Go through academic routine with a smile

Health Care Reforms in the US

Health Care Reforms in the US

American medicine is successful but it still has a lot of problems. The USA spends on health care more than any other developed country. According to the Institute of Medicine, the United States is the only developed industrial country in the world that does not have a universal health care system. (Health Care Statistics in the United States, 2017) .There are constant debates about the US medical system, the contradictions in its availability, efficiency, and quality, and the huge spending on its maintenance. Because of high prices for care services, millions of Americans cannot afford medical benefits. The morbidity inside the country does not decline, and preventive measures often do not bring the expected results.

The Institute of Medicine with the professionals in various fields of medicine identifies strategies for achieving significant care quality improvement provided to Americans. It also focuses on the ways in which the healthcare delivery system can be developed to innovate and improve care. (Nap.edu, 2017). The reform applies to new purposes of the health care system. Principles and recommendations for the reform proposed in this report are fundamental changes in how the system meets the needs of the people it serves. The Institute also discusses changes needed in the structures and the processes of the environment in which these professionals and organizations work. (Nap.edu, 2017). These changes include the identification of national priorities for improvement, the creation of efficient methods for the dissemination and application of knowledge in practice, the promotion of information technology in health care, the creation of payment policy, the stimulation of innovation, and the improvement of rewards performance educational programs to strengthen the health care workforce. The Advisory Commission on Consumer Protection and Quality in the Health Care Industry gives many recommendations for providing consumer protection and qualitative health care. Patients, medical experts, and policymakers are aware of the shortcomings of the current care and the importance of the search for more effective approaches to meeting the needs of the health of all Americans. The Institute offers possible solutions for reforming the healthcare system and gives useful ideas.

Politicians, medics, and ordinary people discussed the problems of healthcare. There are many views on what the perfect medicine should be. In order to answer this question, analyze the problems of medicine, find ways to solve them, and make reasonable conclusions, one should consider the different viewpoints of qualified professionals.

The article The World Prosperity Organization’s Viewpoint on Healthcare is interesting and unusual with the information set clear and accessible. The article discusses the root problems in health care, such as the lack of qualified specialists in medicine, the antiquated educational requirements, the poor supply of creative, compassionate, and reasonably priced physicians, and the imperfect system of Pre-Medical education (World-prosperity.org.2017). In addition, it discusses problems of socio-economic inequalities that influence on the situation that many Americans do not have access to the qualitative health care system. Based on data from several studies, the author calls the American medical system partly guilty of undermining the health of Americans. The experts emphasize the necessity to study the type of care provided for people. The article compares the American medical system with the successful systems of other advanced countries such as Japan that pays great attention to the treatment and the health of its residents. The World Prosperity Organization ‘also gives different ideas for solving the problems of the American medical system and improving its efficiency.

The problems with healthcare are obvious and indisputable. Therefore, it is not surprising that both the Institute of Medicine and the World Prosperity Organization see the same problems. There are many similarities in both viewpoints, such as:

The problem with healthcare delivery and patient-centered learning. American healthcare delivery system needs reformation. Health care is usually not able to offer its potential benefits and too often causes irreparable damage to society. Thousands of Americans die or become invalids because of doctors’ mistakes (World-prosperity.org.2017). Waiting for an appointment is time-consuming. Because of the imperfect data system, the vital information and the clinical testing of patients are often lost or arrives too late to start treating or operation on time; thus, the delays may cost people’s life (Nap.edu, 2017). The problem of timeliness also indicates insufficient attention and intolerance toward the patients. Such delays and obstacles consume much time of both doctors and medical consultants. People do not trust medical institutions anymore. Both organizations see the decision in preventing such occurrences. In addition, there are still many other widespread defects that cause harm not only to health but also to the functioning, dignity, comfort, satisfaction, and resources of Americans. Health care should focus on the patient and the fair treatment. Any process of high quality should be conducted smoothly. It should not delay. Waiting time should be minimized for patients and caregivers. Healthcare systems should develop some ways to respond to the needs of society without patients’ visits to health facilities, including using the Internet. Both agree that Americans should receive qualitative care. Medical care must be safe, effective, patient-oriented, prompt, and fair. Experts believe that it needs to introduce more control and responsibility for qualitative medical services and ambulatory security (Nap.edu, 2017).

Socioeconomic inequalities. Despite rising healthcare costs that provide the illusion of improving healthcare, the American people do not enjoy good health (World-prosperity.org.2017). The main problem of the US sphere of health care provision is the fact that many people do have not access to qualitative health care. Unequal access to health care in America is caused by numerous inequalities both in the social and economic spheres. Essentially, families with low socio-economic status are not able to receive a decent standard of medical care. The main aim of the government in regard to healthcare provision should be to improve the state of health of the entire population, not each subgroup. People should have universal access to health services. The problem connected to accessing proper services is mainly based on insufficient insurance. In its turn, it is directly related to such issues as increased morbidity, mortality, poor functioning, and an increase in professionals in health care providing free help for uninsured or unsecured patients with an increased risk in a financial respect.

Insufficient access to medical services is a very important problem for quality. As for equity in healthcare, all people have the right to expect fair treatment from different institutions, including healthcare establishments. Specific people’s needs should serve as a basis for improving service quality, as well as their availability. In particular, there are numerous aspects that should be taken into consideration while providing health care services to patients. Some of them include race, income, age, ethnicity, sex, place of residence, sexual orientation, education, disability, or place of residence. Medical institutions must give care to every citizen, regardless of personal characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, geographic location, and socioeconomic status.

Problems in medical education and training. Studying too long and ineffective causes a lack of good professionals. To obtain the M.D. degree, a student has to complete twelve years of higher education. However, most of this time is spent on things that have little value to the practicing physician (World-prosperity.org.2017). It is important to reform medicine and give proper training to medics. They offer to check the system of medical training, make medical education more affordable, cut training time and make it more effective, and give qualitative clinical education, training, and other skills that need not only for doctors but for all clinicians who care for patients (Nap.edu, 2017). In addition, it is necessary to prepare students for real practice in a working environment better. Students should take knowledge based on real practice and training in multidisciplinary teams. It is possible to reduce the costs of the training of specialists, at the same time improving their knowledge and practical skills. Experts of both organizations suggest reviewing the study duration as well as excluding information that is not needed by a medical practitioner (Nap.edu, 2017).

Funds allocated to healthcare are used inefficiently. The fact that the government spends so much money on health and medical education but the healthcare system still has serious problems indicates that the policy and the approach to the medical system are wrong. In their efforts to provide better health services, policymakers, and health experts need to take a broad approach and examine the mistakes and successes of the rich country critically. It will help ensure effective healthcare services for all people.

Both the World Prosperity Organization and the Institute of Medicine agreed that Americans should receive qualitative care that meets their needs. Health care should be safe, effective, patient-oriented, prompt, and fair. Experts believe that it needs to introduce more control and responsibility for medical service quality (Nap.edu, 2017).

Problems in medical care affect all Americans today, and they all feel the improvement in quality. I would rather agree with the viewpoint of The Institute of Medicine than the World Prosperity Organization’s one.

I see the similarities of the two viewpoints in their vision of problems that exist in medicine:

The World Prosperity Organization provides good ideas for healthcare reform, but their ideas have almost no concrete solutions. They look too idealized. For example, the organization offers to replace universities and institutes with a “university without walls”: it is free, funded from private sources, online, and open to all. The university will include medical education with improved teaching methods. Moreover, it aims to involve students in scientific research in the medical field and provide them with a prospective physician-mentor on request. The student will give assistance to the doctor in exchange for his willingness to teach him or her. Doctors also will appear to have more opportunities. The doctor will confirm the key moments in the history of the patient and provide the progress reports monitoring students. In contrast to the current medical education, the student will begin on an outpatient basis as it is less stressful. Besides, its progress will be easier to control. In addition to the apprenticeship with many doctors who practice in different specialties, education will involve students in more conferences and discussion groups.

However, there are also differences between the two viewpoints. Practically, they are insignificant since the World Prosperity Organization refers to the publication of the Institute of Healthcare in their judgments. One of the differences between them is that the Institute of Medicine provides a more detailed plan of the reform. It also gives specific recommendations relevant at this time. For example, they provide information on six aims for improvement. These aims define the objectives of organizations, the health care system, as well as for clinical practices, which make a great contribution to the general social purpose (Nap.edu, 2017). Such an approach inevitably leads to better care.

The issue of the Institute of Medicine is the research work while the Organization’s article has an informative character. It seems that that the organization only adds some remarks and ideas to the viewpoint of the Institute. For instance, they think that it is necessary to create a medical system that could cure any disease using nanotechnology. They offer to make traditional medical education more creative, cheaper, and directed toward providing information that is relevant and updated. They suggest creating and replacing ordinary education with a «university without walls». It can prove to be useful but it is impossible to totally replace traditional education with alternatives, it can only be combined reducing the time and cost of training. (World-prosperity.org, 2017).

The problems in medical research lie in understanding and controlling events at a sub-microscopic level. Scientists see the necessity to create a medical system that could cure any disease. Nanotechnology is the science of building tiny machines that could enter the human body and act as single-cell laboratories to detect and repair any problems. It is necessary to explore the alternatives, which is a valuable idea, but there is no mention of its cost and the ways of reaching it. I suppose that firstly it is obligatory to solve the real problems that exist now.

I agree with both viewpoints that it is necessary to decrease the time of university studies and extend the internship. I believe that one or two years would be enough to study the theory, but practice should take much more time. Much more training for clinicians should be conducted to help them to refresh forgotten theoretical knowledge and learn something new. Students need more opportunities to work on their own projects, which will help them develop themselves and discover new therapies. It is also important to consider students’ ideas because some of them in the future might become a great scientist. Naturally, professionals must control the processes. In order to make perfect healthcare, it is important to study the experience of other developed countries that achieved success in medicine, and maybe borrow some of the best methods.

In conclusion, the ideal system of health care does not exist, but it is undoubtedly that health care must be cheaper for the state and loyal to the population. While introducing healthcare reform, politics must think about the health of the population and not about the financial aspect. I am convinced that it is achievable to make medicine accessible and qualitative. It is undeniable that US healthcare is not perfect, but the country is constantly taking steps for improving healthcare and public health in general.