Health and Social Care on the Canadian Health System - Report Example

Health and Social Care Name Institutional Affiliation Introduction Does human life have an economic value? Some may dispute that and term it as disrespect to the human kind, while some may uphold and implicate the thought terming it as reasonable. This paper critically analyses the importance of cost benefit analysis in resource allocation in public health service and products. It also takes a look on the Canadian health system. Some people criticize the system of being a social one. However, the foundations for such a system were based on the greater good of the whole society and better health system in the country (Henderson, 1997). As time went by, the system became flawed due to various reasons. This paper discusses the pros and cons of the system and suggests the reforms to be taken to better the system. The glory of the Canadian health system can be restored if adequate measures are taken to correct the mistakes made. Keywords: Canada Health Act (CHA), Activity Based Funding (ABF) Health and Social Care Cost Benefit Analysis in Resource Allocation The cost-benefit analysis is the critical valuation of a project or program to assess its importance and weigh its pros and cons to the society and to the business itself. This method of valuation of a program or project is fundamental as it assists in carrying out meaningful businesses and also in decision making (Brent, 2003). Many entrepreneurs are taking that as an initiative for the basis of decision making. This is because, some government agencies have benefitted from the cost-benefit analysis showing some consistency in the decisions based on the analysis. However, health care is important and a crucial need for all human beings. One may think he or she does not need the care but in real sense we cannot do without it. Since the public and all need health care, there are those who need it more. Therefore, there has to be an evaluation on how to administer the service (Rechel and Mckee, 2014). The methodology used is well established, and the transparency that is put into practice makes the decisions precise and sensible (Livermore and Ravesz 2013). Also, if the returns to scale are not constant, thus the decision on incremental cost-benefit ratio will not be optimal. Health status is upgraded and also through cost-benefit analysis the healthcare cost is saved. For such, there are stages that are fundamental in the implementation of the analysis in the healthcare realm. First, there has to be a problem or outcome from the society for which there is a ready solution from the population. After that, there is the testing of the ability of the treatment for work to be able to terminate the problem. Thirdly, is the valuation of the proposal. In this stage, there is the application of the economic theories and other tools that would help to value and weigh the proposal (Frick et al., 2012). The fourth stage is time. In this stage, there is discounting and also due to technological change, there is accounting for the possibilities in the technological field. The fifth stage is the net benefits calculation. This stage is mostly based on two theories; the theory of the calculation and the theory of design making. In this stage, the profit and the positive outcome of the project or proposal are gotten. This hence ushers in the final stage that is choosing which program to uphold or the treatment to fund (Frick et al., 2012). Due to this, many health care institutions now concentrate more on prevention rather than cure. This is because prevention is less expensive than curing a disease. Therefore if there is a problem or a disease outbreak, through cost-benefit allocation of resources, much spending will be in prevention of the disease from spreading to other places and infecting more people (Brent, 2006). For example, diseases like cancer. In comparison to a person who undergoes cancer screening and one who undergoes therapeutic methods because he or she has already developed cancer. Screening and early mammography of cancer are way cheaper than radiation of an already developed cancer problem. The cost-benefit analysis also has life valuation when it comes to the health sector (Ryan and Amaya 2008). For example, it holds that substance abusers lives should be viewed as being less than non-abusers. Also, people who got HIV from drug injections are viewed as less than those who got HIV from other contracting means. In addition, young people are viewed greater than older people (Ratcliff et al., 2012). However, some may find this as sacrilegious to human lives. But thus, it is of great importance to note that some people do need special attention than others. The immunity of one cannot be the same as the other for example; more resources and medical attention should be given to the disabled than the fully abled people (Haddix, 1996). Besides, young people should be tended to first or be preferred compared to older people, since they have a weaker immunity. Strengths and weaknesses of the public health system in Canada. The system of health care in Canada is known as the “single player system”. In this system, there is a federal government that act as the overseer of the whole health system. It also offers guidance and gives additional funding to the hospitals. Much of the governance is provided at the provincial level by the provincial governments (Detsky and Naylor 2003). In Canada, hospitals are viewed as self-depended non-business entities that are governed by a board of trustees. This type of system has its advantages. For example, the patients have freedom of choice regarding the providers of the healthcare. This plan is also the best in that it is simple and effective in administration. Also, 63% of the physicians in Canada are primary- care physicians. The physicians operate on a fee for service basis. Through this basis, more people are treated as the physician is paid per service rendered. Moreover, there is no discrimination in the providence of the health service, all race, gender and age are given equal opportunities. Private insurance for services that are already covered is not permitted. This is so as to prevent the spreading of risk, countrywide. In additional, there is insurance given for different services. As provincial governments set the budget limit for the hospitals, there exist local medical associations that bargain for the fees of the physicians. This ensures adequate payment to the physicians. Lastly, there is efficient and evident cost saving in the country. This is because the service providers do not incur paperwork or marketing cost. Having a look at the 1990 Harris poll, it indicated that Canadians are the most contented with their health care. However, there are some flaws to the health care system in Canada. The system worked just good back in the 70s and 80s. Not until when doctors wanted a pay rise in the infamous Barrer- Stoddart report (Zweifel and Soderstrom 1998). The doctors had a conspiracy to keep their numbers low to get more pay. This became to be disastrous resulting to inconveniences like waiting for a long time before getting treated. Also, there is an inadequacy of family doctors and the systemic lack specialized equipment. Another flaw sprouts from fact that the benefits are basic, implying; some services are not covered. For instance; dentistry and optometrists. Canada practices socialized medicine. This means, “health care for all,” they have insurance for some services. However, the problem sprouts due to fact that there is only one insurance company, and that is the federal government. This means that if the state is facing any financial constraints it directly affects the health care of the nation. For example lack of special equipment for treatment and beds is a consequence of such. To add on that, the system also faces cost over- runs that are caused by the provincial governments in the budgeting of the funds. The amount going to the health department has been cut short by the federal government when it comes to managing the deficits, causing freezing of payments. There are some lessons that Canada should learn. First, is that when the government decides to put a program as free, more people will tend to access the service therefore raising the demand and the spending. When the government terms a service as “free” the citizens view it as having zero cost. In real sense, that is not true. As a consequence, for the government to be able to fund the service more taxes will be imposed or an alternative would be cutting off some expenditures. In addition, because of the system, the resource allocation is fully based on the federal government. This implies that the allocation would be based on the accounting of the budget rather than addressing the health issues and scarcity of resources that the country faces. This hence causes misallocation and imbalanced distribution of the resources in the country. The Canada Health Act (CHA) ensures quality levels of health care country wide. However there exist stringent rules on abiding by the act. If any province goes against the act, the federal government would not release contributions to the provinces. Compliance to the act is rewarded by release of fund and support from the federal government to the province (Peterson et al., 2014). The majority of the provinces for that matter do not allow private insurance to get the funds and benefits from the federal government (Flood and Haugan 2010). Apart from rejecting the private insurance, the Act also prohibits private doctors from operating in public hospitals. Reforms to bridging the gaps and their contribution to a stronger public health system Although all these may be barring Canada from achieving the best health care dream that they once had, there are some reforms that the country should consider to better the health sector. The first reform is to charge a user fee. Although the term free health care may be so enticing to everyone’s ear, the system is not free in the real sense. Due to the “free” health care, many Canadians are not responsible for their health issues because the services are “free”. Thus, this makes many to access the health cares with issues that would rather be prevented if only the person could be a little cautious. This, therefore, a cost to the state as resources would not be used in the correct manner. The private sector should be given the go-ahead to operate and finance health for that matter. Through private hospitals, many citizens would have access to the medical health care, and this would serve as the first step to getting rid of the “waiting time” problem. The second way in which the “waiting time” problem can be remedied is by allowing private health insurance companies to operate. Through this, people that are privately insured would jump queues to be tended to. Also, fair competition should be encouraged. This could only be achieved through allowing private insurance companies to operate. Fair competition will lower the costs of the health due to forces of demand and supply- making it cheaper and affordable. The strict nature of the federal government and the CHA should be reduced. Reason being, to let the provinces try different kinds of experiments on health care delivery and funding, in order to get a better way of providing services to the citizens. The government should avoid allocating resources depending on the budget. Instead, the resources should be allocated depending on the need of the equipment and all resources by the public (Romanow et al., 2002). Canada’s Health Transfer also ought to be reduced for more direct accountability to the regional levels. The importance of this is to raise resources that will be used in the health care and at the same time to contain the cost increases to the federal government (Ducket and Peetom, 2013). Also, plans for governments; the federal and the provincial, must be executed on a non- profit basis by a responsible public authority for the accountability of both governments. The governments should also ensure comprehensiveness in insuring every medical service being provided in the health cares. This will be done to motivate all the practitioners to work efficiently. Reason for this would be because majority of services are insured by the government while some are not for example dentistry and optometry are not insured. To add on that, the federal and provincial governments should ensure that the insurance is universal, meaning that; the terms and conditions of the insurance should be uniform country-wide. Thus, no one is to be viewed as greater than the other. This will greatly motivate the practitioners that felt oppressed or neglected. There should also be accessibility granted to insured persons. This means that all insured persons should have quality and reasonable access to the health care, free from financial or other barriers that may be put. Portability should also be assured to citizens. This means, in case of relocation of insured citizens, both governments should be able to cover the citizens wherever they are with the same terms and conditions they had at home areas. Encouragement of Activity Based Funding (ABF) is also crucial in the provinces, to be able to fund themselves, in addition to the funds they receive from the federal government. Although too much emphasis of the ABF may lead to too much concentration on the monetary value than the health value, therefore it should be done with precision and have limits (Ducket and Peetom, 2013). All in all the system in Canada needs to change. The reason for this is that with the recent advancement in technology, more people can live long. This means that more illnesses can be withheld for a while. Due to this, the illnesses changed from acute to chronic. The Canadian health system is fit for acute illnesses and not chronic. Old people have weak immune systems and tend to stay longer in hospitals compared to people of other ages. Canada has also attracted many elderly immigrants that would need the medication at some point in their lives. Therefore, measures need to be taken for this, or the situation will get worse. References Top of Form Henderson, G. (1997). The social medicine reader. Durham: Duke University Press. Brent, R. J. (2003). Cost-benefit analysis and health care evaluations. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Rechel, B., & McKee, M. (2014). Facets of Public Health in Europe. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education. Livermore, M. A., & Revesz, R. L. (2013). The globalization of cost-benefit analysis in environmental policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Frick, K., Frick, K., United States., & Johns Hopkins University. (2012). Usefulness of economic evaluation data in systematic reviews of evidence. Rockville, Md: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Brent, R. J. (2006). Applied cost-benefit analysis. Cheltenham: Edward elgar Pub. Ryan, M., Gerard, K., & Amaya-Amaya, M. (2008). Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. (Springer e-books.) Dordrecht: Springer. Ratcliffe, J., Flynn, T., Terlich, F., Stevens, K., Brazier, J., & Sawyer, M. (January 01, 2012). Developing adolescent-specific health state values for economic evaluation: an application of profile case best-worst scaling to the Child Health Utility 9D. Pharmacoeconomics, 30, 8, 713-27. Top of Form Haddix, A. C. (1996). Prevention effectiveness: A guide to decision analysis and economic evaluation. New York: Oxford University Press. Top of Form Detsky, A. S., & Naylor, C. D. (January 01, 2003). Canada's health care system--reform delayed. The New England Journal of Medicine, 349, 8, 804-10. Zweifel, P., Lyttkens, C. H., & Söderström, L. (1998). Regulation of health: Case studies of Sweden and Switzerland. Boston: Kluwer Academic. Paterson, G. I., MacDonald, J. M., & Mensink, N. N. (January 01, 2014). The Administrative Policy Quandary in Canada’s Health Service Organizations. Top of Form Flood, C. M., & Haugan, A. (January 01, 2010). Is Canada odd? A comparison of European and Canadian approaches to choice and regulation of the public/private divide in health care. Health Economics, Policy, and Law, 5, 3, 319-41. Romanow, R. J., Canadian Health Services Research Foundation., & Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada. (2002). The Canada Health Act. Ottawa: Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada. Top of Form Top of Form Top of Form Top of Form Top of Form Top of Form Duckett, S. J., & Peetoom, A. (2013). Canadian medicare: We need it and we can keep it. Montreal: MQUP. Top of Form Top of Form Top of Form Top of Form Top of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Read More