Efficacy of the United States Social and Health Policy - Research Paper Example

Efficacy of the United s’ Social and Health Policy, Comparing it to the Canadian Social and Health Policy (Date) Introduction In most recent years, research has indicated that Canada is among the few global nations with proper and unique social policies. The integration of various rules and regulations have led proper lifestyles among Canadian Citizens, basically due to improved access of social benefits. U.S.A. The Canadian Social policy is considered as the window through, which its values is seen that make it is progressive and unique. This however does mean its policies are perfect in regard to meeting social needs. This discussion focuses on the various ways by, which United States’ social and Health policy has been ineffective the Comparing it with Canadian Social and Health Policy. It suggests ways through which its standards can be raised to favour the entire society. Recommendation are thereby given and conclusion as to introduction of new policies into the industry to facilitative it efficient and smooth running while reducing costs are highlighted. Background Understanding Canadas Medicare Debate Medicare including social care in Canada is a success story. Not to the perfection, but good enough to be admired by better part of the world. Canadians therefore receive high standard healthcare whenever they need it as there are no financial constrains or any other obstacles, therefore they take the care for granted. In comparison with everything that happens in USA, they get surprised yet pleased to realize they have a well-designed health program that delivers better results and care, to a huge population, and a considerably lower cost than in the USA. Faced with these realities, media and policy makers have come up with a predictable conclusion: Canadian healthcare is in a deep crisis, probably in deathbed. Collapse of health sector has been predicted and urgent overhaul is needed to bring it back to track. High care debate has become a philosophical battle ground, in which predetermined economic and political assumptions are more evidential and where tale is received as a fact. Considerations Out of Control Costs Reality: Health care expenses are under very tight control, to a point where spending in a pubic funded health facility isn’t keen on keeping track with the population growth rate. Being a percentage of Gross National Product, spending on health care has leveled at approximately 9%.Healthcare became national program in 1971, when the proportion of GNP rose to 9 % from 7.5%.This rising share going to health care in 1980’s was not as a result of spiraling costs but due to shrinking economy and started at the introduction of free trade agreements .If the GNP did not slump then, the spending on healthcare would still be at 7% just like they did in 1971. While discussing costs on healthcare, it’s crucial to put on mind that spending on health in public sector accounts for 72%.The costs are rapidly growing in private sector unlike the public sector e.g. dental services and drugs. Instituting user fees and abolishing free system Reality: It’s illogical to say that if costs are too high, the solution is to further raise them. To the contrary user fees do not reducing rather it increases costs. Premium insurance, taxes or user fees the money is dug from the same pocket. The actual advantage to the advocates of user fees is that they discourage the poor from seeking the medical care. Ones the poor is denied care, the rich can then avoid assisting to cater for their care. In 1970’s under the Liberals, Saskatchewan introduced the fee which saw the poor shy ff from seeking the care, physician visits by the poor decreased by 18%.Inspite of this, the overall costs rose, due to changes in mix services and utilization patterns. Actually the doctors maintained their salaries by encouraging the high income patients to make more visits and take more tests. At the end of it, more was being spent while providing care to fewer people. Health care Cost is rising Due to Abuse of the System by the People: Truth: Patients never book their tests, prescribe for themselves, and make schedule their appointments or admit themselves for whatever reason. People visit doctors when they feel something is not right not for fun. Government managed and Run Health Insurance Programs are inefficient and Bureaucratic Private run Health Insurance Programs are competitive and efficient Reality: According to the report from all OECD, it is clear that private sector more bureaucratic and less efficient than the public sector in providing health care. The U.S whose healthcare system is highly privatized than any other OECD country, spends 9% of it GNP on health care in comparison to Canada which spends only 9%.Administrative cost per year per person in U.S is $911 while in Canada is $270 per person. The imbalance in insurance overheads is even worse: overhead per capita in U.S is $212 while in Canada is $34 .Germany recently shifted moved its dental care services from public to private insurance, and the administrative costs rose three times from 5% to 15%. Americans could be paying more for health care, but get improved and better services Reality: Research shows that, on average, Canadians may receive need care faster than Americans. There are more physical visits in Canada per capita compared to Americas, more surgical formalities, hospital admissions and more immunization procedures. OECD survey amongst its 10 members revealed that Canadians were the most satisfied with the care they received while Americans ranked least satisfied. Life expectancy, infant mortality and mental mortality were worse in Canada more than U.S before Medicare was introduced. Today’s infant mortality in Canada is 70% that of the U.S. American women are twice at risk of losing their lives while giving birth as compared to Canadian women Additionally, the average life expectancy in Canada is relatively higher than that of Americans. More money can be saved by relying less on Hospital care and More Community Care Applied to those with physical, mental disabilities and frail seniors community care is humble way of saying, families would be expected to give free care since health care system will not. Community care which is real is not cheap. It could be better to receive care from own home or within a community setting, no convincing evidence to show its cheaper if care is given by professionals. It might be even more expensive. We should be moving to a System that puts Emphasis of Wellness Care and do away with the Current Illness Care. It’s obvious that people tend to visit doctor when sick not for fun or lecture. Prevention is a brilliant idea besides the procedures like immunizations, prenatal examinations, pap smears most of this good thing can’t be obtained from doctor’s office. Epidemiological studies have established the primary determinants of poor health such as: Poor maternal nutrition, poverty, unemployment, inadequate housing, family stress and powerlessness. Economic and social policies may contribute in making this better or make it worse. It is however quite complicated to for healthcare systems to make it better although relabeled ‘Wellness Centre’. Inevitable due to Government Deficits Reality: Conscious policy decisions are as a result government deficits. Public treasury has been deprived off billions of dollars in form of revenue. The government has also made efforts to borrow money from beneficiary of tax holidays at a high interest rate. If the government was serious about removing deficits, it would have reversed tax giveaways of 1980’s and 1970’s. Recommendations Physicians: Primary care should be made in a new focal point, a model of integrated health. Long term Care, Home Care, and Community Care: Focus on homecare should be increased with support of appropriate resources, more specifically at community level. Health Prevention and Promotion: Public health system should be integrated with the other parts of the health system. Medical Training/Schools: System issues should be taught at medical schools to enable them understand how physicians well fit in health care systems. E.g. how dealing with patients requires effectiveness and efficiency using fewer resources and linking diverse health care system. Pharmaceuticals: Provincial government covers almost all of the prescription drugs for the seniors. This is certainly very expensive. Ontario should have open, honest dialogue on public coverage about healthcare expenses, including possibility of having wider public coverage of pharmaceutical expenses and ways to finance it. Cost Efficiencies: Centralization of office activities e.g. information technology finance, purchasing and human resource across the entire health system. Reform Process: This involves engagement of all stakeholders on issues ascribed to long term health care plans. Conclusion It’s my believe that these recommendations should guide health care system through the period of 2017-2018 in such a way that it meets the forecasted target of 2.5% per year increase in care funding by the Province. This is a tough goal in the light of the recent past; it means that the actual inflation regulated spending per person, would fall by 5.7% in 7 years between 2010- 2011 or 0.8 % per year. However there are many chances sizable to reform this system to provide better care at a lower cost. The experience left the public even more leery of moves to save money or raise efficiency. The reforms I recommend are crucial. Reduction in spending solves very little. Besides restraining the health budget in 1990’s, it was also cut for several years. Because of the underlying reforms, this is not implemented, nevertheless, pressures mounted and spending started again. Past 2017-2018, whilst a high population of baby boomers has reached the age which care cost start to rise, spending will most likely accelerate. But this is the point at which my recommendation for a 20year plan and conclusive public debate is important. The government is supposed to describe challenges ahead posed by lifestyle and demographic changes. The government should describe the challenges ahead that are posed by demographic and lifestyle changes. It should address the potential as to make the system much more efficient in the sense of cost and quality. Financial issues should be squarely discussed. The fundamental choices should be clearly presented. The eminent danger is that if the opportunity is not seized to start creating more reliable system which delivers value for the money spent on health care, in a year or 2 from now Canadians will face less attractive options than the ones in place today. Unless faced today Canadians will encounter steadily rising costs forcing them to choose either to forego many more government services which they value either privatize sections of the care system or pay high taxes to cover the rising care bill. Such outcome should be avoided through making the right decisions today, nevertheless tough they may seem at the moment. The decision won’t be perfect, but almost certain. They will ensure we are more equitable, cost effective and systems of high quality to future generations. References Caulfield, T. A., & Von, T. B. (2002). Health care reform & the law in Canada: Meeting the challenge. Edmonton [Alta.: University of Alberta Press. Greenwald, H. P. (2010). Health care in the United States: Organization, management, and policy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Goldstein, M. C., & Goldstein, M. A. (2001). Controversies in the practice of medicine. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press. Lemco, J. (1994). National health care: Lessons for the United States and Canada. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press. Read More