Australia As A World Class National Pharmaceutical Reimbursement Scheme

The Australian healthcare system has been evolving since the beginning of the colonisation of Australia. Today, Australia has an extremely efficient healthcare system although it still has several issues. The influencing factors, structure, and current issues of the Australian healthcare system will be throughly discussed and explained in this essay.

The following paper is based on the differences between two healthcare systems in two different countries, these systems are the Australian healthcare system which is Medicare, and England’s National health system which is known as the NHS.

The Australian health care system is a highly functioning and accessible system based on universal principles of access and equity. In this essay I will discuss the historical evolution and current structure of our health system, identifying current health service models of delivery and look at its strengths, weaknesses, policies and health priorities currently in Australia. I will discuss the roles of government and non-government health services in service provision and funding sources of Australian health. We will get a better insight of the role of standards for residential aged care and look into a broad range of professions that consumers may engage with in health service delivery, their roles and functions of each profession.

"In the past two decades or so, health care has been commercialized as never before, and professionalism in medicine seems to be giving way to entrepreneurialism," commented Arnold S. Relman, professor of medicine and social medicine at Harvard Medical School (Wekesser 66). This statement may have a great deal of bearing on reality. The tangled knot of insurers, physicians, drug companies, and hospitals that we call our health system are not as unselfish and focused on the patients' needs as people would like to think. Pharmaceutical companies are particularly ruthless, many of them spending millions of dollars per year to convince doctors to prescribe their drugs and to convince consumers that their specific brand of drug is needed in

Since 1984, Canada has established a publicly funded healthcare system through the provisions of the “Canada Health Act,” which states that the objective of Canadian health care policy is to “facilitate reasonable access to health services without financial or other barriers” (“Canada Health Act” 1). However, many Canadians feel Canada’s healthcare system is financially restricting. This system does not cover many prescription drugs or speciality drugs, which are needed for 41% of Canadian citizens aged 6-79 years old (Rotterman, Michelle et al. 1). This excludes elderly citizens who require even more medications. According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information it is estimated the provincial and territorial governments spent $10.4 billion on prescription medications in 2014 (Matteo, Livio Di 2).

Brian became aware of his testicular cancer five years ago. Despite insurance, Brian still owed thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs. Over the course of three years, he built relationships with nurses, doctors, and the hospital staff during treatments and follow up appointments. Without warning or explanation, the insurance company no longer accepted his hospital as a provider under their plans. He doubted any other hospital staff could provide the physical and emotional support his previous providers gave and wondered how to replace the people who had been there during the toughest times of his life (Salmon). The current health care system in America affects people physically, emotionally, and financially. “Costs are enormous, yet Americans do not fare better, and often fare worse, than citizens in countries which spend substantially less on health care” (Cicconi).

Although Canadians were largely supportive of the proposed national pharmacare plan, most said they would be concerned if their current private plan was replaced by a national pharmacare program with less coverage, if it increased costs to governments because patients use more prescription drugs than they do now, and of the ability of governments to administer the plan efficiently and effectively - these concerns will later be covered in the ethics section (Canadian Pharmacists Association, 2015).  Many political parties, like the Liberals and NDP, have realized the significance of universal drug coverage to the point that they have included it in campaign promises for both federal and provincial elections. The NDP has even introduced a motion in the House of Commons that gives the Liberal government one year to begin negotiations with the provinces in order to implement universal pharmaceutical drug coverage for all Canadians.  Additionally, both parties’ Ontario provincial election campaigns prominently feature contrasting pharmacare plans: the NDP will offer universal coverage but is limited to 125 medications deemed essential by an independent committee with the commitment to expand the coverage over time as savings are realized, while the Liberals have introduced improvements to the Ontario Drug Plan to cover over 4,400 drugs for the province's four million children and young adults (Fraser, 2017).

Anyone who has purchased prescription medications has probably wondered why they cost so much, and rightfully so. Medication prices in the United States have been on a steady increase for decades, however, prices have been drastically increasing as of recent. Pharmaceutical companies have tried to justify these price increases due to the demand, the high cost of research, and the high costs of development and approval. Notwithstanding, the extent to which the prices have increased is not justifiable. Americans should be against these high medication prices and take action because pharmaceutical companies are taking advantage of our healthcare system in order to capitalize from the sick. In order shed some light on this issue, the magnitude, scope, and consequences of these prices must be examined.

In The Cost of Living, Stephen Hall discusses the astronomical prices of cancer drugs, from those that are proven to save lives, to those that may provide only another month and a half of decent life. In America we have this idea that you cannot put a price on life, and this is the idea that Hall is trying to throw out the window, in the most humanitarian way possible.

Furthermore, DH has also included bowel, lung, bladder & kidney, oesophagus, gastric and ovarian cancers. Significant expands in unprompted consciousness of manifestations around the intended interest group, and a huge expansion of give or take 30% in two week sit tight referrals for suspected lung growth in the battle months, which thus prompted greatly positive changes in the amount of cancer diagnosed, stage and medicine of lung cancer inside the fight period(NHS England, 2013) This initiative is partly provoked by the political agenda to save £20bn in the NHS over four years (Department of Health, January 2011). Interestingly, it is a biomedical approach which comes under the umbrella of public health interventions which deals with media campaigns and mass screening. On the other hand, the government assures the public of a psychosocial approach for public health, reducing and filtering the effects and causes of ill health upstream (DH, November 2010). There is a government’s White Paper outlining strategies and the approach “equity and excellence liberating the nhs, 2010” for cancer in UK.

This book refers a single point that all cancer patients die because of poor medical care. According to author neither rich nor poor are getting close to optimum care considered by him. He says rich suffer from over medicating and unnecessary treatment while poor suffer from inability to access health care. Brawley’s efforts to address the workings of the “cancer industry” and the ways in which it fails patients. This, to me, is the real

Cancer is figured to be the second leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. With approximately 14 million new cases and 8.2 million cancer related deaths in 2012, alone .Why are so many people stuck suffering with this deadly disease? Millions of dollars have been invested into cancer research, yet there is no cure. Are these pharmaceutical companies focus on finding a cure for cancer or concentrating on elongated treatments in order to lengthen their pockets? We must first understand that cancer is big business earning huge profits. Nonetheless, the cancer industry is spending virtually zilch of its multi-billion dollar resources on effective prevention strategies, like dietary guidelines, exercise, natural remedies and herbs proven to cure cancer. Instead, it pours its money into treating cancer, not preventing or allaying it.

Cancer. We all know someone who has suffered from it or has passed away because of it. Cancer now affects one in every three people, and is the second highest cause of death in the United States. For decades, the medical community has been on the hunt for a cure for cancer, and have been subjected to intense ridicule from the public because of a lack of progression toward a possible cure. In recent years, many scientists, doctors, researchers, and the general public have come to believe that the cure for cancer is being suppressed because of this lack of progress. Those who say it is suppressed claim that the drugs used to treat cancer actually cause cancer, making a patient sicker and sicker. As a result, the patients are forced to spend

The cost of new medical drugs seems to be accepted by many people who use them. These pharmaceutical companies increase their profits more and more each year because many people assume that it does cost a lot of money for research and development. Where in reality, they are only spending about 15% of their profit margins on research and development alone. A huge percentage of these drugs are actually tested in other countries where people are more willing to do trials with these drugs because they cannot afford them. Not only are there more people who are more willing to try them, but also there is less regulation and oversight when it comes to testing. Conducting these clinical trials overseas not only saves

Written about the structure and culture of biomedical heath care and a society that is attempting to prolong aging, Medicare funding, funding and development of research, and today’s definition of standard care, Sharon Kaufman brings to light the many dilemmas posed to the American health care system. Her ethnographic story, Ordinary Medicine: Extraordinary Treatments, Longer Lives and Where to Draw the Line reveals the booming biomedical research and clinical trials industry, the power held by Medicare and private insurance, and a rapidly changing standard of care once a medical treatment is considered reimbursable. This leads to systematic changes in the standard of care result in a massive amount of pressure being placed upon doctors, patients and families to make an ethically and medically sound decision in refusing or accepting therapy. Kaufman exposes the driving forces behind the expansion of biomedicine, society’s response to the growing industry on a personal and bureaucratic level.