Our nation spends over 17% of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care, but does not have the quality of other compared nations no where near that number. Looking back at the history of health care, the puzzling affects of the present out come is all but shocking to most Americans (Sultz, and Young, 2011).

Being a $2. 5 trillion dollar industry, medical care is becoming unreachable for many Americans. What has caused this industry to skyrocket is more so due much to independent medical practices and partnership with provider organization, public and nonprofit institutions such as hospitals, nursing homes and other specialized care facilities: along with major private corporations. Dating back to the early American hospitals, they served a different purpose from those of today’s hospitals.

Sheltering older adults, the dying, orphans, and vagrants, there purpose was to protect the inhabitants of its community from the contagiously sick and the dangerously insane. It seems there has always been a strained relationship between patients and the hospital, and hospital personnel. The need for information, comfort, and human contact is and has been a common complaint which is rooted in the overall history of medical care. With so much with its history, health care grew from a basket of issues which has now lossomed into what we see today as complex, from doctors and patients, to a personnel of nurses, aides, technicians, and the therapists, along with other hospital staff. With all this complexity and chaos, the once noble attributes of the health care profession has lost most of its qualities’ to misunderstandings and purpose. Malpractice is not an unknown word to the American public, and it is fundamentally correlated to a failure on the part of the physician. Malpractice is just one element that indicates patient mistrust in physician disclosure.

Patients have turned to other sources and taken more responsibility upon themselves because of evidence or fear that their physician is giving them incomplete information, resulting in an increased number of second opinions being sought and increased referencing of secondary sources. Patient responsibility has increased because of physician failure to disclose the inherent misunderstanding of uncertainty on the part of the patient (Henry, 2006)’ While quality health care is of great importance to our society, the problems within the health care system, unfortunately supersedes the quality for patient care.

Is the problem within the health care system which is something that can be resolved, or will it being unsolvable for any administration to fix. Quality health care has been interrupted for reasons that baffle most Americans. Not being able to understand the any reason we as a country can not work this major issue with health care to some balance. Since the government stepped into health care, the door has been left open for many other mandates to enter. In spite of the history of the hospital, the need for quality care has been paramount, dating as far back as the early 19th century.

Hospitals were noted for being disgraceful, dirty, unventilated, and the lack of medical care was a real issue for quality health care, these issues were not publicly known. The quality at this time was very bad, which lead to the need for some type of health care reform, with hope to bring about a better quality of health care. Families that could obtain home medical or nursing care shunned hospitals, with this quality health care came about mostly through religious order. With its deplorable conditions, hospital care in early America was more of charity and public responsibility.

With all the negative attributes surrounding the hospital environment, physicians saw the need to separate patients accordingly. This was the time the hospital was given its name. As rewarding as it may have seemed, the physicians had their own motives for why they did what they did. The now transformed hospital from the simple, charitable institutions to the complex, technical organizations was sparked by a parallel growth of private hospital insurance. Many of the sources that shaped the hospital industry varied from health insurance to the beginning of Medicare and Medicaid, bringing the legislative contribution to its fiscal well-being.

With the increase of hospitals there also came the business of health care. The quality of health car came into question. With the hospital now becoming big business, all areas of its administration came into scrutiny. These problems began to supersede the quality of patient care. In deed without proper health care, our society would suffer a greater loss than it has. Proper health care is necessary for any society to thrive. Having the legal, ethical and regulatory aspects are important for its well being.

The necessary financial systems and the impact on access to service are also required to bring about the quality as delivery. Many people may ask what proper health care is. Is there such a thing, and who would be entitle to proper health care that is a question that has yet to be answered and still debated over, causing much unrest and chaos. Being the many viewpoints about health care brings about the subjectivity of its true purpose. With the evolution and development of the present complex health care system, its development has come from sources due to an evolution of vary complicated issues.

The current health care system along with poor management, has added to its history of strained development. With so much to say about the history of the now complex health care system, libraries could be built to hold its books. The early years of health care was challenged with mind sets as well s the stigma of those who needed medical attention. With the understanding of the characteristics and organization, along with the major private and governmental insurance initiatives, is an important factor which largely contributed to the centrality of hospitals within the health care system.

Being there are diverse functions in the hospital, its’ staff and mostly management, add not only to the strain but the complexity with health care. The importance of patient care is being compromise with quality due to the battle within the system. The relationship between staff and patents suffers greatly with the pressures that are mandate by management. With all this being said, patients have a responsibility as well to the outcome of their treatment and patient care. The patient rights are known to have been violated from the early history of patient care.

As the evolution and development of the health care system grew form its noble purpose, the conglomeration of the many stakeholders has contributed to lost trust with all aspects of this complex system in health care. When one speaks about the quality of care in hospitals, major debates often develop based on its interpretation of what quality is, and how it should be delivered. Health care has turned into a business platform that has much concern as to its promised future of adequate patient care. The question arises; can quality care be given within health care reform.

Much is said to the fact that just because one has insurance does not equate to health care access. Access to a waiting list is not health care. When patients are denied access to a doctor or practitioner then it becomes incomplete health care. With the comparison to other countries health care system, come the question, why those of us who live in a wealthy country, suffers from inadequate health care. This also is a major focus point that is being argued. Some of the argument surrounds the issues of primary care and what does it Intel along with who should provide primary care versus specialty care.

Of course it has been stated that Americans will never accept a system like they have in Canada or the U. K. Unfortunately patients become the victims of competition. Hospitals do not have patients; doctors have patients, referring them to the hospital of their choosing. Many of the complex issues have evolved form mismanagement of what health care, patient care, and the adequate structuring of the hospital is meant to be. Over the years of its development much has been misinterpreted as to the healthy organization of its purpose.

The quality of care now provided in hospitals is so much in question that the many patients fear they will not receive the care they need. More so they are no longer view as human beings with needs, but number and dollars. These are only some of the many reasons why there is a need for health care reform which would enforce and influence hospital economics, service patterns and provider relationships. According to an article written by James Morone, The health care reforms that President Barack Obama signed into law in March 2010 had been in the making seventy-five years since Franklin D.

Roosevelt. U. S . presidents has struggled to enact national health care reform: unfortunately most failed. The article explored the highly charged political landscape in which Obama maneuvered and the skills he brought to bear. It contrasts his accomplishments with the experiences of his oval office predecessors. Going forward, implementation poses formidable challenges for democrats, republicans, and the political process itself (Morone 2010 1). Adding to the development and mismanagement is a process swarming with special interest that has been noted to be powered by big money.

Being that the anxiety is so overwhelming with the formatting of adequate health care; no management of reform can be administered without a deep investment. Being noted that president Obama demonstrated a care for health care reform that far exceeds his cool demeanor suggests. President Franklin D. Roosevelt knew e would not be able to get national health care insurance through congress unless he took the idea to the people first. He flirted with making health care his nest great political crusade as World War II came to an end. A plan was being prepared by his advisers, but unfortunately he died before the end of the war.

The health reform effort fell into the hands of President Harry Truman, and every subsequent president. Only until the recent victory of President Obama in the health care reform did one president succeed in their efforts to accomplish some aspect of health care. President Lyndon Johnson managed to enact major new health care programs, in the form of Medicare and Medicaid (Morone 2010. 2). The now health care reform enacted by President Obama is viewed by many, mostly democrats as a historic achievement. In spite of the victory that is said to be in order, many still argue the factors involved.

The comparisons of other countries are still being used to compare factors with the focus on health care systems. With physicians believing they are the ones to judge the quality of hospital medical care adds to the issues involving health care management. Among so many other components that foster the ever evolving cycle of health care management brings about major concerns. With mismanaged health care, future health care will surely suffer the cost. S often we look to solutions to fix major problems within our society, and yet we continue to add more hard to understand perplexing uncertainties than we started with.

Within the health care system which dates back to the beginning of what seemed to be simple compliances to health care issues, are now multiplex issues. These issues have grabbed the attention of not only the government sector, but political entities that now govern the health care industries with long term care being the main agenda. With health care, and many factors influencing the increasing demand for long term care service in the changing demographics, along with technology, major changes are being anticipated.

Unfortunately it has come to a point where the increased scrutiny within the federal and state government sectors of the finance involving issues are before congress. The major mismanagement in health care, are real and troubling concerns to most Americans, especially those who are being affected by new polices and mandates. Long-term care historically began as an in home environment with almshouses and sanitariums. After the great depression and post WWI, citizens decided to run small nursing homes in order to pay mortgages and find an income source.

Not until the 1950s when government grants spurned development of the nursing home sector, did the boom in the industry occurred. The next large impact in long term care would come in the 1960s with the advent of Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements (Sultz and Young, 2011). Long term care is rally a term that defines a wide array of services, within, but not limited to skilled nursing facilities, nursing homes, continual care, assisted living, home health; hospice, respite care, and others are termed long term care.

This allows the industry to respond to the individuals needs of the person requiring the services and match their level of independence or dependence with an environment most suitable conducive to their potential (Sultz and Young 2011). With the future goal of long term care being to reduce waste and become more efficient in order to provide quality care and incentives for operational responsibility, and customer service, there must be available the push to move the market forward.

There are still many barriers that we face before this end is met, before we can compare and contrast the past history of long term health care, which of course will be a challenge that hopefully will take us into a future health care system that will provide all the necessary amenities that will produce the ideal health care system desired. Knowing that is far from coming, all we can do is promote the best possible manage care without the barriers that have existed. With retrospect to the similarities of Canada and the United States, the two countries had similar health care systems.

However, since passage of the Canada Health Act in the 1970s, that nations health statistics have become increasingly superior. Canada’s health care system costs are higher by international standards, hey are much lower than U. S. cost. The factors most likely to be responsible for Canada’s better health care at a lower cost would be: universal financial coverage through a so called single payer features conducive to a strong primary infrastructure, and provincial autonomy under general principles set by national law (Starfield 2010).

Although old enough to have become stable, Canada’s health reform efforts are relatively recent. This being in contrast to the historical foots of health systems in many western industrialized countries. The provincially based Canadian health care system, limited private insurance, public insurance plans, practices and health centers, cost, care seeking, availability of technology, and use of service. These areas are among the more prominent features that bring Canada’s health system to the front.

With Canada’s experiences it shows how these critical features of the health system can be achieved in the context of a federal structure with decentralized administrative control. Although Canada has achieved better, or what appears to be a better health level than the United States, which it has for many decades, the gap has widened overtime, following the development of the different provincial plans that culminated in national legislation in the early 1970s (Starfield, 2010).

What this is leading to is: if, the health care system continues to demonstrate gross mismanagement, and if the political dominance that is now existing, with the unsuccessful organizational structure it has, the inevitable outcome is more than likely to happen. The quality of future health care will suffer greatly. With so much at sake with our system of health care, the future quality of health care will be jeopardized without recourse. If reform is not properly implemented given all the information that has been provided, needed a stable health care system is only a wish.

Many questions are still unanswered as to the reform necessary to provide quality patient health for the future. According to the article Health spending in the United States and the rest of the industrialized world, a cycle of unsustainable spending growth followed by fervent cost containment initiatives has been a regular feature of the health care landscape for the past half-century (Anderson, Hussey, Froger and waters, 2005). In conclusion, with health care being one of the major concerns world-wide, Americans must focus on what is best for all oppositions before us.

With political as well as governmental mismanagement and the fact that so many Americans are unemployed without adequate health care insurance or health care, it poses a real threat to future stability for a stable economy as far as health care is concern. With the large amount of misunderstanding concerning the current health care system with its maligned characteristics, the future quality of health care for patients will ultimately be left to chance. Dependence on sound management for patient care is of utmost importance for a solid health care system to exist.

The nobility of the once thought to be health care system, has now been affected by an aggressive political agenda which is one of the many factors involving the current failed, and complex health care system. With interference from so many stakeholders, the quality of health care is failing in major areas that is damaging to our society as a whole. Quality health care is of great importance to the existed of a well balanced society. With the openly and hidden agenda superseding quality health care, America is falling behind in a race for adequate health care for its population.

As stated before, without the necessary health care, our future society will fail to exist as it does today. The source that contributes to the evolution of a very complex system poses an unfortunate future for all of us in America, without some major resolutions to its complexities. The strain that has existed thus far can not continue to exist. I believe that we can resolve most of our health care issues if we leave out much of the political agenda that has driven the chaos that we are now experiencing with health care.

After complete examination and comparison with the quality of other industrialized nations, much could be accomplished her in the U. S. This would assure all citizens quality health care and possible a peace of mind. With political dominance no longer a major factor guiding the health care reform or its organizational structure a future health care system has a greater chance of existing. Minimizing the risk so that the future system will not be jeopardized as it has been. A stable health care system can be developed with less problematic issues.

Patient care can be of a higher quality, access can be attainable, and delivery possible. The respect of a noble health care system will truly exist one day. References Christensen, C. M. , Bohmer, R. , and Kenagy, J. (2000). Will disruptive innovations cure health care? Harvard Business Review, p. 1-10. Retrieved from EBSCO database Genard F. Anderson, Peter S. Hussy, Bianca K. Frogner and Hugh R. Waters (2005). Health spending in the United States and the rest of the industrialized world: Health Affairs, 24. No 4 (2005): 903-914 doi: 10. 377/hlthaff. 24. 4. 903 Henry, M. S. (2006). Uncertainty, responsibility, and the evolution of the physician/patient relationship. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32(6) 321-323 doi: 10. 1136/jme 2005. 013 987 Morone, J. A. (2010) Presidents and health reform: From Franklin D. Roosevelt to Barack Obama. Health Affairs, 29(6), 1096-1100. Retrieved from the proQuest database. Starfield, B. (2010). Reinventing primary care: Lessons from Canada for the United States. Health Affairs, 29(5), 1030-1036, Retrieved from the proQuest database.

Sultz, H. and Young, K. (2011). Health care USA: Understanding its organization and delivery (7th ed. ). Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett. . The Complexities of the Health Care System and its Future With all that is before us as a society of human beings, health care is far reaching and of the highest attribute next to our existence. Without proper health care life becomes a hollow existence. We push through each day with painful thoughts about life, or what we think we know about it. While we focus on negative feelings of weakness and doom, wishing for better days.

Always hoping for a peace that we know will never come in this life without our health. Health care is something everyone is not privilege to have. Billions of people around the world are suffering everyday from lack of proper health care. Unfortunately many have no idea what it is to be healthy, or what it feels like to feel good. They have no idea they are sick, all they know is that they exist. To be numb is what they know, how unfortunate. Here in America, most people know what it is to have a feeling of health, to feel good, mentally, physically and to some extent spiritually.

With the existing health care system many are feeling the pains of being sick, no longer able to exist with that feel good spirit. Suffering is becoming the norm, filled with depression more often than not because of their failing health. Not being able to afford adequate health care, which is now far out of their reach, mainly because they can not afford it. They no longer have the health coverage they once had, now having to rely on aide and assistance that is not guaranteed. Their existence is now in the hands of the politicians, government agencies and advocates who now speak for them.

We are slowly losing because of the quality of health care that has become a commodity for those who can afford it. Unfortunately everyone is not always entitled to life saving health care with the current system of health care. Can that person who is mentally ill walking the street get adequate health care? What about the homeless person without a place to lay their head at night. Where has quality health care gone, or did we ever really have it? Is there any hope for our future health care system?

Although the hospital is of the most appreciated and unfortunately the most maligned and least understood institution in the U. S. society, with great regret, the present complexities of the United States health care system will unfortunately and inevitably affect the quality of future health care While the hospital and health care system is one that is very much needed, the maligned and misunderstanding interferes with its nobility. How is it that we live in the 21 century, and have major misunderstanding which we are experiencing within our health care system here in the United State?

With all the stakeholders within the U. S. health care industry, it is no wonder we are now facing the complex dilemma in our current health care system. Due to the benchmark developments in U. S. health care, we are now at a standstill with problematic issues. The major influences with the advances and other changes are factors causing the complexities we are facing. With the legislative, political, economical, as well as organizational and professional influences, the once noble stature of the health care industry is now compromised greatly.

Unfortunately the ill effects of medical education, technological advances, with rising cost along with changing population demographics, the American values are now being affected. Our major health care institutions – medical schools, groups of specialist physicians, general hospitals, and research organizations – have together overshot the level of patients care actually needed or used by the vast majority of patients: (Christensen, Bohmer, and Kenagy 2000). Our nation spends over 17% of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care, but does not have the quality of other compared nations no where near that number.

Looking back at the history of health care, the puzzling affects of the present out come is all but shocking to most Americans (Sultz, and Young, 2011). Being a $2. 5 trillion dollar industry, medical care is becoming unreachable for many Americans. What has caused this industry to skyrocket is more so due much to independent medical practices and partnership with provider organization, public and nonprofit institutions such as hospitals, nursing homes and other specialized care facilities: along with major private corporations.

Dating back to the early American hospitals, they served a different purpose from those of today’s hospitals. Sheltering older adults, the dying, orphans, and vagrants, there purpose was to protect the inhabitants of its community from the contagiously sick and the dangerously insane. It seems there has always been a strained relationship between patients and the hospital, and hospital personnel. The need for information, comfort, and human contact is and has been a common complaint which is rooted in the overall history of medical care.

With so much with its history, health care grew from a basket of issues which has now blossomed into what we see today as complex, from doctors and patients, to a personnel of nurses, aides, technicians, and the therapists, along with other hospital staff. With all this complexity and chaos, the once noble attributes of the health care profession has lost most of its qualities’ to misunderstandings and purpose. Malpractice is not an unknown word to the American public, and it is fundamentally correlated to a failure on the part of the physician. Malpractice is just one element that indicates patient mistrust in physician disclosure.

Patients have turned to other sources and taken more responsibility upon themselves because of evidence or fear that their physician is giving them incomplete information, resulting in an increased number of second opinions being sought and increased referencing of secondary sources. Patient responsibility has increased because of physician failure to disclose the inherent misunderstanding of uncertainty on the part of the patient (Henry, 2006)’ While quality health care is of great importance to our society, the problems within the health care system, unfortunately supersedes the quality for patient care.

Is the problem within the health care system which is something that can be resolved, or will it being unsolvable for any administration to fix. Quality health care has been interrupted for reasons that baffle most Americans. Not being able to understand the any reason we as a country can not work this major issue with health care to some balance. Since the government stepped into health care, the door has been left open for many other mandates to enter. In spite of the history of the hospital, the need for quality care has been paramount, dating as far back as the early 19th century.

Hospitals were noted for being disgraceful, dirty, unventilated, and the lack of medical care was a real issue for quality health care, these issues were not publicly known. The quality at this time was very bad, which lead to the need for some type of health care reform, with hope to bring about a better quality of health care. Families that could obtain home medical or nursing care shunned hospitals, with this quality health care came about mostly through religious order. With its deplorable conditions, hospital care in early America was more of charity and public responsibility.

With all the negative attributes surrounding the hospital environment, physicians saw the need to separate patients accordingly. This was the time the hospital was given its name. As rewarding as it may have seemed, the physicians had their own motives for why they did what they did. The now transformed hospital from the simple, charitable institutions to the complex, technical organizations was sparked by a parallel growth of private hospital insurance. Many of the sources that shaped the hospital industry varied from health insurance to the beginning of Medicare and Medicaid, bringing the legislative contribution to its fiscal well-being.

With the increase of hospitals there also came the business of health care. The quality of health car came into question. With the hospital now becoming big business, all areas of its administration came into scrutiny. These problems began to supersede the quality of patient care. In deed without proper health care, our society would suffer a greater loss than it has. Proper health care is necessary for any society to thrive. Having the legal, ethical and regulatory aspects are important for its well being.

The necessary financial systems and the impact on access to service are also required to bring about the quality as delivery. Many people may ask what proper health care is. Is there such a thing, and who would be entitle to proper health care that is a question that has yet to be answered and still debated over, causing much unrest and chaos. Being the many viewpoints about health care brings about the subjectivity of its true purpose. With the evolution and development of the present complex health care system, its development has come from sources due to an evolution of vary complicated issues.

The current health care system along with poor management, has added to its history of strained development. With so much to say about the history of the now complex health care system, libraries could be built to hold its books. The early years of health care was challenged with mind sets as well s the stigma of those who needed medical attention. With the understanding of the characteristics and organization, along with the major private and governmental insurance initiatives, is an important factor which largely contributed to the centrality of hospitals within the health care system.

Being there are diverse functions in the hospital, its’ staff and mostly management, add not only to the strain but the complexity with health care. The importance of patient care is being compromise with quality due to the battle within the system. The relationship between staff and patents suffers greatly with the pressures that are mandate by management. With all this being said, patients have a responsibility as well to the outcome of their treatment and patient care. The patient rights are known to have been violated from the early history of patient care.

As the evolution and development of the health care system grew form its noble purpose, the conglomeration of the many stakeholders has contributed to lost trust with all aspects of this complex system in health care. When one speaks about the quality of care in hospitals, major debates often develop based on its interpretation of what quality is, and how it should be delivered. Health care has turned into a business platform that has much concern as to its promised future of adequate patient care. The question arises; can quality care be given within health care reform.

Much is said to the fact that just because one has insurance does not equate to health care access. Access to a waiting list is not health care. When patients are denied access to a doctor or practitioner then it becomes incomplete health care. With the comparison to other countries health care system, come the question, why those of us who live in a wealthy country, suffers from inadequate health care. This also is a major focus point that is being argued. Some of the argument surrounds the issues of primary care and what does it Intel along with who should provide primary care versus specialty care.

Of course it has been stated that Americans will never accept a system like they have in Canada or the U. K. Unfortunately patients become the victims of competition. Hospitals do not have patients; doctors have patients, referring them to the hospital of their choosing. Many of the complex issues have evolved form mismanagement of what health care, patient care, and the adequate structuring of the hospital is meant to be. Over the years of its development much has been misinterpreted as to the healthy organization of its purpose.

The quality of care now provided in hospitals is so much in question that the many patients fear they will not receive the care they need. More so they are no longer view as human beings with needs, but number and dollars. These are only some of the many reasons why there is a need for health care reform which would enforce and influence hospital economics, service patterns and provider relationships. According to an article written by James Morone, The health care reforms that President Barack Obama signed into law in March 2010 had been in the making seventy-five years since Franklin D.

Roosevelt. U. S . presidents has struggled to enact national health care reform: unfortunately most failed. The article explored the highly charged political landscape in which Obama maneuvered and the skills he brought to bear. It contrasts his accomplishments with the experiences of his oval office predecessors. Going forward, implementation poses formidable challenges for democrats, republicans, and the political process itself (Morone 2010 1). Adding to the development and mismanagement is a process swarming with special interest that has been noted to be powered by big money.

Being that the anxiety is so overwhelming with the formatting of adequate health care; no management of reform can be administered without a deep investment. Being noted that president Obama demonstrated a care for health care reform that far exceeds his cool demeanor suggests. President Franklin D. Roosevelt knew e would not be able to get national health care insurance through congress unless he took the idea to the people first. He flirted with making health care his nest great political crusade as World War II came to an end. A plan was being prepared by his advisers, but unfortunately he died before the end of the war.

The health reform effort fell into the hands of President Harry Truman, and every subsequent president. Only until the recent victory of President Obama in the health care reform did one president succeed in their efforts to accomplish some aspect of health care. President Lyndon Johnson managed to enact major new health care programs, in the form of Medicare and Medicaid (Morone 2010. 2). The now health care reform enacted by President Obama is viewed by many, mostly democrats as a historic achievement. In spite of the victory that is said to be in order, many still argue the factors involved.

The comparisons of other countries are still being used to compare factors with the focus on health care systems. With physicians believing they are the ones to judge the quality of hospital medical care adds to the issues involving health care management. Among so many other components that foster the ever evolving cycle of health care management brings about major concerns. With mismanaged health care, future health care will surely suffer the cost. S often we look to solutions to fix major problems within our society, and yet we continue to add more hard to understand perplexing uncertainties than we started with.

Within the health care system which dates back to the beginning of what seemed to be simple compliances to health care issues, are now multiplex issues. These issues have grabbed the attention of not only the government sector, but political entities that now govern the health care industries with long term care being the main agenda. With health care, and many factors influencing the increasing demand for long term care service in the changing demographics, along with technology, major changes are being anticipated.

Unfortunately it has come to a point where the increased scrutiny within the federal and state government sectors of the finance involving issues are before congress. The major mismanagement in health care, are real and troubling concerns to most Americans, especially those who are being affected by new polices and mandates. Long-term care historically began as an in home environment with almshouses and sanitariums. After the great depression and post WWI, citizens decided to run small nursing homes in order to pay mortgages and find an income source.

Not until the 1950s when government grants spurned development of the nursing home sector, did the boom in the industry occurred. The next large impact in long term care would come in the 1960s with the advent of Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements (Sultz and Young, 2011). Long term care is rally a term that defines a wide array of services, within, but not limited to skilled nursing facilities, nursing homes, continual care, assisted living, home health; hospice, respite care, and others are termed long term care.

This allows the industry to respond to the individuals needs of the person requiring the services and match their level of independence or dependence with an environment most suitable conducive to their potential (Sultz and Young 2011). With the future goal of long term care being to reduce waste and become more efficient in order to provide quality care and incentives for operational responsibility, and customer service, there must be available the push to move the market forward.

There are still many barriers that we face before this end is met, before we can compare and contrast the past history of long term health care, which of course will be a challenge that hopefully will take us into a future health care system that will provide all the necessary amenities that will produce the ideal health care system desired. Knowing that is far from coming, all we can do is promote the best possible manage care without the barriers that have existed. With retrospect to the similarities of Canada and the United States, the two countries had similar health care systems.

However, since passage of the Canada Health Act in the 1970s, that nations health statistics have become increasingly superior. Canada’s health care system costs are higher by international standards, hey are much lower than U. S. cost. The factors most likely to be responsible for Canada’s better health care at a lower cost would be: universal financial coverage through a so called single payer features conducive to a strong primary infrastructure, and provincial autonomy under general principles set by national law (Starfield 2010).

Although old enough to have become stable, Canada’s health reform efforts are relatively recent. This being in contrast to the historical foots of health systems in many western industrialized countries. The provincially based Canadian health care system, limited private insurance, public insurance plans, practices and health centers, cost, care seeking, availability of technology, and use of service. These areas are among the more prominent features that bring Canada’s health system to the front.

With Canada’s experiences it shows how these critical features of the health system can be achieved in the context of a federal structure with decentralized administrative control. Although Canada has achieved better, or what appears to be a better health level than the United States, which it has for many decades, the gap has widened overtime, following the development of the different provincial plans that culminated in national legislation in the early 1970s (Starfield, 2010).

What this is leading to is: if, the health care system continues to demonstrate gross mismanagement, and if the political dominance that is now existing, with the unsuccessful organizational structure it has, the inevitable outcome is more than likely to happen. The quality of future health care will suffer greatly. With so much at sake with our system of health care, the future quality of health care will be jeopardized without recourse. If reform is not properly implemented given all the information that has been provided, needed a stable health care system is only a wish.

Many questions are still unanswered as to the reform necessary to provide quality patient health for the future. According to the article Health spending in the United States and the rest of the industrialized world, a cycle of unsustainable spending growth followed by fervent cost containment initiatives has been a regular feature of the health care landscape for the past half-century (Anderson, Hussey, Froger and waters, 2005). In conclusion, with health care being one of the major concerns world-wide, Americans must focus on what is best for all oppositions before us.

With political as well as governmental mismanagement and the fact that so many Americans are unemployed without adequate health care insurance or health care, it poses a real threat to future stability for a stable economy as far as health care is concern. With the large amount of misunderstanding concerning the current health care system with its maligned characteristics, the future quality of health care for patients will ultimately be left to chance. Dependence on sound management for patient care is of utmost importance for a solid health care system to exist.

The nobility of the once thought to be health care system, has now been affected by an aggressive political agenda which is one of the many factors involving the current failed, and complex health care system. With interference from so many stakeholders, the quality of health care is failing in major areas that is damaging to our society as a whole. Quality health care is of great importance to the existed of a well balanced society. With the openly and hidden agenda superseding quality health care, America is falling behind in a race for adequate health care for its population.

As stated before, without the necessary health care, our future society will fail to exist as it does today. The source that contributes to the evolution of a very complex system poses an unfortunate future for all of us in America, without some major resolutions to its complexities. The strain that has existed thus far can not continue to exist. I believe that we can resolve most of our health care issues if we leave out much of the political agenda that has driven the chaos that we are now experiencing with health care.

After complete examination and comparison with the quality of other industrialized nations, much could be accomplished her in the U. S. This would assure all citizens quality health care and possible a peace of mind. With political dominance no longer a major factor guiding the health care reform or its organizational structure a future health care system has a greater chance of existing. Minimizing the risk so that the future system will not be jeopardized as it has been. A stable health care system can be developed with less problematic issues. Patient care can be of a higher quality, access can be attainable, and delivery possible.

The respect of a noble health care system will truly exist one day. References Christensen, C. M. , Bohmer, R. , and Kenagy, J. (2000). Will disruptive innovations cure health care? Harvard Business Review, p. 1-10. Retrieved from EBSCO database Genard F. Anderson, Peter S. Hussy, Bianca K. Frogner and Hugh R. Waters (2005). Health spending in the United States and the rest of the industrialized world: Health Affairs, 24. No 4 (2005): 903-914 doi: 10. 1377/hlthaff. 24. 4. 903 Henry, M. S. (2006). Uncertainty, responsibility, and the evolution of the physician/patient relationship.

Journal of Medical Ethics, 32(6) 321-323 doi: 10. 1136/jme 2005. 013 987 Morone, J. A. (2010) Presidents and health reform: From Franklin D. Roosevelt to Barack Obama. Health Affairs, 29(6), 1096-1100. Retrieved from the proQuest database. Starfield, B. (2010). Reinventing primary care: Lessons from Canada for the United States. Health Affairs, 29(5), 1030-1036, Retrieved from the proQuest database. Sultz, H. and Young, K. (2011). Health care USA: Understanding its organization and delivery (7th ed. ). Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett. .

Read more

Health Care System Budgeting Procedures

Larry Scanlan, in his article about hospital budgeting, presents seven keys to a successful budget. These “reality keys”, as he calls them, are designed to help insure that the CFO and CEO are able to navigate through a difficult process.

The first of these is accountability. He recommends communicating about the status of financial performance in all areas, and instituting a compliance plan that monitors and responds quickly to problems. Teamwork and a high sense of management integrity are essential. The budget is everyone’s responsibility, not just management.

The second key is to know your market. The budget process should mesh seamlessly with the strategic plan. Management should have a clear enough understanding of their market, so that they can respond to changes quickly and accurately.

The third key is to know how the institution’s revenue is generated. Physicians are the key to revenue, and management should be actively involved in physician service, retention, and recruitment. This will allow management to accurately predict volume from admissions and subsequent revenue.

The fourth key is to base the budgets on reasonable objectives. Scanlan discusses basing budget numbers on realistic achievements, rather than “what the boss wants.” The budget should have specific action steps, responsibility, and timelines and milestones so that progress can be monitored and corrective action taken when needed.

The fifth key deals with keeping the operating margin healthy. The margin must be realistic and as accurate as possible. “Without a rigorous approach to establishing a realistic operating margin, the CEO, CFO, and management team may face a daunting shortfall of budgeted margin to meet cash requirements.”1

The sixth key is to monitor the process. Actual results must be captured and variances generated when there is a difference between the budget and the actual results. It makes absolutely no sense to create a budget if the institution is not going to monitor results against it. The variances can point out corrective action that is required.

Finally, the last key is to have a contingency plan in effect to cover adverse occurrences. While it is impossible to plan for every contingency, some occurrences can be foreseen. Labor costs and equipment expenses can be estimated with some accuracy.

Scanlan argues that it is important for the CEO and CFO to set the tone and direction for the planning and execution of the budget process. It is their responsibility to keep the budget grounded in reality. “By using the keys to budget reality, you can monitor performance, identify trends, and make course adjustments in a timely manner.”2

Read more

American Health Care Systems Issues Health And Social Care Essay

Table of contents

The Ever-Increasing Cost of Care

The cost of wellness attention has been on the addition for decennaries. From 1960 through 2006, wellness attention disbursement has seen an addition of 9.9 per centum each twelvemonth, while the national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) rose merely 7.3 per centum during the same period. Additionally, Americans are paying well more than any other developed state. In 2008 entirely, the national wellness attention measure was about $ 2.5 trillion dollars (Johnson T., 2010). This astronomical sum was about 16 per centum of the Gross Domestic Product. In simpler footings, every adult male, adult female, and kid in the state received $ 7,680 of medical attention ; yet, 1000000s of Americans had no coverage at all (Kimbuende, Ranji, Lundy, & A ; Salganicoff, 2010). In comparing, England ‘s wellness attention budget for 2009 was $ 160 billion for every English citizen (Lyall, 2010). In fact, no other industrialised state had similar outgos as the United States. President Obama admitted every bit much in a 2009 address to the American Medical Association: “ Today, we are passing over $ 2 trillion a twelvemonth on wellness attention – about 50 per centum more per individual than the following most dearly-won state ” ( 2009 ) . What state was the following most dearly-won? Actually, Norway and Switzerland were the following more dearly-won states with both passing $ 4,500 per individual in 2007 (Pearson, 2009).

In add-on, insurance premiums have risen well in the last decennary. Employer-provided insurance premiums rose over 130 per centum while employee rewards merely saw an approximative 30 per centum addition. Furthermore, workers have seen their part addition over 125 per centum since 1999. The people who purchase their ain insurance have a significant addition in premium monetary values every bit good. The monetary value of the mean household policy in 2009 was $ 7,102 with an extra $ 1,690 spent on out-of-pocket disbursals ( Schoen, Nicholson, & A ; Rustgi, 2009 ) .

Medicare and Medicaid presently account for approximately $ 750 billion dollars or 21 per centum of the national budget with Medicare having about two-thirds at $ 468 billion ( Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2010 ) . Payroll revenue enhancements were responsible for about 90 per centum of Medicare funding merely two old ages ago. Currently, Medicare is the primary insurance coverage for 45 million people. The bulk of receivers are over 65 but there are several million younger persons enrolled because of entire disablement. About 50 per centum of Medicare enrollees have at least three ongoing medical issues ; about half are besides really hapless. Ten per centum of Medicare receivers are responsible for two-thirds of the full plan ‘s disbursement ( Potetz & A ; Cubanski, 2009 ) . Obviously, Medicare needs more gross come ining its system or less money go outing its system. A combination of both would give the most favourable overcome for the plan.

About 60 million Americans are take parting in the Medicaid plan with an extra 16 million enrolling in the following five old ages due to the health care reform jurisprudence. In 2008, the state spent about $ 340 billion on Medicaid. Which is non surprising since Medicaid is the primary remunerator for nursing place and other long-run attention. In add-on, Medicaid pays for much of mental wellness costs. It besides provides public infirmaries with 33 per centum of their net gross. Millions of people are working because Medicaid provides support for many occupations in the community. Like Medicare, a little per centum of Medicaid patients are responsible for over 50 per centum of entire Medicaid disbursement. Yet, Medicaid has the lowest administrative costs of all insurance remunerators ( Kaiser Family Foundation, 2010 ) .

Where Is All The Money Going?

Hospital attention is devouring the largest per centum of wellness attention dollars. For 2008, it accounted for about 30 per centum of all wellness attention disbursement. Unsurprisingly, the cost for the mean stay of four and one-half yearss will change from one installation to another (U.S. Department of Health; Human Services, 2008). As an illustration, the cost for handling pneumonia can be every bit small as $ 1,900 or every bit much as about $ 16,000. Furthermore, the 30-day readmission rate was similar regardless of the cost of intervention. Similar attention should intend similar cost yet with the state ‘s infirmaries this is clearly non the instance (Chen, Jha; Guterman, 2010).

Doctor and clinical services are besides devouring a immense per centum at 20 per centum. Many would reason malpractice or the fright thereof is driving some of these costs. However, physicians may good be the key to harnessing in physician-related disbursals ( Kaiser Family Foundation, 2009 ) . Training on the fiscal elements of wellness attention needs to be of high precedence, such preparation will do physicians more cognizant of the cost of a peculiar class of intervention. They will besides be more willing to order a generic or cheaper drug that will supply the same consequences ( Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 2010 ) .

At 10 per centum, prescription drug use is besides taking a big part of the wellness attention dollars. Prescription drug disbursement has been the fastest turning component of the wellness attention field. In merely 18 old ages, disbursement for prescription drugs jumped from approximately $ 40 billion yearly to $ 234 billion in 2008. For several old ages, drug shapers enjoyed the most net income of any industry. Conversely, generic drugs were one of the primary grounds that prescription drug disbursement slowed by 12 per centum from 1999 until 2005. Of all the FDA approved drugs, 80 per centum has a cheaper, generic equivalent. Because of this low-cost option, most physicians will discourse the out-of-pocket cost of medicines with their patients. Over 60 per centum of physicians switched to a less dearly-won drug and 58 per centum of doctors provided free samples to their patients ( Lundy, 2010 ) .

Solutions to Escalating Health Care Costs

Technology will be indispensable in commanding costs. Electronic medical records will non merely cut down some administrative costs but it would besides let physicians to entree pertinent information needed to handle the patient in the most efficient and effectual manner. For illustration, the medical records would clearly demo the doctor all current trials and lab work completed, thereby diminishing the likeliness of extra acerate leaf trials and lab work every bit good as X raies. They would besides alarm the physician to patients who may be merely seeking to obtain narcotics. Most significantly, they have the possible to cut down medical mistakes in prescriptions drug interactions and in transmittal of really of import information between different medical suppliers ( Johnson T. , 2010 ) .

A consumer-driven program is besides really of import in cost containment. When the patient has input in their ain wellness attention determinations, they become better consumers. Therefore, it is imperative that the existent costs of wellness services are readily available to the patient. Most consumer directed programs besides involve greater cost sharing, which will be ineluctable in promoting people to go more cognizant of the high cost of medical attention in America ( Johnson, 2010 ) .

The bar of chronic preventable disease will be a cardinal component in commanding costs. Obesity, although non technically a disease, is the precursor to other really preventable, chronic diseases. Type 2 diabetes and bosom disease are two of the diseases straight related to fleshiness. Possible fiscal inducements to employees may promote more people to watch their weight and to take part in some sort of physical activity if needed. Some companies have gone every bit far as to increase the employee portion of premium part if an employee has high hazard factors such as fleshiness or baccy usage.

Similarly, Medicaid patients should portion in the cost of their intervention. For illustration, if a patient does non desire to do important life style alterations to continue their wellness position so they should be required to pay some clip of extra fee. As overall wellness indexs improve, the fee can be refunded to the patient. Nicotine trials for baccy users can be one index. The resting bosom rate may be another index used for physical activity since the resting bosom rate lessenings, as a individual becomes more physical active. And, yes, the parents have to be held responsible for the negative wellness indexs of minor kids.

Standardized medical charge could perchance salvage one million millions of dollars in administrative costs. For case, should all insurance companies use a procedure similar to the 1 used for treating Medicare claims ; there will be a drastic decrease in administrative disbursals. Of class, this would see uniformity in entry and payment of all claims. This would besides cut down the waiting period for payment ( Evans, 2010 ) .

A Dim Future

If wellness attention cost are non curtailed, economical desolation will be the result. Many employers are fighting to maintain up with the ever-increasing cost of wellness attention. Employers spent $ 460 billion for medical coverage in 2006. In other words, they spent 12 per centum of entire working budget on wellness insurance. Because of the uninterrupted addition in insurance costs, companies have to increase the cost of goods sold. General Motor reportedly has to add about $ 2,000 to the monetary value of each vehicle to cover the $ 5 billion it spends on employee wellness attention each twelvemonth. Employers spend $ 2.38 per hr for medical benefits while their foreign rivals spend $ .96. In fact, Johnson claimed, “At 12 per centum, wellness attention is the most expensive benefit paid by U.S. employers” (2010). If this tendency continues, American companies will probably free fight in the international playing field. Some employers will hold no other option other than dropping wellness attention coverage wholly.

Many more Americans will probably register bankruptcy because of reeling medical measures. Presently, about half of all personal bankruptcies file are partially because of medical disbursals. Many people are proroguing intervention because of cost. When intervention is eventually obtained, the status is much more expensive to handle with longer recovery periods. Seniors will hold to salvage a considerable sum to cover costs that Medicare will non pay (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2009).

More employers are switching much of insurance premium increases to the worker. This in bend is go forthing more people with less take-home wage and larger out-of-pocket disbursals. In order to salvage money, some workers will non seek medical aid when needed. Alternatively, they will take extra ill yearss trusting remainder will do things better. Merely when the consumer usage available wellness attention sagely, will at that place be a positive result. Unfortunately, many may take to waive medical intervention when it is most needful (Johnson, Rockoff; Mathews, 2010).

Medicare and Medicaid are the primary insurance for 1000000s of aged and hapless Americans. Numerous persons are besides double eligible, which allows them to have coverage from Medicare and Medicaid at the same time. Dual eligible persons must hold really low income to measure up for both plans. Intelligibly, these persons have much greater wellness demands than regular Medicare receivers. Medicare is the primary coverage ; nevertheless, Medicaid helps to pay the Medicare premiums. Medicaid besides picks up the check for services that are restricted or non collectible under Medicare. Medicaid pays for the long-run attention of 70 per centum of nursing place occupants. In add-on, because of the wellness attention reform jurisprudence, 1000000s more will be added. Although, province and federal money fund the Medicaid plan, the federal authorities will pay 96 per centum of the cost for people enrolled because of the wellness attention authorization ( Kaiser Family Foundation, 2010 ) .

Decision

Without a uncertainty, something has to be done to decelerate the cost of wellness attention so every American can hold entree to quality, low-cost attention. Electronic medical records can be a start in the acclivitous conflict to suppress cost. The benefits of fewer medical mistakes, less paperwork, and a more dependable transmittal of pertinent information greatly outweigh privateness concerns. Standardized charge will besides cut down administrative costs and see timely processing of all claims ( Johnson T. , 2010 ) .

Furthermore, the figure of people having Medicare will increase to 79 million in twenty old ages. The aging population and longer life anticipation are responsible for this immense figure. Additionally, the figure of workers paying into the fund will see a lessening ( Potetz & A ; Cubanski, 2009 ) . How can an already delicate system survive this added strain? The registration age has to be raised a few more old ages. This will let more people to work longer to pay in and prorogue the registration of more people at the same time. Medicaid on the other manus, need more people paying just premiums and co-payments.

The consumer of wellness services has the duty of doing better lifestyle picks. Chronic, ongoing medical issues have a annihilating consequence on persons, their households, and the national wellness attention system.

Read more

America and Canada’s Universal Health Care System

America is full of social and economic problems that need to be addressed. The one problem that affects all citizens of the country is access and affordability of health care. The health care problem is unique in that every American will need health care at some point in their life, and this coupled with the fact that health care costs continue to rise further exacerbate the situation. In order to attempt a solution to America’s growing health care problem, it is essential that the country look to another country that has effectively addressed the health care problem.

The only solution to America’s health care problem is to implement a universal health care system. Canada has implemented a universal health care policy whereby each citizen is afforded health care at no cost, and Canada’s efforts should serve as an example for America to emulate. Canada’s Health Care System, and Comparison to the United States The Canadian system works because of two important factors, which actually relate to one another.

The first factor is the lowered cost of health care as compared to the United States, and the second factor is the greater accessibility of health care as compared to the United States. These two factors are inter-related because with lower costs, citizens in Canada are able to procure greater access to care. Essentially these patients have more options. In America an uninsured patient may believe that the only options they have are the cheaper clinics, and when these clinics do not accept them as patients they have no other options.

The same cannot be said about Canadian patients, which makes Canada a viable model for the United States to follow. The first investigation should include the costs associated with care in Canada and the United States. Two figures in particular will be investigated. The first is the percentage of GDP that is spent on health care comparing each country respectively. Canada segments 10% of GDP on health care, while the United States relies on 14% of GDP for the procurement of health care. (Armstrong, Armstrong & Fegan, 2005, p.8) A discrepancy of the GDP between the two countries is important because while the Canadian system is close somewhat to the American system in GDP percentage, the fact that all Canadians are covered while a drastically smaller number are covered in America demonstrates how the Canadian system works. Another argument about these facts is that America has a much larger GDP than Canada, yet still cannot keep up with the health care crisis. Another important figure concerning expenditures is the cost per person.

Canada spends about $2,049 per person, which is about 55% less than what is spent per person in America. (Armstrong, Armstrong & Fegan, 2005, p. 8) Many opponents of Canada’s system may look at these figures and suggest that Canada is cheaper because they have less people, but the figures take this into account and have calculated the costs per person. This allows the figures to take shape and demonstrate how Canada’s system seems to be more efficient. The next question is how Canada keeps their costs so low as compared to the United States.

It has been suggested that Canadian costs for health care are low because of the use of public administration. (Armstrong, Armstrong & Fegan, 2005, p. 8) Essentially Canada relies heavily on universal health care whereby the government pays for the services and monitors the country’s health care field. Some opponents of this system will suggest that government control will only increase costs because governments such as Canada’s cannot operate within the health care field as efficiently as private enterprise. (Krasny, 1992, p. 43) This suggestion by Krasny is incorrect.

The public sector in Canada handles all of the administrative tasks associated with a hospital, which lowers costs. (Armstrong, Armstrong & Fegan, 2005, p. 8) Other cost savings measures associated with Canada’s universal health care system are the decreased overhead expenditures. Hospitals no longer have to include entire teams to conduct insurance calculations and coverage implementations as well as entire teams to keep track of billing and collection efforts. (Armstrong, Armstrong & Fegan, 2005, p. 8) This drastically decreases costs, especially when compared to the American system.

The American system implements all of these overhead policies, which only strain the system further. For example, hospitals in America “must keep more extensive records in order to facilitate billing to the state and federal governments, insurance companies and patients, and in anticipation of malpractice suits. ” (Armstrong, Armstrong & Fegan, 2005, p. 8) Canadian doctors who leave Canada and practice in America make about the same amount of money because the overhead was so large in America, despite their lowered pay in Canada due to universal health care.

(Armstrong, Armstrong & Fegan, 2005, p. 8) All of these benefits of the Canadian system would be pointless if the care was not adequate. Canadians live longer, are ahead of America in healthiness in the world, have far less infant fatalities, and have much greater percentage of disability free life. (Armstrong, Armstrong & Fegan, 2005, p. 8) All of these health factors tend to point toward greater health care practices as compared to America, as well as greater access to health care facilities.

The benefits of the Canadian system are clear, which makes the Canadian system a viable alternative to the American system. America still maintains a payment rate health care system where the patient must pay a certain amount in order to receive health care from a provider. American hospitals will not turn away a patient in need of care if it is of the utmost importance, but the hospitals will turn away a patient that is not being threatened by illness and does not have the ability to pay. (“Looking to Canada for,” 2006, p.8) This idea is very peculiar in the grand scheme of assisting patients. On one hand the hospital is supposed to help the sick, but on the other hand a patient will receive little to no help if they do not have the ability to pay. The American government is to blame for a majority of the crisis that has resulted. Currently, many patients waiting on organ donations and transplant die because of the American legislative regulations. It is stated that “more than 6,000 American patients die each year while waiting for suitable organs, and that those waiting lists are caused by the U.

S. Congress, which prohibits payments to organ providers and thereby dries up the supply of transplantable organs. ” (“Looking to Canada for,” 2006, p. 8) The legislature not only makes health care unaffordable, but they also help create longer waits for patients who cannot wait any longer. The entire system in the United States has caused a health care crisis that will not alleviate until something is done. The current American climate when dealing with health care has caused major problems to result in the country.

As Callahan states, Public opinion surveys show considerable discontent with American health care, the business community is increasingly distressed in trying to cope with ever- rising costs, and a long-awaited stimulus for serious reform may be at hand: middle-class alarm at a deteriorating situation for those previously well covered by insurance. The fact that a majority of personal bankruptcies in this country are occasioned by individual and family health care debts is a sobering figure.

If the 46 million uninsured do not catch the congressional eye, maybe the steady increase of the uninsured and the rise in bankruptcies will. (2006, p. 28) Callahan suggests that the health care crisis in America has spread to nearly every facet of American life. The economy suffers, the savings sector suffers, the credit sector suffers, and the employment sector suffers. The current aspects of the American health care system are alarming and need to be addressed or it is predicted that dire consequences could develop, which will lead to a better understanding and acceptance of universal health care. care coverage. The change to a universal system will not be easy because many in the medical field do not want universal health care coverage.

Callahan has stated that during Canada’s attempt at socialized medicine, American members of the medical community enlisted propaganda and other forms of persuasion in an attempt to cause Canada to reject any form of universal coverage and these attempts failed. (2006, p. 28) The United States medical community understood that socialized medicine would cause a possible lowering of wages and rates as well as an increase in patients, which they did not want. If Canada’s system was implemented and succeeded, then possibly the American public would realize the benefits and would want universal coverage as well. The American medical elite identified this possibility and have been fighting the change ever since. Accompanying this fight has been the American Medical Association (AMA), which initially established the attempts at making the Canadian system fail.

Currently, the AMA has proposed a health care plan that does not even address the idea of universal coverage, and the group is a major political and public force in America with a lot of leverage to influence public policy. (2006, p. 28) The end result is a large organization that is supposedly watching out for patients, but at the same time is eliminating any type of universal health care opportunities. The American system allows groups such as the AMA to control public policy, which does not even recognize what the American public wants in health care.

Callahan has stated that well over 60% of Americans would be in favor of universal health care in some form, yet the AMA ignores this need and continues to cater to the medical elite in America. (2006, p.29) If the AMA remains in control over medical public policy then nothing will ever get done to address the increasing need for American medical reform. The proper reformation of the health care system lies in universal health care, and Canada’s system is a prime example of health care effectiveness. A look into the actual facts surrounding America’s current health care position is beneficial into discovering the current state of the country. The facts about America’s system are shocking when put into perspective with other countries in the world. The World Health Organization puts America at number 37 overall in health care performance, which is in between the two countries Costa Rica and Slovenia.

Out of all the industrialized countries, America is lagging way behind many of the top countries in the world, and it appears that this ranking will continue to plummet if nothing is done to alleviate the health care crisis. The ranking of America is a strange outcome for the country because America spends more than any country in health care services. According to Lesnik, In 2004, U. S. health spending rose to a whopping 15 percent of the gross domestic product, a higher percentage than any other nation, including those that provide universal coverage to all residents and those with much more modest Gross Domestic Products. (2004, p. 1) Lesnik’s figures present a dire circumstance for America. The American medical field has more expenditures than countries that already provide universal coverage, which includes Canada.

If the expenditures are so high, it would make sense that America should have the best medical coverage of any nation in the world, but this is not the case. The idea as to why the United States ranked so low can be summed up with one idea and that is access to care. The numbers involved in a lack of access show further harms the stretch to the livelihood of Americans as well as the economic well being of the country. Illness affects every person and does not discriminate according to wealth or ability, which causes many citizens in the economic sectors of the country to lower their productivity because they do not have adequate access to care. (Lesnik, 2004, p. 1) This can cause a drop in growth in America, which will further exacerbate the situation.

Fundamentally, if the economy falters then the ability of sick workers to pay for care diminishes, which increases the problem of access. Lesnik identifies the fact that tens of millions of Americans lack a doctor to call on if they are in pain or a medical facility that will accept them when they are sick. (2004, p. 1) Lesnik states, According to the U. S. Census Bureau, a staggering 45 million Americans–or 15. 6 percent of the population–permanently live without any form of health insurance. This creates serious barriers to care, which lead to unnecessary illness and death. It is increasingly clear that, for individuals and their families, the financial burden of medical expenses is unmanageable without insurance. (2004, p. 1)

It appears that the major problem affecting the US health care crisis is access to care. Access to care encompasses the ability to pay as well as suitable facilities in which to receive care. These are the main culprits in America’s health care shortcomings, and if not addressed will only become worse. One of the possible reasons that America has shied away from universal health care is the enactment of legislation in the 1960s. In 1965, the American legislature enacted the Medicare program, and many experts noted that this piece of legislation may open the door for universal health care. (Callahan, 2006, p. 29) Obviously this never happened, and America has maintained the status quo since.

Another side effect of the Medicare program is that it had extreme costs to the government, which Callahan believes has caused many within government to shun any sort of grand expenditure such as universal health care. (2006, p. 29) The battle between whether small implementation or extreme implementation of a socialized health care system is needed has been at the forefront of the health care debate. Many experts believe small increments in the government’s socialization will be beneficial, but Callahan suggests that according to Canada’s model only a grand implementation will solve the health care problem and small increments will do little to alleviate the crisis that is occurring right now. (2006, p. 29) According to Callahan, America needs a major overhaul and needs to look north to Canada for the ideal health care system.

It appears that without this major change, America’s health care crisis will continue to grow to astronomical proportions. The American health care system is in a crisis and needs a change. Canada’s system appears to be better for the patient. A study into Canada’s system is essential in understanding how the policies would affect the United States. Conclusion The success of the Canadian universal health care system demonstrates how America should switch to a universal-style system as soon as possible. The deteriorating state of the health care system in America illustrates how the American free-enterprise system does not work and does not provide adequate care, access, and lower costs.

Writing Quality

Grammar mistakes

F (57%)

Synonyms

B (86%)

Redundant words

F (41%)

Originality

88%

Readability

F (39%)

Total mark

D

Read more

Ethiopian Health Care System

Table of contents

Introduction

1. Dinition of User Fee

User fee health care defined as the mandatory and voluntary levies imposed on a person for consumption of goods or services in governmental or private health institution .In other words it is the amount of money levied on individuals for the use of goods and services from which they receive special benefits (Duff, 2004).

2. Aim of the Essay

The aim of the essay is to show briefly the Ethiopian health care system and the implementation of an increased user fee for health services in governmental health institutions. The secondly, I will mention some points in the importance negative and positive effect of user for Ethiopian health care. Finally, I will mention some recommendation that the Ethiopian government should incorporate in the national health care plan of the country.

Back ground Information
Global History

The Private or voluntary health insurance first started in Europe in the early eighteenth century. In the nineteenth century, private insurance had expanded throughout Europe and spread to North and South America. The social or compulsory insurance was introduced in Germany for industrial workers in 1883, building on the existing voluntary procedures coverage was later extended to family members, their employees and pensioners. Payroll –based social insurance system developed steadily in Europe, and later in Latin America and Asia. The current health finance system in African countries highly related to the health care finance system of colonizing country in the past.

Epidemiological health transition from communicable disease to non-communicable disease, 56% of all deaths in the world was from non-communicable disease. These are unevenly distributed among different social classes. None communicable disease was account for 34% of the deaths in the poorest 20% of the world population as compared to 85% among the richest. This indicates that inexpensive effective interventions against communicable diseases still have a high priority in improving the health of the poor.

Recessions: the negative effect of structural adjustment program , rising international debts resulted in severe resource shortage for health care systems in many low-income countries in late 1989(Yates 2009), public budget cut , decline in quality and quantity of health care , underpayment of staff and patient dissatisfaction. Prevalence of malnutrition increased in most developing countries and infant mortality rise despite steady improvement during the previous decade (Stewart 1989).

In 1987 UNICEF and WHO launched the Bamako initiative , a strategy aimed to improve maternal health and reduce infant mortality in low income countries through a re-organization of primary health care system and drug distribution (Kanji 1989). World Bank in 1987 financing health service in developing countries: Agenda for reform which is based on introduction of user fee to cover 20% of health expenditure. The revenue will be used to improve health service, as a means of additional revenue generation, to reduce unnecessary demand , to increase peoples responsibility for their health and to increase rural health care for marginalized population by the revenue.

3. Ethiopia background

Ethiopia

Ethiopia is one of the least developed countries in the world with low developmental indicators even the least from in sub-Saharan countries. Ethiopia is 171th out of 182 countries in the world with a value of 0.414 human development indexes which is a composite measure of three dimensions of human developmental indicators: life expectancy, education and GDP per capita. According to 2009 UNDP estimate, 44.2 percent of the population lives below the poverty line of under $1.25 per capita per day (UNDP 2009). The number of people living under poverty is expected to rise due the progressive global economic crisis and the country`s increasing population growth. Ethiopia has the worst health outcomes in the world with high under 5-mortality with a value of 166 per 1.000 and maternal mortality rates with a value of 850 per 100,000 (WHO 2009).

User fee in Ethiopia

Ethiopia health care has been predominantly public until recently with the change in the political policy of the country as democratic and free market. Currently almost half of the health care institutions are privately owned hospital and clinics. Until recently the cost of health care user fee in governmental institutions from out pocket was only 15% but now the cost is increased to 85% of total cost an individual health care consumption .The democratic government has under taken important steps to improve the population`s health status and to make health care more efficient and accessible for everybody. Some improvement in population health indicator such as immunization coverage and slight decline in malnutrition rates since 2006 the protection of basic services program. Nevertheless per capital public spending for health remain far below the average from sub-Saharan Africa. Insufficient equipment and a shortage of health a workers plus strong biases towards curative services and little involvement from the private sector and NGO. The condition further exacerbated by high population growth with an annual growth rate of 2.7 %( 2005-2010 , UNDP 2009). User fee at health care facility thus remain an important feature to generate resource from heavily underfunded health sector. The minister of health is currently considering national health care scheme.

Positive Argument

Ethiopia has been using user fee for health care service many decades to share the cost health care at least 15% of an individual total cost of health care. Since the last decade due to global economic inflation and lack of resources to cover the cost of public health care cost , the government increased the health care cost to 75%. This is very important to increase economic efficiency where by scarce resources are allocated to their most valuable uses both within the public sector and between the private and public sectors. The levied charge enhance the accountability of public sector , making it more responsive to differing preferences and changes in the demand for publicly provided goods and services as well as cost recovery and increased equity . The idea of benefit taxation is applied based on the principle of fairness as every payer pays only for the goods and services that they use.

A case of efficiency can be made if the revenue from user fee are channelled into provision of good quality care, increased availability of drugs , and prompt services which should mitigate the negative effects created by lack of access to quality care . Implementation of user fee has a minimal undesirable effect but these could themselves reinforce the adverse effect of user fees which is suffered by the poor. In Africa specifically, the bulk of the problem is financing health care for the poor and predominately rural dwelling. The poor are more sensitive to price changes but not to say health care should be free. In competitive market every economic agent should face their marginal cost of their action. In case health care, health care is a right, a necessity and has externality.

The use of community health insurance or prepayment schemes have been found to be viable even from experience in parts of Africa , further viable into the broader perspective of national health insurance schemes or microfinance institutions . The idea of universal coverage likely to increase access of the poor to health care most especially when cross subsidization is possible. Internal private bargain such that achievable the Coase theorem such that demand for heath care does not depend of the distribution of income. This is more related to social solidarity which is very likely to produce valuable results in the African setting.

Non-monetary access costs such as travel time are important determinants of health care choices. The geographical distribution of services may make access more difficult for some groups. The revenue can be re-invested to reduce non-monetary access costs and consequently minimize consumer’s welfare loss.

The elimination of user fee in some African countries was driven by political motivation for vote maximization (William Nordus submission).

Counter Argument

Experience in some African countries such as Uganda, user fee abruptly removed in 2001, South Africa in 1994 during the period of transition to democracy has led others similar countries such as Rwanda , Zambia , Brundi, Democratic Republic of Congo and Niger to implement similar reforms though on selected facilities or services showed increased utilization of public services and women are also likely to benefit from reduction in user fees.

The implementation of user fee may impose heavier burden on the poor who are most likely to face a higher burden of disease (Nyanator 2009 and Kutzin). It contradicts the very purpose for which public provision was intended and budgetary flexibility will be limited where revenues are ear marked to health expenditure on the publicly provided health services from which the revenue are derived . The presence of user fee can cause sustained decrease in health care service utilization by the poor and middle income family. The attitude individuals towards user fees can adversely impact on government revenue as well as their political viability.

The economic theory based on efficiency, marginal value of user fee in public must exceed private(Duff,2009). In early 1980 studies showed that price may not important determinant of demand late studies showed prices may have a significant negative impact of demand for health care especially in developing counties and on the poor. The poor are very sensitive to small changes to price even for health care . Strong link between health and poverty which could lead to medical poverty trap phenomena. The poor who already cannot afford to use private health care services due to high cost can no longer afford to use public . This leads to untreated morbidity, reduced access to health care, longer-term impoverishment and irrational drug use. Evidence further showed increased inequalities associated with user fees.

The actors of Ethiopian health care system are the World bank , WHO, UNICEF , the people, government , NGOs, , community leaders, politician and others. Ethiopian government health care has been using very low cost sharing 15% user fee for long period of time but recently due to the structural adjustment program most of the government health care units increased their user fee to 70% from the total cost. The government only covers 30% of the cost of health by covering only the salary of the health worker. All governmental health institutions charge 70% of the total individual health care cost which used as revenue to improve the quality of care and buying medical equipment and other running cost of the health institutions. The user fee in governmental health care units as expensive as the private health care cost which has maginillized the poor and rural dwelling people. The effect of user in poor society has been worse specially for mother and children as they are frequent user of the health care.

Recommendations

Health care financing remain a challenge in most low and middle income countries where disease burdens are high due to HIV/AIDS and rising prevalence of non-communicable diseases, scarce resources and constantly competing priority on the public budget (Gottret and Schieber 2006). Out of pocket payments for health care continue to be an important source for revenue for underfunded health system in many developing countries like Ethiopia.

Ethiopia has a long history and tradition for user fee for health services and it is in this aspect very different from most of the developing countries that introduced fees in the 1980s.Most of Ethiopian have never experienced free health care in their adult life. . User fees are seen as a financial barrier to healthcare usage, especially by poor households. Delayed or no medical care-seeking behaviours or inability to undergo the recommended hospital care due to high cost in government or private hospitals.

The government should try to encourage already existing social sickness fund system which traditional called “Eders”. In traditional Eder , the members will pay monthly fee which will used if someone lose his family by death for grief and financial stability. Sickness fund(Eder) is another type of social insurance system which is accepted and sustainable method if it is given special focus by the government in controlling how it works and expanding nationwide to protect household from impoverishment in case of major health events. Another alternative is Ethiopia should develop national health insurance system by means health tax from individual household.

Read more

A New Health Care System

Presently, the United States health care system is experiencing plentiful challenges ranging from staff shortage, overcrowding of emergency departments, and high cost of medical care to limited access for the unfortunate in the community. Signs that the system is going to collapse are almost everywhere, from hospitals overflowing with underinsured people to film laboratories unable […]

Read more

Health Care System in Korea

Health Care System in South Korea. Health Care system can be defined as the care and service which is been given to any individual by the help of medical and health related professionals. Health care also means to treat, manage and prevent the health of all humans. Health care is an important aspect of life […]

Read more
OUR GIFT TO YOU
15% OFF your first order
Use a coupon FIRST15 and enjoy expert help with any task at the most affordable price.
Claim my 15% OFF Order in Chat
Close

Sometimes it is hard to do all the work on your own

Let us help you get a good grade on your paper. Get professional help and free up your time for more important courses. Let us handle your;

  • Dissertations and Thesis
  • Essays
  • All Assignments

  • Research papers
  • Terms Papers
  • Online Classes
Live ChatWhatsApp