A Comparative Study of the Quality Healthcase Service in UK and USA - Essay Example

? A comparative Study of the Quality Healthcare Service in U.K and U.S.A Introduction A quality healthcare system can be defined as the appropriateness of the types of treatments administered and its effectiveness in addressing the needs of the surrounding population in terms of their health. It can also be defined as the overall medical care availed to a specific population and the extent to which it address their needs. In this paper, we will look at some of the indicators of a quality health care system and against this backdrop undertake a comparative the U.S.A and U.K healthcare system. It refers to the overall healthcare system that a country has in relation to the array of physical ailments and the degree of effectiveness the system in addressing the needs of society. There are therefore indicators that will help the stakeholders know if the healthcare system being provided is of quality. The first one is effectiveness; it means the degree to which a reasonably quality healthcare has been in fact attained by the service provider in question. This means therefore looking at the evidence that provides attainability of quality healthcare; for example number of medical errors and accidents that has occurred before and after the pursuit of quality, death toll of the patients among other things. These means that the system must provide appropriate services in accordance to the community it serves. It could also include the preventive measure the system partakes in order to improve the overall health status of the society, as it is said, prevention is better than curration. The second indicator is patient centeredness/ responsiveness which mean the extent to which the healthcare system puts patient at the center of its service delivery. This means looking at patient satisfaction; it analyses the experience of the patient in terms of the degree of care that the person was given, how well the patient understands his ailments, communication between the patient and the care givers and the recovery timeline of the patient if it was reasonable. Further the system must comply with patient’s expectations, desires and wishes; that is to say its mode of operation must be acceptable to the patients. This also means the services are vended out in a timely manner to the patient, as opposed to waiting hours at the waiting room in pain and ailment without being attended to. The third indicator is accessibility that is look at how much ease are patient able to access the services of the healthcare system. The main focus here is not only the distance between the healthcare dispensing unit and the patient, but also the overall cost of the healthcare vis-a-vis the financial position of the surrounding population. The latter description refers to ideals of equity in the healthcare system. The fourth indicator is efficiency. This refers to the use of available resources against the result. It answers the question if the optimum use of the available resources yields the best results this means that the system is therefore able to progressively lower operational cost and still maintain good standards of service. Competence and Capability as the fifth indicators refers to the degree of staff qualification in relation to the patient needs. Competence may also mean technical or cultural competence. This means that the system has the required equipment to address the diverse needs of its clients and further that the staff is equipped in terms of language and other related aspects of culture to conform to the state in the society in which it is planted. Continuity the sixth indicator relates to the extent to which the hospital coordinate services rendered to patient over time and over related medical institution. It also means that the health system is able to continually maintain desirable standard and improve progressively. Comparative Study of the National Healthcare Service of U.K and U.S.A In the United Kingdom the National Health Care service is based on the ideal of free healthcare service for all. There are also free services for children and old people for eye test and glass available to them, since they are the most vulnerable group in society. This is contrasted with the American system where individuals get insurance for their healthcare. There are programmes for the extremely poor and the old aged known as Medicare and Medicaid, however the persons concerned have to apply in order to be admitted to the programmes and the process is quite bureaucratic and the quality given is substandard this deters people from applying. The U.K system has the healthcare services already paid for by the tax payers under the pay as you earn scheme. The ‘free’ system make medical practitioners lax in their enthusiasm of treating patient as they do not pay directly for services received. This means that the quality of service they offer is diminished. On the other hand, some parts of the populations tend to abuse the free healthcare system and visit doctors for no legitimate reason. The system then depends on the working population to fund it; statistic shows that with time, a higher percent of the population will old and retired and a lower percent will be working to maintain the old; this means that the tax burden on them will increase with time. However, the main advantage is that healthcare is guaranteed for at all stages of their lives; and both the old and the young are guaranteed of medical cover. Further the U.K system provides for preventive medication availed to the population that seeks to improve the populations overall health status. The national health system buys the medication and gives to the patients for free; the bargaining power of the NHS makes the drugs cost effective to the consumers. The American systems entails payment of premiums to insurance firms as well as pay an amount of money after each visit to the doctor called the copay. This means healthcare is available to those who can afford it and the medical coverage of the people who can afford it remains uncertain due to the economic adversity that may occur in the future. The cost of medicine is also quite expensive as people bargain for it individually and preventative drugs are not availed to the population in order to safeguard the nation’s health status. There is poor medical cover for the children and the aged meaning people work into their old age in order to sustain their medical cover. On the positive side, it also means the professions in the health industry are more inclined to provide the patient quality for their money. The premiums paid are deducted and paid to the insurance companies directly by the employers as part of the employment contract. The array of services available is also wide and this encourages innovation in treatment methodology. There is no abuse of service because people only visit doctors where they have a legitimate need for medical attention. On customer satisfaction, in the U.S, the degree of satisfaction is higher than that in the U.K since the fact that the doctors are paid on visits make them diligent in the quality of services they provide. In both systems the service line management is carried out by the National Healthcare System of the respective countries. They provide skillful leadership to the doctors, clear goals and when accident happens they are accountable to the NHS. Conclusion and Recommendations It is emerging from the above discussion that the National Health Care system of the United Kingdom is relatively good. However, like any other service delivery system, it has plenty of room for improvement. The Doctors, for starters must be reminded through seminars and training that the citizens are its employers and therefore their primary goal should be continued quality service. There should also be incentives from the government that award medical innovations and discovery in order to motivate the medical practitioners make discoveries that would improve service delivery. The government should also subsidize the health care in order to lessen the burden on the tax payers. These are all factors a NHS manager should look into. He should advice the government on the importance of subsidizing healthcare expenses as well as and finding means to improve performance of medical staff. He should also educate the importance of discouraging the public from frivolous doctor visits as it denies other patients from access medical attention that they need. This should be done, by imposing a fine that deters such citizens from the visits. There should also be a national review of the NHS service charter, which puts patient needs at the center of the services. This means embracing some of the quality indicators discussed above as guiding principles to guide the organizations towards better and quality service provided by the organization. The healthcare manager in should also encourage emergence of specialized private medical systems to run simultaneous to the government agencies. This will take the load of the public institutions and consequently take the load off the tax payers. The manager should also advice the government to avail tax exemption of people who sort the services of private medical practitioner in order to protect them for paying double as well as paying for services they are not using. The manager should also initiate a medical retirement saving scheme that seeks to encourage people to sort of pay for their medical needs in anticipation of retirement. This will effectively take the load of the working population. There should also be education programmes to aid patience provide self health management in the secluded instances they can. This relieves the pressure on the national healthcare plan as well as acts to reduce costs incurred by the tax payers. Lorig K. Mazonson P., and Holman H. (1993) “Evidence Suggesting That Health Education for Self-Management in Patients with Chronic Arthritis Has Sustained Health Benefits while Reducing Health Care Costs,” Arthritis and Rheumatism 36, No. 4. S. Greenfield, S. Kaplan, and J. Ware, “Expanding Patient Involvement in Care,” Annals of Internal Medicine 102, no. 4. Hannan et al., “Improving the Outcomes of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery;” Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council, Biennial Report; and E. Bumiller, “Death-Rate Rankings Shake New York Cardiac Surgeons,” The New York Times, 6 September 1995, A1. Robinson J. and Casalino L., “The Growth of Medical Groups Paid through Capitation in California,” The New England Journal of Medicine 333, no. 25 Aday, L. and Ronald M. (1975) Development of Indices of Access to Medical Care. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Health Administration Press. Department of Health (2009), Departmental Report 2009; London, Department of Health Audit Commission (2000): Aiming to Improve: The Principles of Performance Measurement. London: Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the NHS in England and Wales. Department of Health (2008), Departmental Report 2008; London, Department of Health Donabedian A (2003); An Introduction to Quality Assurance in Health Care. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McKinsey Global Institute (2008), “Accounting for the Cost of Health Care in the United States”; McKinsey and Company OECD (2008), OECD Health Data, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris. Juran, J and Godfrey, B. (2000) Juran’s Quality Handbook; New York: McGraw Hill Arrow, J. 1963. "Uncertainty and the Welfare Economics of Medical Care." American Economic Review 53:941-969. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, “Your guide to choosing quality healthcare.” Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 1998. Available at: http://www.ahcpr.gov/consumer/qnt/. 22 April 2012. Schoen, C., Osborn. R., Squires, D., Doty M., Pierson R., and Applebaum. S (2009), “How Health Insurance Design Affects Access to Care and Costs, by Income, in Eleven Countries,” Health Affairs, 29(12):2323–34. World Health Organization (2000): The World Health Report 2000. Health Systems: Improving Performance. Geneva. McKinsey Global Institute (2008), “Accounting for the Cost of Health Care in the United States” McKinsey and Company. Department of Health (2010), Departmental Report 2010; London, Department of Health Read More