Economics and Contemporary Issues in Healthcare - Research Proposal Example

Economics and Contemporary Issues of the of the Economics and Contemporary Issues Universal healthcare is one f the most important topics f the world. Since the tenure f President Bill Clinton in the United States, universal healthcare has also been an important subject for media because the idea resounds in the desires f people in this country. A sector f the US population which is growing at a rapid rate is the poor, including underemployed, and legal and illegal immigrants. Although this group pays little in taxes and contributes little to the overall real economic progress f the country, politicians continue to cater to class envy by declaring that the 'rich' have health care coverage, why shouldn't those at the lower end f the economic scales have the same benefits. Behind this struggle, health care costs are skyrocketing, and two primary reasons for the increase find their roots in these same two groups. Life expectancies in the country are getting longer, and the aging boomers will require more health care for longer periods f time. Funding for the existing government health care systems is declining due to the same reasons that Social Security is facing implosion. More citizens receiving benefits are fewer citizens are paying into the system. The simple equation f higher demand -plus- lower funding -plus- longer lives -equals- higher costs. Secondly, the poor, uninsured and illegal immigrants who can receive health care at any hospital are creating increased drag on a system that is already suffering. Every hospital in the country will treat any person entering its emergency wards. If the services are not paid for, the loss is applies to the bottom line, and costs increase throughout the system. A third reason for the push for Universal healthcare is the pragmatic belief that in the long run it will reduce healthcare costs in general. If preventative care is available to everyone from birth, the result will be less-costly healthcare needs in people's later years. Early preventative measures also lessen the magnitude f epidemics; when more people are immunized and have access to treatment, disease cannot spread so easily. (University Wire, 2001) Former US Surgeon General C. Everett Koop recently stated: "I think I am right when I write that all Americans have the right to healthcare," Koop said. "If we agree that there is a right to healthcare, then we are also agreeing that someone must provide these rights," he said, noting that the right to healthcare is different than some other constitutional rights because it incurs a monetary cost on society. (Anand, 2000) Two year ago, in a survey f medical- school faculty and administrators published in the New England Journal f Medicine, 57 per cent said they like a single-payer universal healthcare system over either fee-for-service or managed care. Indeed, more and more doctors are now keen to work in coalitions where they learn from and fight for the needs f those whom they have traditionally considered inferiors or adversaries. (Gordon, 2000) As a result, when President Clinton ascended the podium, and declared that universal healthcare is a right which Americans shared, no one questioned where the money would come from to fund such a huge expansion f the federal bureaucracy. This has become the clearest argument for universal healthcare, the right f all people to receive healthcare, in the form f physician visits and pharmaceuticals, regardless f their socioeconomic status. (University Wire, 2001) A person who is poor should not be precluded from the benefit f healthcare simply because he or she cannot afford it. Boomers perceive universal health care as another program to benefit them, and the poor / uninsured thought they were looking at a savior. The core question to answer, however, is not whether healthcare coverage is a right or not. The costs f health care are skyrocketing, and the needs f the population are increasing. The question is: What is the most effective means f bringing down costs while at the same time expanding coverage During the last national election, Oregon placed on its ballot a state wide comprehensive health care program. Oregonians voted on a ballot initiative that called for every resident to receive full medical benefits--including coverage f alternative therapies like acupuncture and massage. After an initial support for the measure, the big question f whether Oregonians were willing to pay a new payroll tax to fund it ultimately affected the polls. The measure went down in defeat because it was no longer the impersonal federal bureaucracy which was going to pay for the system, but the state would have to come up with the money on their own. In 2002, Maine created a state board to draw up proposals for universal care. The Rhode Island General Assembly released a study on the idea, and the head f one f California's largest health-insurance companies has called for a plan to cover all residents. (Sappenfield, 2002) The American Medical Student Association (AMSA) is the nation's oldest and largest student run organization boasting 40,000 members and local chapters at every medical school in the United States. Recently, the AMSA encouraged students to broaden the scope f their medical education beyond that which is offered in a traditional curriculum, while taking an active role in influencing health policy. (US Newswire, 2003) Due to the heavy push in the political arena, medical organizations and states are appearing to climb onboard the idea. This may not be due to their belief that universal healthcare is a good idea for the country. Rather these organizations do not want to be mowed down by the sweeping changes that are becoming increasingly inevitable. While the activity toward the goal f universal healthcare is increasing, the question still remains to be answered. What is the most effective means to lower costs and expand coverage without inflicting the best health care system in the world with a fatal virus which robs it f its strength, and will to live Before the US pursues this path much further, it would be wise to evaluate the health care systems f other countries which have an existing socialized, universal coverage system. Canada, for example, has had a universal healthcare system since 1947. Every Canadian citizen has access to basic health coverage as a 'right' f their citizenship. Many US citizens who live near the US - Canadian Border often will cross the border to fill medical prescriptions. In these instances, the prescription is less expensive because the Canadian government subsidizes the medical system. In other words, the absolute cost f the medicine is not lower, but the consumer cost is less because f government involvement. While most Canadians are satisfied with their current system, economic pressure is building for reform. As a result, three f Canada's provincial leaders are signaling a move toward privatization which could significantly alter the Canadian healthcare landscape. "Our healthcare system is on life support and it is fading fast," said British Columbia premier Gordon Campbell recently. (Brown, 2002) The premiers f Alberta, Ontario, and British Columbia say ballooning costs and long delays for some procedures can only be solved by private initiatives. Up to 40 percent f their individual provinces budgets goes toward healthcare. Canada's healthcare system is run by its 10 provinces and three territories, but is governed by federal guidelines set out in the Canada Health Act. In exchange for following the five principles f the act: 1. universal access, 2. portability, 3. public management, 4. coverage f all medically necessary services, 5. no additional user fees, The Canadian federal government pays a share f the costs. While the federal government originally promised to cover half f those costs, Ottawa's share has been declining for years. Currently its contribution hovers around 15 percent. (Brown, 2002) The idea f universal coverage, which includes the 5 points, delineated in the Canadian health care act sound good. Every citizen has suffered under our existing health care system for reasons which would be solved if these 5 features were legally written into the health care system as rights. Every citizen would benefit if a system could be derived which provides these features. But the system does not survive because citizens have rights. The system survives, and thrives, because qualified and talented doctors apply their skills, in public or private practice. The doctor's reward for the risk they take, and the effort they put into their career is the profit they receive from their services, and the pride they can earn by providing the best service possible. Without a profitable enterprise, the entire system suffers, both in the quality f service are can provide, and the quality f talent it can attract to provide those services. The trend f medical care to suffer when the federal bureaucracy becomes involves can be seen in the Canadian and other socialized systems. People in need f difficult or intensive medical care do not travel to Canada, Britain, or France. They come to America. Heart surgery patients come to America from across the globe because our health care system has been able to balance the needs f the individual with the needs and desires f health care workers to earn a profitable living in the field f their choice. If a government takes away, or sets fixed fees for services in the medical field, (or any field) the result is a decline in service quality and an increase in costs. To make a cross - industry comparison, if a business has a package that absolutely, positively has to be there over night, do they call the United States Postal Service, or Fed Ex Regardless f rights, costs, or obstacles, the private system outperforms the government system on virtually every point. So, what is the best course to pursue in order to create a health care system which addresses these four points and still produces a profitable, world class health care delivery system Any changes to our health care system must provide: 1. Increased coverage for the uninsured and underinsured. 2. Reduction in costs. 3. Increased profitability to continue to draw talented people. 4. Increased care quality While these 4 points do not include the emotional knee jerk catch phrase "a persons right to health care," most Americans would agree that if it is a choice between decreasing care quality or increased costs, our country would be better served by increasing costs and finding a method to encourage the prices to decrease while keeping quality and choice as key features f the system. One method f decreasing costs would be to insist that government regulation be eliminated from the health card system. Currently, many federal agencies set limits as to what will be paid for specific procedures. Again, these unmet fees are passes along the system, overall prices rise. Government regulations have strangles the process f research and development. If new medicines and treatments were able to get to the market faster, with lower cost associated to overcoming over-burdensome regulations, companies could lower their R&D costs, and increase their rate f return on investments. The most effective means to reduce health care costs, however, would be to allow the customer, the end user to shop around for the best service at the best price. In a free market economy, one grocery store cannot sell milk for $5 a gallon while another has if available everyday for $2. The principle so simple, it has as f yet eluded government bureaucrats. When service providers have to compete for business, they find ways to offer better service at competitive prices. If consumers f health care services were allowed to establish medical savings accounts, they would carry the personal incentive to live healthy lives, and find the best care at the best possible price. Service providers then would also feel the free market based pressures to remain competitive, and provide excellent care. Bibliography Anand, Amit 2000. Ex-Surgeon General Koop calls for universal care. University Wire, 14 April. Barlett & Steele, 2004. Critical Condition (Health Care in America), Doubleday Becker, 1988. The Economics f Life, McGraw-Hill Brown, Barry. 2002. Canadian provinces move toward privatizing healthcare. , The Christian Science Monitor, 28 February: 7. Editorial. 2001. It's time to talk about universal health care. University Wire. 27 November. Gordon, Suzanne. 2000. Humanized Healthcare. The Nation, 21 February, vol 270. pp 16. MEDICAL STUDENTS RALLY FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE COVERAGE; REPS. MCDERMOTT, KUCINICH, JACKSON, JR. TO ADDRESS STUDENTS ON CAPITAL HILL. 2003. US Newswire, 17 March. Sappenfield, Mark. 2002. More states flirt with universal healthcare. , The Christian Science Monitor, 16 December: 2. Read More