Macroeconomics of medical care in the US and healthcare outcomes
In 2007, the United States Census Bureau reported that 59. 3% of U. S. residents had employment-related insurance programs, 27. 8% had health insurance provided by the government, and of this percentage, 9% of them purchased health insurance directly, (Tsai, Bernard Jr, Plaisent, & Lin, 2014). This scares politicians however. Most every politician’s main goal is to be reelected, to be reelected; they need favor amongst the people. Why doesn’t the United States just change the healthcare system if it is considered to be one of the worst systems? This is a common question among many who know about the unpopularity with the current healthcare system. The problem with changing the healthcare system is the drastic change that will come about with change. If the United States decided to go with the UK’s approach to health care this would dramatically change the infrastructure of the healthcare system as a whole and impose all different types of taxes.
In international comparison of healthcare, the two variances are affected by many other variables, apart from a country’s healthcare system, among them the population size and individual behavior of citizens. In 2007, the Congressional Research Service summarized various data and studies and established that there are difficult research issues that affect the international comparison of healthcare and their systems. Macroeconomics of Medical Care in the United States Health Insurance According research, there are about 25% uninsured Americans who though qualified to have an insurance cover, they haven’t enrolled in any. Extending insurance cover to those qualifying uninsured persons has remained a political and fiscal challenge. For the rest of the citizens, health insurance is paid for privately. Individuals who get this coverage pay a monthly fee to cover medical costs or prescriptions they need to pay for and they do not have to panic if they get in an accident if they do not have money.
This can either be up to the insurer or the insurance provider but it all depends on who you get your health care coverage through. You may also be asked to pay a deductible if the health coverage does not cover all of the fees. The government is also trying to force into the law the insurance companies cannot drop you if you had a pre-existing condition. They also want to make it a law that everyone except for those exempt with very low income would be required to have health care coverage. For example, the 1973 Health Maintenance Organization Act was meant to stimulate the popularity of Health Maintenance. Opponents of HIT argue that while they engage in the costly and time consuming process for the benefit of their patients, it is the public and private insurers who benefit the most as efficiencies and waste such as duplication of services are eliminated.
A majority of medical providers insist that limited financial resources and lack of buy-in from the medical community at large are the greatest blocks to implementation, (Fried & Gaydos, 2012). Major factors for costly implementations of HIT were due to poor planning, miscommunication, mismanagement, overspending and lack of acceptance by end users. We also need to go back to Medicaid abuse because it costs Americans so much money. At the same time, there are procedures that are covered only under special circumstances. For example, the health plan does not cover circumcision and people seeking this procedure have to pay for the procedure, (Tsai, Bernard Jr, Plaisent, & Lin, 2014). Healthcare Coverage and Access There are various studies that have reported 40% of the U. S. population lacks adequate health insurance.
It would be important to have the president appeal to the people so that he can gain the support of the people through the reform. The president may also make executive orders in favor of reform. Without the president’s backing, the reform of healthcare could never take place. This is an example of the role of the Executive branch’s involvement. The United States Healthcare Outcomes In 2007, the United States Census Bureau reported that 59. It is reported that the uninsured had more difficulties accessing healthcare services. When compared to Canadians and insured Americans, uninsured Americans were less likely to have seen a doctor, were much less satisfied and most likely and were unable to receive desired care. Another comparison study evaluated access to healthcare in the U.
S. and Canada based on immigrant status. The government is also trying to force into the law the insurance companies cannot drop you if you had a pre-existing condition, (United States & Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (U. S. They also want to make it a law that everyone except for those exempt with very low income would be required to have health care coverage. A majority of medical providers insist that limited financial resources and lack of buy-in from the medical community at large are the greatest blocks to implementation. Major factors for costly implementations of HIT were due to poor planning, miscommunication, mismanagement, overspending and lack of acceptance by end users. S. As such, diagnosis with illnesses may make an employee be fearful of new employment.
The costs need to be addressed soon because of their overall impact on the United States economy. Government mandating companies to provide coverage for their employees (to varying degrees) can be too burdensome for small businesses, making them incapable of competing in an international market which drives up market prices in the United States. Medical emergency service bills are not paid by the patients, but it is the responsibility of the government to meet such costs, (Institute of Medicine (U. During the final years of Richard Nixon’s presidency, and loosely based on a law already established in New York at the time, he helped bring the Certificate of Need (CON) law to fruition; to be included in the Federal Health Planning Resources Development Act of 1974.
While the CON laws have changed somewhat since that time, nevertheless they remain in effect and are controversial as to their benefits, (United States & Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (U. S. According to CON laws, it is required that 50 states of United States must forward or rather submit their healthcare proposals documents in order to be reviewed and approved by the State Health Planning Agency before handling any projects. While today only 36 states utilize the CON laws, many of the states abolishing them still have some form of a CON in place, even if not by name. Government mandating companies to provide coverage for their employees (to varying degrees) can be too burdensome for small businesses, making them incapable of competing in an international market which drives up market prices in the United States.
This creates a trickling effect to which, those companies that cannot compete in international markets, flounder simply due to health care costs which increases unemployment, increasing government spending welfare and creating an environment unsuitable for healthy living, (Noordin, Kamarudin, & Anwar, 2015). Not since the Civil War, it seems, has the country been so divided on how to address the rising costs of health care. In a nation that has degenerated into an “us versus them” mentality; those who believe they’re fighting against a socialist agenda versus those who believe they are combating a corporate capitalist giant are all missing the point entirely and turning what is a national crisis into meaningless squabble and mere talking points for the next Presidential candidate, (Noordin, Kamarudin, & Anwar, 2015).
Without a truly bipartisan effort on the government in coordination with various private organizations within the country, the United States will undoubtedly enter into bankruptcy and destroy, not only the future of country’s health care, but also annihilate our country’s future entirely, (WHO, 2013). labor market. In many states group health insurance providers are permitted to use experience rating, and at the same time, potential employers are allowed to check candidates’ health, and previous health records bore hiring. As such, diagnosis with illnesses may make an employee be fearful of new employment, (WHO, 2013). The Judiciary branch would be essential to interpret the constitution and make decisions based on the constitutionality of the healthcare reform and they would need to judge and make decisions that support the healthcare reform, much in the same way that the judiciary has voted in support of Obamacare in a Supreme Court ruling.
This would not be an easy task, because it requires so many different people to be all in and in favor of a total reform of healthcare to a different system. The state of Connecticut also passed a law, Sustinet, which aimed at increasing healthcare coverage in the state by 98 %. Comparison of the United States Medical Care and International Healthcare In 2004, government funding in healthcare in the United States was $2, 728 per person while in Canada it was equivalent to $1, 893. This significant difference arises from the fact that Canada has a different healthcare system composed of ten autonomous provincial healthcare systems which are under provincial governments. First Nations and the military are covered by the federal system. On the other hand, the U.
People are not prepared for change especially related to healthcare reform as evidenced by the overwhelming debate and fuss over small changes in the healthcare system. This is the reason why the United States has not adopted a new system of healthcare, (United States & Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (U. S. A new system of healthcare would require dramatic changes to the whole infrastructure of healthcare. The politicians we have do not have the sand to support a total reform of healthcare because they fear not being elected/reelected. The Commonwealth Fund established that in emergency rooms, 49% of Canadians waited for two hours or more as compared to 29% of Americans. To see a specialist, 57% of Canadians waited for four or more weeks as compared to 23% of Americans, (Kuklik, 2011).
In 2008, the Canadian Fraser Institute reported that the median wait time between when a patient is referred for care and the time the receipt of payment is delivered is four and a half months. Hospital administrators were dissatisfied with the Canadian and American systems. For example, 21% of hospital administrators in Canada as compared to 1% of administrators in America claimed that it would take over three weeks for a 50-year-old woman to get a biopsy for possible breast cancer. Conclusion The readings in this paper have been an evaluation of the healthcare coverage in the United States in comparison with other healthcare systems in other countries such as Canada. The Canadian system has many advantages over the American system with the main one advantage being it’s economical.
The Canadian government does not spend as many funds on healthcare as the American government does. The main disadvantage of the International system was with its long wait times. However, the comparison of which system is better does not take into account population and policy disparities between the two countries. Project MUSE - Open economy macroeconomics of credit, employment and growth: A structuralist approach. Retrieved April 13, 2018, from http://muse. jhu. edu/journals/jda/summary/v049/49. basu-banerjee. Gurgul, H. , Lach, L. , & Wojtowicz, T. Impact of US Macroeconomic News Announcements on Intraday Causalities on Selected European Stock Markets. Czech Journal of Economics and Finance, 66(5), 405-425. New health age: The future of health care in America. Naperville: Sourcebooks. IGI Global, & In Information Resources Management Association.
From $10 to earn access
Only on Studyloop