Improving the Health Care System - Essay Example

Improving the Health Care System The healthcare system of the United s is themost complicated and costliest in the world; but its quality is not the best. Care is incompetent—there is an imbalance between effectiveness and cost of care. The American healthcare system is unsafe for patients who, when confined to hospitals, have roughly 4% probability of suffering an untoward incident brought about by medical management; it is also unsafe for healthcare providers (Persaud & Nestman 268). However, possibly, the most obvious and felt inadequacy of the American healthcare system is its being inequitable compared to other developed countries. The United States is the sole leading developed country that does not insure its people through a health financing scheme (Waldman & Yourstone 232). These abovementioned major problems are widespread. They are observed in every form of care provided in the U.S., namely, end-of-life, chronic, acute, and preventive (Nash & Goldfarb 49). It would be logical to assume that with all these issues the future of the American healthcare system must be discouraging. However, there are still reasons to believe that the nation’s healthcare system can be improved. National surveys reveal that the American people agree fully to the restructuring of the healthcare system or reforming its core weaknesses (Richards & Coast 175). This essay discusses the possible measures that could improve the healthcare system. Strengthening a Weak Healthcare System One of the most important measures to improve the quality of the healthcare system is assigning bigger responsibility to all stakeholders, such as the government, healthcare workers, insurers, employers, and consumers. Bigger efforts have to be initiated to make care more patient-centered and promote the involvement of the patients in the care given to them. To actually accomplish the concept of patient-centered health care it is not sufficient to merely place larger financial responsibility on the shoulders of consumers (Lighter 92). They also have to receive important and prompt information about the health care that they are entitled to obtain so that they can totally accept the principle of being in charge of their own health and medical requirements. In order to be effective, “that information needs to be authoritative, easily accessible, easy to understand and to act on, and personalized” (Nash & Goldfarb 10). So as to have patient-centered healthcare system, information technology (IT) should also be applied in delivering health care. It is thought that the Internet will revolutionize how health care is provided. IT has the capability to give patients and healthcare providers better access to healthcare information, allow more open and effective communication between patients and healthcare providers, prevent medical errors, and allow larger amount of information to be obtained in the medical checkup (Nash & Goldfarb 11). Until the benefits of IT are exploited, the American healthcare system will remain insufficient and weak. Better accountability and transparency among healthcare companies and healthcare workers have to be promoted and realized. Patients must be well-informed for them to make appropriate choices when deciding what health plan to receive, hospitals to go into, and healthcare providers (Persaud & Nestman 266). This implies that the quality of healthcare given by healthcare providers and hospitals should be identifiable and communicated to consumers and patients. The measures must be derived from standards and rules for care and delivery that are developed from universal consensus and are broadly recognized. Creating standards and rules of care will require the involvement and collaboration of numerous stakeholders and groups; if possible, the federal government will accept a major responsibility since it is the sole body that can successfully control, encourage, and guide all involved parties (Richards & Coast 174). This concept of enhanced accountability and transparency is transforming the healthcare system. A more direct and open dialogue about medical errors with consumers, patients, and among healthcare workers is required. This will create a favorable setting that not just permits vital information to be obtained from errors but also builds the conditions for correct measures to be implemented to reduce their frequency (Waldman & Yourstone 231). Furthermore, a direct and straightforward discussion of mistakes with patients will create better trust in the healthcare system and will allow the patient to be involved in the improvement of patient care. Financial incentives from payers and consumers should be more appropriately positioned and supported to really promote, instead of prevent, quality upgrades in the healthcare system. Health plans that offer pay-for-performance chances align the demands of consumers and healthcare providers (Lighter 58). Such plans have to ability to enhance productivity and promote reduction of costs than can afterward be transferred to consumers through lower premiums while simultaneously showing to consumers that they are acquiring greater value for their money. From the point of view of the healthcare provider, these financial motivations will reinforce the delivery of evidence-based health care (Richards & Coast 173). A larger number of healthcare providers have to become associated with leadership activities, especially decision making. Of all the members of the healthcare system, the decisions of the physician are believed to affect the biggest part of healthcare outcomes. Hence, making physicians leaders will result in reforms in procedures and practice and, in consequence, enhance quality. Moreover, physicians with expertise in both business and medicine can bring together the medical and administrative aspects of health, which will then result in advances in the quality of health care provided (Nash & Goldfarb 29). Nevertheless, the improvement of the healthcare system totally requires the involvement of all stakeholders, such as public health program officers, hospital managers, nurses, and others. Simply then, can an effort be initiated in tackling and repairing the inadequacies of the present system. In the meantime, the outcomes of being insufficiently insured or not insured are quite widely recognized. Those who are not insured are more prone to admit going without required medical service; not seeking clinical checkup or follow-up visit due to expenses; not obtaining a needed procedure or test; and not following prescriptions (Nash & Goldfarb 13). They are less probable to obtain preventive procedures, and less probable to acquire maintenance services for their chronic illnesses. In addition, they are likely to incur huge medical expenses, or suffer from impoverishment because of sustained medical expenses (Persaud & Nestman 265). The vision for resolving this problem in health insurance would be to improve current providers of group coverage to promote affordability and easy access to coverage. Many policymakers have presented recommendations to expand and improve access to health insurance. Although recommendations are different in the degree to which they depend on extension of public programs or private insurance services and the amount of funding allocated to resolving the issue, there are points of agreement. Public programs are largely supported for low-income individuals, whereas private insurance is supported for those with higher incomes (Lighter 85). Funding is in line with income, offering the highest protection to those not insured and have low income. Most recommendations would keep employer-funded coverage, and certain proposals would promote greater affordability of coverage by renewing coverage for those with huge costs. Some states have also made practical attempts to extend health insurance coverage. Rhode Island has extended its RIte Care program to insure poor parents and their children, and has offered financial encouragements and criterion to promote managed care plans taking part in the effort to enhance quality of health care (Nash & Goldfarb 13-14). Minnesota has organized and consolidated five independent programs to attain almost universal coverage. California has endorsed an employer obligation statute to oblige major companies to insure employees. Maine has put into effect a Dirigo Health Plan to lower the cost of coverage for those without insurance and small businesses (Nash & Goldfarb 14). Attaining affordable and involuntary health insurance for everyone necessitates collective effort among payers, consumers, providers, and patients. Effectively resolving issues with access can contribute in tackling various quality-of-care aspects, such as patient-centeredness and equity, also promptness of care. Resolving the issue of cost-related access demands guaranteeing that every American is sufficiently and continuously insured, and that privileges are adequately inclusive to prevent financial hindrances to care; at least, privileges must comprise emergency dental care, prescription drugs, mental health, acute and chronic care, and preventive care (Lighter 72). Cutting down wait times demands quite different methods. For instance, findings show that the most probable cause of overcrowding in emergency rooms is not too much demand but instead incompetent management of operations somewhere else in the hospital, resulting in congestion of patients in the emergency room (Richards & Coast 176). These issues can be resolved by using systems engineering rules and methods. Surprisingly, even though numerous hospitals plan of expanding their emergency room, this strategy is less encouraging. In fact, an outcome of expanded emergency rooms without remedying the core operations engineering issues in healthcare organizations can merely be to raise the number of people waiting in the emergency room for inpatient care (Lighter 104), which is an unfavorable condition for providing the care that ordinary hospital admissions require. Conclusions The important measures to improve the healthcare system, which have been discussed in this paper, are affordable and involuntary health insurance coverage for everybody; accessible healthcare services for everybody; patient-centered health care; persistent improvement motivated by proper incentives and made possible by a labor force that is experienced, informed, and knowledgeable in the strategies of quality enhancement; information-oriented health care; an empowered, motivated workforce; and, involvement of all stakeholders (e.g. hospital administrators, healthcare providers, consumers, patients, etc). Works Cited Lighter, Donald. Advanced Performance Improvement in Health Care: Principles and Methods. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2010. Print. Nash, David & Neil Goldfarb. The Quality Solution: The Stakeholder’s Guide to Improving Health Care. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2006. Print. Persaud, D. David & Lawrence Nestman. “The utilization of systematic outcome mapping to improve performance management in health care,” Health Services Management Research, 19.4 (2006): 264-276. Print. Richards, Suzanne & Joanna Coast. “Interventions to improve access to health and social care after discharge from hospital: a systematic review,” Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 8.3 (2003): 171-179. Print. Waldman, J. Deane & Steven Yourstone. “Learning- the only way to improve health-care outcomes,” Health Services Management Research 20.4 (2007): 227-237. Print. Read More