Financing Health Care in the US - Term Paper Example

 Financing Health Care in the US The concern to address issues relative to health care of the entire population is crucial to each and every nation. As the famous adage goes: ’health is wealth’. But is takes more resources of from the national economy to support and sustain health objectives that ensure the delivery of health care services are equitably accessed and availed. In this regard, the objective of the essay is to proffer relevant and critical issues pertinent to financing and the delivery of health care services in the U.S. The aim is proposed to be achieved through initially presenting the current status of health care in the U.S. prior to delving into the intricate issues and concerns that the government is trying to address to improve its present stance. Thereby, from among the scholarly articles reviewed on the subject, the suggestions and recommendations of various authors would be revealed in conjunction with one’s personal assessment on the subject of this discourse. Present Status of US Health Care There are two types of access to the delivery of health care services in any nation: through the public or private sectors. Generally, the private sector in any health care system of a nation consists of divergent nongovernmental institutions of an array of levels and dimensions. Public health is predominantly financed with funds from the government that is solicited from public sources such as tax revenues. The health care in the United States is dominantly serviced and administered by private health institutions where no public hospitals are deemed owned and operated by the federal government. As revealed by Holstein and Litzinger (2008, 15), “in the U.S., the rapid rise in health care cost and low access are widely recognized as twin problems. Health care reform in this country first focused on cost containment through managed care to make health insurance affordable, and then shifted to expanding access to coverage at the state level without doing away with the private health insurance market”. This fact was likewise validated by Siegel, Mead and Burke (2008) who noted the parallel contentions in the rising costs of health care services coupled with the increasing number of Americans who are uninsured. Health insurance can actually be availed through an employed individual’s employer or through the employers of either the spouse or parents’, as applicable. Health insurance can also be purchased individually depending on one’s capacity or financial status, and the required scope and contents of health insurance coverage. The problem is eminently evident for those Americans who are unemployed and could not afford to purchase health insurance coverages. Further, those who are employed also opt to drop insurance coverages because of two reasons as proffered by Siegel, Mead and Burke (2008), to wit: (1) the number of employers offering health insurance benefits to their personnel (including beneficiaries) have significantly declined; and (2) those employers who offer health insurance benefits have opted to require increasing amounts of employee participation in premium payments, which are deemed by employees as virtually unaffordable. With increasing number of people who opt to waive availment of health insurance coverages, more unemployed and employed people without health coverages opt to tap the government’s health packages for Medicare and Medicaid, thereby increasing the need for more financial resources to support and sustain the expenditures for this sector. Components of Health Care Sector Expenditures The paper written by Seshamani, Lambrew and Antos (2008), one of the most significant revelations was that the increasing cost in health care expenditure is accounted for by tax subsidies shouldered by the federal government from the health insurance premiums and related costs declared by employers. As indicated, the cost of tax exemptions from contributions made by employers and employees are tantamount to lost revenues from the federal and state agencies. These was estimated to total $208.6 billion in the year 2006 and considered the largest tax related expenditure. This finding was consistent and validated by Woolhandler (2004), an associate professor of medicine at HMS and Cambridge Hospital and co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program, when he averred that “sixty percent of U.S. health care is tax funded. And it turns out that the tax-supported share of health care in the United States already exceeds the total health expenditure in every other nation in the world” (par. 10). This component alone takes up a large percentage of the health care budget making future requirements for serving health care tight and restricted. Further, as revealed by Siegel (et.al, 2008), the previously identified factors presumably contributory to rising health costs (identified as demographics of increasing population entering retiring age, emergency costs for uninsured sectors, and insufficient proactive interventions for preventive medicine, among other) were merely marginal expenses and the true culprits to increased health expenditure should be blamed on “the confluence of rapid technological advance and intense commercialism in medicine, which together may be the most critical factor underlying America’s swelling health care sector” (Siegel, et.al, 2008, 645). Containment of these costs, coupled with the health reform, would ultimately assist in addressing the increasing health care expenditure in the country. Suggestions and Recommendations for Reform The status of health care in the United States needs immediate and appropriately evaluated reforms to make health care accessible and affordable to the population. This is a fact substantiated by various studies enumerated herein. An article presented by Cohen, Neumann and Weinstein (2008) emphasized the focus on implementing preventive interventions to address the health care problems. The authors cited various researches that support the benefits of preventive care, as follows: “some evidence does suggest that there are opportunities to save money and improve health through prevention. Preventable causes of death, such as tobacco smoking, poor diet and physical inactivity, and misuse of alcohol have been estimated to be responsible for 900,000 deaths annually — nearly 40% of total yearly mortality in the United States. Moreover, some of the measures identified by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, such as counseling adults to quit smoking, screening for colorectal cancer, and providing influenza vaccination, reduce mortality either at low cost or at a cost saving” (Cohen, et.al, 2008, 661). Although this course of action would prove to be advantageous in decreasing the projected volume of people requiring health care services in the long term, the fact that the other components contributing to the rising health care expenditures need to be addressed through other approaches requiring policy changes, reform and immediate refocus for using the most cost efficient therapeutic and diagnostic procedures that veer away from the use of identified high technological medical equipments and procedures, as well as the use of expensive drugs and medicines. A more structured and plausible approach was recommended by Flier (2009), who suggested that accurate and effective reforms could only provide the needed solution to the health care dilemma when the root causes are truly identified. In his article, the root causes were identified as: the unjust employer-based tax advantaged system, restrictions and overregulated health insurance market, and the presence of both Medicare and Medicaid programs. In this regard, Flier recommended the following: a restructuring of the tax shelter system; to encourage increased players in the delivery of both health care and insurance to decrease the exorbitant health care costs; and to evaluate and closely review the possibility to reforming both Medicare and Medicaid programs in terms of the kind and quality of expenditures, as well as closer screening of the beneficiaries to determine alternative options for cost reduction and the use of cost effective interventions, in the long run. Conclusion The objective of the essay to proffer relevant and critical issues pertinent to financing and the delivery of health care services in the U.S. was hereby accomplished through provision of the current status of health care in the U.S. prior and by determining the significant components in health care expenditures that are the real culprits of the health care dilemma. The proposed measures to reform the health care system in the US using strategies and plans should encompass policies and regulations that have the ultimate welfare of the population in mind. The influence of professional entities that are directly involved in health care and the reviewing public on these reforms should be encouraged to promote serving their ultimate needs. References Cohen, J.T., Neumann, P.J. and Weinstein, M.C. (2008). “Does Preventive Care Save Money? Health Economics and the Presidential Candidates.” The New England Journal of Medicine, 358:661-663. Flier, J.S. (2009). “Health care reform: without a correct diagnosis, there is no cure.” Journal of Clinical Investigation, 119(10), pp. 2850–2852 Holstein, A. and Litzinger, P. (2008). “Health Care System Financing And Design: Convergent Trends In North America And Europe.” International Business & Economics Research Journal, Volume 7, Number 10, pp. 15 – 20. Seshamani, Lambrew and Antos (2008). “Financing the U.S. Health System: Issues and Options for Change.” Bipartisan Policy Center, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, pp. 1 – 36. Siegel, B., Mead, H. and Burke, R. (2008). “Private Gain and Public Pain: Financing American Health Care.” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, pp. 644 – 651. Woolhandler, S. (2004). “American Pie.” Harvard Medical Alumni Bulletin. Article Number 6, pars. 1 -22. Read More