Health Care For Public And Private Segments Alike

The dysfunction of the American health care system implies that not everyone has access to the right medication and medical treatment. Middle-class families and chronically ill patients do not always have access to health care, and when they do they do not receive adequate treatment with regards to hospitalization and medical services or quality of service. The lack of payment reform results in

Patients with long-term, chronic illnesses like Mr. Davis’s, care can be very costly, especially when the patient is unable to maintain routine medical care or visits and medications. Without routine medical care and maintenance medications, patients like Mr. Davis tend to have more frequent emergency room visits and hospitalizations; increasing costs for state and local government as well as tax payers. Though Mr. Davis is able to receive care during an emergency room visit, the providers are not fully aware of his health history and are only able to provide a temporary fix of his symptoms and not address his health care needs.

In the current U.S. system the free market prevails and companies, in this case, major insurance providers “compete” for business. This competitive business approach should in theory drive costs down. For some reason, however, an argument can be made that it has produced the opposite result in profiteering. The nation’s largest insurer, UnitedHealth, boasted over a 10 percent revenue increase in 2013 according to Forbes (2013). Health insurance affordability contributes to the disparity in access to health care, as evidenced by the fact that there are millions that are still uncovered. A greater majority of certain minorities lack both health insurance and the financial resource to seek out either health care or insurance. While insurance companies reap huge profits the percent of private sector companies offering health insurance has dropped to less than 50 percent (Kaiser, 2013). There is decidedly a lack of coordination of care for this at risk population as well, since treatment is rendered sporadically and with continuously changing providers. The last major challenge is that of improving the quality of health care. According to a 2010 report by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (OIG), an estimated 13.5 percent of Medicare beneficiaries experienced adverse events during their hospital stay and an additional 13.5 percent experienced a temporary

The single most important impetus for healthcare reform throughout recent history has been rising costs (Sultz, 2006). In the book called The healing of America: a global quest for better, cheaper, and fairer health care, Reid wrote that the nation’s health care system has become excessively expensive, ineffective, and unjust. Among the world’s developed nations, the US ranks near the bottom for healthcare access and quality. However, the US ranks at the top for health expenditure as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and average of $7,400 per person (Reid, 2010). Therefore, Americans are spending

Healthcare in the United States has reached a level of complexity which has perplexed Presidents, Congressional members and private industry for over a century (Palmer, 1999). While the healthcare system has evolved over the last century, policy decisions which have attempted to effectuate changes to cost, quality and access have been

Substandard quality of health care is duly recognized as a major form of medical crises with potential to jeopardize the functioning and purpose of the American health care system. Whereas on the one hand medical costs of treatment are rising, on the other malpractices and non compliance on the part of medical professionals and institutions compounds the problem and seriously questions the quality of health care being provided to citizens. However, before proceeding further it is important to understand what is exactly meant by the substandard quality of care. The substandard quality of

Total health care spending in 1975 consumed about 8 percent of the U.S economy in 1975. Today it accounts for nearly 16 percent of the gross domestic product and is projected to reach nearly 20 percent by 2016 (Orszag, 2007). One of the reasons for rising health care costs is due to costly new medical technologies. Some of these new medical advancements allow for physicians to treat previously untreatable conditions. It is unclear as to whether these new options are cost effective. Most people believe that more expensive care equates to better health care. There is significant evidence to support that more expensive care does not necessarily mean higher-quality care. This suggests that there may be an opportunity to reduce health care spending without impairing outcomes The most compelling evidence of that opportunity comes from the substantial geographic differences in spending on health care within the United States-and the fact that they do not translate into higher life expectancy or measured

Improving the access and affordability of health insurance coverage for all Americans should be a primary concern for those who help create the laws of the land. At this date, there are roughly 44 million Americans without any type of healthcare coverage. Another 38 million people have inadequate health insurance (PBS, 2012). What this all means is that the people who need it the most are putting off seeing a doctor until last moment and then usually end up visiting an emergency room. If they cannot pay for the visit, the cost of that ER visit falls back on the taxpayers, people who have health

United States has no dearth of highly qualified, well-trained doctors and still the US healthcare quality fails to meet the established industry benchmarks. Institute of Medicine’s (IOM’s) 2001 Report, “Crossing the Quality Chasm”, clearly states that the American healthcare delivery system is in need of a pivotal change. (Committee on Quality of Healthcare in America (Institute of Medicine), 2001). The exasperation level is continuously rising amongst both, the patients and the providers, and yet the problem of delivering and receiving high quality care remains unaffected. In order to address this problem of healthcare quality improvement and affordability, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA or Obamacare) was signed in the year 2010. The main aim behind PPACA is to improve healthcare quality and accessibility, at the same time keeping it cost efficient. To facilitate its goal PPACA is trying to achieve the cost effectiveness through reducing the Medicare price growth and regulating the quantity of care by encouraging evidence based practices. This new legislation supports the healthcare system in which the goals of both provider and the patients are better aligned with value as opposed to the quantity of services. Overall the reform under PPACA seeks to establish a direct link between the payments made to the healthcare

In Canada, a lot of debate has been raised in the last few years over the issue of "two-tier" healthcare. The public system is struggling, and there is a debate going on over whether or not private hospitals should be permitted. Universal healthcare is very cherished in Canada, but conservatives argue that introducing a private system will improve the burden on the public system. Those who oppose say that the creation of a two-tier system will result in one system that is better then the other, attracting the best doctors and the best equipment, and that those who can't afford private or do not wish to pay will only be able to obtain second-rate healthcare. Why should Canadians not have choices regarding the time, place, and nature of

The government plays an integral part in refining population well-being worth and protection in the United States such as reducing medical errors and enhancing patient safety. The government is in forefront for the procurement and delivery of health care, overseers for health care marketplaces, and safeguard admittance to superiority up-keep for the susceptible population who cannot afford health care. The government’s obligation to safeguard and innovate the concern of society comprises the distribution of quality health care. In concern that marketplace unaided cannot certify totally Americans admittance to superiority health care, the government must uphold the curiosity of its inhabitants by augmenting the marketplaces wherever there are holes and modify the marketplaces wherever there is an inadequacy and injustice. The government backs innovative health technology procurement for practice purposes,

In McAllen, home to the United States’ highest healthcare costs, many citizens do not consume nutritious food and do not follow preventive medicine. However, this does not explain the high healthcare costs because El Paso, a city with public health measures similar to those of McAllen, spends about half as much. The high cost of healthcare in McAllen, despite the advanced technology used in hospitals, does not suggest that it offers superior services. The fact of the matter is that there is overutilization of medicine in McAllen, and thus Medicare spends exorbitant amounts of money per capita. Upon investigating the reason behind this, author Atul Gawande claims that the high costs in McAllen are attributed to doctors who see patients as a source of profit. Although doctors like this exist in many parts of the country such as in El Paso, a majority of McAllen’s doctors seem to be driven by profit maximization rather than the needs of the patient. As a result, they order more tests and perform procedures even when they are not essential. Rather than focusing on patient education and prevention strategies, a large percentage of McAllen’s doctors focus on medical procedures. That is, healthcare in McAllen is primarily based on the biomedical model, and avoids the holistic approach.

Health care costs in the United States account for a large portion of the national expenditure. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), per capita national health expenditures totaled $9,255 and total national health care expenditures totaled $2.9 trillion in 2013 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013).

Many other countries around the world have free healthcare provided by the government, I think that this is the way that it should be in the United States as well. I still see a place for the private healthcare industry, but I think that basic healthcare should be free and provided by the government. If people want more than the most basic coverage (i.e. the government pays for the cheapest option), then the difference should be paid out of pocket or by a supplemental healthcare provider, if you pay for one. I think that the affordable healthcare act is a step in the right direction, but I would rather see the government provide basic coverage at no cost to all legal citizens.

Private health insurance covers 44% of the Australian population. The percentage is one of the highest among the OECD countries. PHI coverage first declined in 1984 after the introduction of Medicare, which offered free hospitalization in the public health facilities and subsidized medical care. The decline continued until 1990 where it hit lows of 30% of the population down from 50% in 1984. The decline was attributed to the rise in the confidence of the universal coverage system ad increase in PHI premiums. However, the trend was reversed in 1996 after a series of initiatives by the policy makers. Consequently, the percentage of coverage rose from 30% in 1999 to 45% in 2001 (Cromwell, 2002, p, 73). The graph below shows the increase in the number of private insured persons since 1995.