Privatization of the Clinical Services in Healthcare - Coursework Example

Privatization of the Clinical Services in Healthcare Name Institution Privatization of the Clinical Services in Healthcare In the contemporary times, the world has witnessed changes in many aspects that touch on the economic, political as well as social aspects of life in many parts of the world. Globalization concept and the technological advancements backed by rapid technological innovations have seen many issues change in the present times when compared to the past. The management and administration of public services that is mostly conducted by governments and its agencies have also reciprocated to such global changes and phenomena. Health care is among the critical services provided by governments in many parts of the world among other essential basic services such as education, security and shelter among others. There is an increased trend among states in the contemporary times on privatization of essential services such as healthcare. The impact and viability of such measures contribute in many cases to a considerable debate in both the public and private forums. However, this paper presents the impact of privatization of healthcare clinic services in Canada noting the ethical, social and economic impacts of the act. It further explores the trends between the private and public health care services stating the pros and cons. It concludes by stating the benefits, challenges and recommendations in relations to the subject of health care privatization. Many people agree that health care is a fundamental aspect of any society and must be given the priority, as the phrase that says that a healthy nation is indeed a wealthy nation. Privatization of the health care sector to allow health clinics and hospitals to offer for-profit services raises many principles question related to the morals and values that the government has. The first concern is that it constitutes the basic needs of life and hence raises more matters relating to those who cannot afford to raise the required fees offered by the privatized clinics (Baylis, 2012). Secondly, it raises the question whether the government is responsible and committed to its citizens as it privatizes an essential service that is supposed to offer. Lastly, it raises the question that explores why the governments overtax its citizens as they pay tax to receive such critical services and at the same time pay in the private clinics to access such health care services offered by the privatized clinics and hospitals. In this regard, it is imperative to note that governments are given the mandate to govern by the people. And, hence, it is considered a social contract between the governments and the citizens where it is expected that if the government fails to deliver on the critical services such as healthcare to the people, it ought to be changed and replaced (Flood, 2014). The noted questions and concerns related to ethical and moral principles connected to the privatization of the health care clinics have constituted the major frameworks that concerned parties have used to develop arguments. Also, viewpoints relating to the subject where some have openly criticized the move by the governments while others have supported such actions by the government to private the clinics in the heath care sector. The ethical concerns thus shape most of the economic and social impacts that the move has to the concerned stakeholders. The government in the recent past had reduced the budget to the health sector that caused a severe strain in the sector compromising the services. The funds that the national government sends to the federal governments, for example in Ontario, in the past two decades was reduced drastically that impacted negatively on the health care sector provision resulting to under-resourced hospitals (Church & Smith, 2006). It was amidst a growing population and increased need for the critical health care services. It results in deteriorated health care provision as paramedics were turned away from overflowing emergency departments and in the worse situation some patients died as space was created for them in other hospitals. Many analysts contribute this situation and scenarios experienced at the time as the main reasons that compelled the lawmakers and administrators to consider the concept of privatizing the services including clinics to help address the challenge witnessed. However, some critiques have stated that the government did it deliberately by reducing funding for the noted crisis and thus find excuses to introduce the idea of privatizing the health care clinics. The proponents of such position note that the government had alternatives in such situation and would have resorted to building more hospitals and increasing the funding for the critical need to equip the health care facilities with increased personnel and equipment to enable them to offer quality services (Duckett & Peetoom, 2013). The Canadian doctors had requested for more funding for the health care sector, and the government agreed to the decisions noting that it supports the privatization as more services are delivered by the community as a result of expanding and growing number of privatized clinics. The arguments presented by the outgoing government minister in charge of health Deb Matthews was to have the right balance between the government's furnished hospitals and other health care facilities as well as the privatized health care sector, hence launching the initiative (Deber & Mah, 2014). The critiques of the move note that the intention of the privatization concept was meant for simple and not complex health care procedurals. For example, critical surgeries and diagnosis which many of the privatized clinics have increased in number (for-profit surgical clinics) that offers such services. Some of the clinics are described presently as a Mini- hospital as a result of increased technical health care procedures that they offer. It indicates that there is the lack of compliance with the regulations that controls that sector and it compromise the quality of the health care provided (Glauser, 2011). In the recent times, there is increased demand for public accountability about the regulation of the private clinics issues. Lack of proper legal structures and regulation of the sector has left a gray area that needs to be fixed such as the establishment of boards as seen in hospitals that would take care of concerns raised by the public for the benefit of the public. However, in the recent times, Ontario noted an increased number of scrutiny of the privatized clinics as a result of the continuous complaints from the public. For the critiques that note the costs, many observe that the private clinics have fixed charges or flat fees that patients pay, and this contrasts the way income tax is collected which depends on the means. They note that the idea has increased health care costs for the people as they pay twice through the fees and taxation. They note that it disadvantages people with low incomes, making access to health care expensive unlike in the past before the privatization (Devaney, 2014). Also, some of the private clinics charge patients for the medically necessary health care procedures such as scans and cataract removal and provide a billing to the public system as well as the patients. The current set up of the privatized clinics has loopholes that unless fixed continues to be exploited at the expense of the public and the patients making the cost much higher than experienced earlier. The idea of the launching the privatization of health care clinics was intended to reduce time spent in the government hospitals and other health care facilities so that it reduced the wait time that patients had experienced before privatization of the sector as noted. However, the objective would be achieved if proper measures and strict regulations of the sector put in place (Marchildon, 2012). On the contrary, the move has further deteriorated the services rendered not only by increasing the wait time in the public system, but also reducing the number of health care personnel working in the public hospitals and other health care facilities. Many of the staff working in the private sector left the public sector and still recruits more creating a crisis that if not addressed immediately would worsen the situation (Canadian Institute for Health Information, 2012). The private sector in many cases offers higher salaries, wages and other benefits when compared to the government. Another critique relating to the subject notes that the privatization issue would result in too much of the health care services where some will have too much of care while others would lack enough of care. From the economic point of view, such scenario would retard the economic developments as more resources would be channeled to one sector at the expense of the other critical sectors in the society such as infrastructure, education, and security among others making the economy counterproductive. It is thus too costly and unproductive to produce too much health care for a large proportion of the population (Turner, 2012). Business analysts further note that having two-tier health system would lead to increased costs of production as corporate bodies pay for their employees to enable them to have faster access to health care services. It constitutes to purchasing of too much health care, which impacts businesses negatively by increasing unnecessary expenses. Most users of the public hospitals rate the services as quality and satisfied with the services offered. It indicates that if more efforts channeled towards the sector, significant improvements realized. The advantages realized by using the public healthcare facilities such as hospitals and clinics include affordable costs that enable most of the people access, it serves all citizens and does not discriminate regarding economic income or other factors, and it is located in most of the places in the country. The disadvantage is there is a possibility of delayed services due to longer wait time due to the higher number of people visiting such facilities. On the other hand, the privatized sector has the advantage of faster access to services due to reduced waiting time. However, it is mostly expensive when compared to the public and prone to deteriorated standards due to unchecked regulations and control noted in public boards hospitals (Saltman, Busse & Figueras, 2006). The recommendations related to the subject are to create a public board similar to the one noted in public hospitals to regulate and champion the interests of the public in the privatized health care clinics. Also, develop stricter rules and regulations that would ensure that private clinics adhere to the rules and regulation that guide the operations and the service that they offer. The gray areas need to be polished so that the drawbacks that result from such move addressed. Train more health care providers for the public and increase their salaries and benefits to encourage them to stay in the public sector. Lastly, increase funding to the heath care sector that supports public hospitals and health care facilities as many people still find them useful as they offer quality services. In conclusion, the privatization of the health care clinics has realized challenges that need to be addressed to reduce the increased costs of access to health care, improve the quality of services offered among others. The concept has realized many challenges as much as it had some advantages such as reduced wait time and increased access to health care in the community, and more needs to be done regarding reforms to make it effective and realize the initially intended goals. References Baylis, F. (2012). Health Care Ethics in Canada. Toronto: Nelson Education. Canadian Institute for Health Information. (2012). Health Care in Canada 2011: A Focus on Wait Times. Ottawa: Canadian Institute for Health Information. Church, J. & Smith, N. (2006). Health Reform and Privatization in Alberta. Canadian Public Administration, 49 (4): 486–505. Deber, R. B., & Mah, C. L. (2014). Case Studies in Canadian Health Policy and Management. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Devaney, J. (2014). Private Clinics are Not the Solution to Health-Care Cuts. RABBLE.CA. Nov 18. From: http://rabble.ca/columnists/2014/11/private-clinics-are-not-solution-to-health-care-cuts Duckett, S. J., & Peetoom, A. (2013). Canadian Medicare: We Need It and We Can Keep It. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press. Flood, C.M. (2014). The Right to Health at the Public/Private Divide: A Global Comparative Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Glauser, W. (2011). Private Clinics Continue Explosive Growth. CMAJ, 183(8): 109-116. Marchildon, G.P. (2012). Canada: Health System Review. Health Systems in Transition, 15(1), 1-179. Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe on behalf of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. Saltman, R., Busse, R., & Figueras, J. (2006). Decentralization in Health Care: Strategies and Outcomes. New York: McGraw-Hill Education Turner, L. (2012). Making Canada a Destination for Medical Tourists: Why Canadian Provinces Should Not Try to Become “Mayo Clinics of the North.” Healthcare Policy, 7(4), 18–25. Read More