Critique of a Healthcare Reform - Essay Example

?Literature critique of a healthcare reform article: This paper is primarily based on presenting a critical analysis of such an article which is plainly fraught with evidence so that the theoretical argument highlighted by the author could be supported and acclaimed by the public. In “Health Care Reform: Getting the Essentials Right”, (Fuchs, 2009) contemplates the major challenges faced by the US healthcare system while introducing a strategic planning in the form of four Cs for handling those persistent and grave challenges. The author claims in the article that in an order to keep the healthcare reform from failing yet again, critically important adjustments regarding four principal essentials need to be made immediately which are coverage, cost control, coordinated care, and choice. It is argued in the article that only scrutinizing the basic deficiencies in these four areas and working on them for improvement in the healthcare system does not entirely fulfill the job, rather the second important requirement of the strategic plan is that the policymakers should take care to address the sensitive details like designing midcourse policies and making adjustments along the way. The target introduced in the article which needs to be achieved by the policymakers is not only addressing the four imperative essentials, but also making midcourse adjustments in the plan so that the corrective measures could be implemented appropriately. Thus, rigid and inflexible approach is definitely not the hallmark of the intellectual and practical strategy identified in this article to be analyzed. I agree that coverage, cost control, coordinated care, and choice are obviously the four most important factors influencing the US healthcare system and the author knowingly takes care to address each of these factors in restructuring an almost flawless the healthcare system. First of all, it is argued in the article that flawed coverage is a phenomenally daunting demon weakening the US healthcare reform plans. Including virtually every single American in the insurance pool should be made the slogan of the healthcare policy makers if obvious and long-term success of a reform plan is desired and also if coordination is to be made the hallmark of US medical care. Coordination can reduce unnecessary expenditures while improving the quality. Reducing the number of uninsured Americans to half should definitely not be seen as a remarkable feat achieved which would mark the end of a reform plan, since that would still leave millions of Americans to deal with delayed provision of medical care. The logic behind the author’s argument for ensuring universal coverage and coordination is certainly credible though antagonistic to the previous healthcare reform policies. It is alleged in the article that this tendency of the US policymakers to eschew reaching the target of universal coverage sets up some serious issues like high administrative costs which are used for sorting out the people eligible for coverage from those who are not. Also, leaving millions of Americans uninsured mars the convenience in implementing cost-saving changes for enhancing US healthcare system. The logic behind the author’s fervent emphasis on addressing the issues of cost control and choice is also not devoid of valid justifications because evidence suggests that reform policies have readily failed in US in the past because insured Americans did not fully support the high-cost changes that failed in compensating their already prodigious financial pressures. Difficulties covering the issue of cost control need to be assessed since otherwise, the few coverage benefits gained also become weak and invalid. The logical argument of the author for providing the Americans with choices for reform plans is also credible since it would help alleviating myriad restrictions that leave any reform plan unsupported. The evidence provided in the article for supporting the argument that- no reform plan can be seriously enacted by the policymakers if it is made sure to include some Americans in the insurance pool, while leaving the remaining uninsured and provided with messy and uncoordinated medical care- is quite valid and convincing. Many authentic examples of reform plans are identified in the article which can bring miraculous changes if generally implemented in the US healthcare system. The Massachusetts plan which is based on giving generous subsidies to those who cannot afford insurance, Medicare-for-All approach for the elderly, and the policy of providing the public with a choice to support any healthcare plan they like as seen in Israel are few such evidence-based examples identified in the article. The author also takes care to provide evidence for why cost control needs to be evaluated essentially in a reform plan, considering the Congressional Budget Office studies which reflect that excessive use of new technologies play a major role in raising the medical costs and providing coordinated care can cut down those healthcare costs. Bu using Stark II” self-referral prohibitions and federal anti-kickback laws as evidence-based examples, the author negates such systems do not rely on providers’ financial interest for making healthcare decisions and strives to highlight the importance of financial relationships among providers and policymakers. It is logically and convincingly stressed in the article that coordinated care provision depends on using financial incentives so that collaboration could be enhanced among physicians. It is also logically argued by the author why regulating the choice is necessary since considering an unlimited range of choice, the insurance companies may maneuver ways to use the differences in healthcare policies for personal gains. Though a few new ideas are presented in the article, the author still fails to reflect on many difficulties faced by US healthcare system and does not reflect either in detail on the importance of primary healthcare and providing funds to care providers which are analyzed in detail by (Davidson, 2010). (Davidson, 2010, p.19) highlights the point of moral hazards associated with a healthcare insurance policy which need to be assessed in detail before designing a reform policy. Many times people with healthcare insurance tend to adopt a less careful approach considering the fact that they are already insured in case any unexpected medical emergency occurs. Such people may be seen more careful towards their lives otherwise and some of them may even be sorely tempted to ruin their own health in an order to collect money. Such behaviors are labeled as moral hazards and should definitely be evaluated before implementing changes in medical care system of a certain area. This important point is completely overlooked by (Fuchs, 2009) who has not mentioned it once in the article and contemplating the possibility and rate of such hazards in a particular community is critically important. Still, both authors totally agree on the myriad benefits associated with health insurance policy and how being insured can save one from dire emergencies like not having enough money to pay for an important operation. As is claimed in the article analyzed in this paper, (Cutler, 2010) also claims that pay providers must value performance not volume when talking about physicians. Healthcare has valued providing more intensive care but it does not ensure providing coordinated care which can reduce costs as stressed by (Fuchs, 2009) also. (Fuchs, 2009) also fails to dwell on the importance of a nationally integrated EMR system which should be considered an essential for bringing a successful health reform. (Centor, 2006) says that physicians heavily rely on all the previous data available on a given patient like prescriptions, tests, and diagnosis. Without taking advantage of an EMR system, huge mistakes are being made everyday in US healthcare system. Renovating US healthcare system is also not stressed in the article and (Wrenn, 2008) claims that some major overhaul is required because the current US healthcare system is so much profit-driven that its focus has almost entirely shifted from keeping the citizens safe and healthy in the first place. References: Centor, R. M. (2006). What Are the "Top 3" Changes Needed to Improve US Healthcare? Retrieved from http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/546795 Cutler, D. M. (2010). How States Can Improve the Health Care System. Retrieved from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/09/state_health_costs.html Davidson, S. M. (2010). Still broken: understanding the U.S. health care system. California: Stanford University Press. Fuchs, V. R. (2009). Health Reform: Getting The Essentials Right. Health Affaris, 28(2), 180-183. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.28.2.w180 Wrenn, R. (2008). The American Health Care System: How Can We Improve It? Retrieved from http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1062086/the_american_health_care_system_how.html Read More