Health Reforms in the U.S. and UK - Essay Example

Health Reforms in the U.S. and UK Table of Contents Table of Contents Introduction 2 Access to Health Care2 Health Quality Criteria 3 Liberation of Health Care Systems 5 Effective and Efficient Technology in the Health Sector 7 Efficiency and Equity in the Health Sector 9 Conclusion 10 Introduction UK and US health reforms concentrate majorly on societal welfare (Great Britain 2012, p. 78). Both nations consider effective and efficient healthcare a necessity to all citizens. As such, every step towards its improvement should be implemented. The countries’ governments have indeed stated that the marginalised group of the society lacks proper healthcare due to the prevailing economic incapacities. Therefore, the governments feel the need to consider all citizens in offering healthcare services despite their societal status, races, demographic variability and economic variations. As a result, implementation of healthcare reforms in these countries has been given first priority (Weisfield, English & Claiborne 2012, p. 54). The aspects established in the reforms include cost reductions, quality enhancement criteria, patient satisfaction, stimulating ideal information technology approaches and improving overall service delivery in the health sector. Access to Health Care Individuals are entitled to efficient and effective healthcare services. In this case, the US advocates access to insurance cover that will cater for health-related issues. According to Tudor, the government ascertains that the reforms will further secure and ease the risk of loss for those with health insurance policies. On the contrary, the UK government advocates fair access to health services through the reforms. This emphasises the stringent measures over the health services delivered by private and public proprietors (Great Britain 2012, p. 78). The United Kingdom further advocates that proper health care systems will put patients into consideration, and to that extent, they will have the rights to express the types of services they seek. Most importantly, the UK reforms target to reshape and restructure the health system by approaching all societal groupings equally. In essence, the country understands the importance of all citizens and upholds their health as being significant to economic propulsion. The reforms consider improving the rate at which people gain access to health by allocating funds to the clinical commissioning groups and the founding of Public Health England. The bodies serve in intensifying health provision throughout the UK, thus reaching people in all dimensions nationwide. This aspect contrasts with the United States reforms, which imply that individuals ought to access insurance cover to stand viable to health services. On the other hand, the US government depicts that most of its citizens lack prompt access to health services due to high costs as compared to other nations. The reforms shall implement guaranteed access to the best health care among all citizens, thus enhancing social welfare. Through the reforms, the governments will subsidise the cost of insurance, hence making the policy cheaper and accessible by the marginalised group of the society (Truglio-Londrigan & Lewenson 2011, p. 49). An analytical approach portrayed that the US nation spends much on medical care but denies the citizens access because of the cost constraints. Therefore, suppressing the costs will propel health care throughout the nation. On the contrary, the UK government offers free health care throughout the nations, but inhibitions prevail over immigrants, and the time factor also matters since health facilities do not offer prompt services (Great Britain 2012, p. 79). Therefore, the UK reforms contrast with those of the US in accessibility to the extent that while one seeks to surpass costs, the other wishes to improve prompt delivery to all citizens despite their region and ethnicity. Health Quality Criteria A survey conducted upon the uninsured and insured patients inclusive of those suffering from critical conditions proved that the health quality delivered in US is unevenly low throughout the medical facilities. To improve quality provision, the reforms outline the necessity to cover insurance of a population of 34 million citizens; thus, the figure of insured will approximately amount to 94% of the total population (Truglio-Londrigan & Lewenson 2011, p. 52). On the other hand, UK reforms tend to co-relate to America’s quality performance since the country finds it essential to cut subsidising of consumer costs, hence increasing the GDP of the UK’s economy. Both countries find laxity in prevalence over the health institutions. This depicts a practice that haphazardly results in loss of lives of patients, especially those suffering from chronic infections and in serious conditions. The American reforms imply the necessity of evaluating the performance of the healthcare providing institutions, whereby the best performing institutions gain rewards over the underperforming ones, which consequently fall under the risk of penalty. In the UK, the reforms will ensure quality and prompt medical service delivery by the institutions (Great Britain 2012, p. 79). The UK reforms will achieve the goal by implementing strict measures that lead to the closure of underperforming institutions. UK reforms establish a clinical commissioning groups that control financing of the National Health Service (NHS). Therefore, both countries’ reforms shall improve the quality through the implementation of measures that limit citizens’ spending patterns, increase efficiency in delivery, reduce unnecessary costs and establish surveillance criteria over the health care organisations. The United States reforms in the NHS seek to intensify service delivery in the American society through the primary health care utilities. The reforms imply that the funding training programs for physicians would imply an increment in quality delivery. For example, it depicts that with adequate skills, physicians would have the ability to offer services relative to those delivered by specialists (Great Britain 2012, p. 80). The reforms analyse the possibilities that physicians are likely to show less concern to earnings as far as the government caters for most of the expenses. On the other hand, UK reforms tend to interrelate with those of the United States after the country seeks to implement a diverse approach criterion to reach the marginalised part of the society. Mainly, Great Britain seeks to ensure accountability in service delivery among the primary health care facilities, which further propels efficiency whilst curbing malpractices. In addition, both countries imply conformity in enhancing the quality of health for the best value of the entire society (Truglio-Londrigan & Lewenson 2011, p. 53). The reforms dictate the extreme need for supervision in the prospective health delivery units, motivating those upholding to the required practices and implementing restraints to the units that defy ethics and the code of conduct. Both countries target to equip medical practitioners with proper knowledge, thus improving service delivery and increasing the number of professionals. The reforms will ascertain the target objective since the offered training will affect diversity of knowledge among the practitioners, similar to that held by the specialists. Liberation of Health Care Systems The UK government approaches the public funded utilities with definite principles that define the future of improved service provision. The authorities perceive that restraints on the hospital funds serve to limit efficiency rather than enhancing the degree of accountability. The prevailing constraints tend to manipulate the medical delivery units in their financial decisions as access to the funds remains under other governmental institutions (Truglio-Londrigan & Lewenson 2011, p. 54). The reforms imply independence in controlling finances as this would affect delivery of improved services through the ability to make salient and prompt decisions whenever need arises. The UK government further establishes that effective health care services and easy access to the health facilities in a wider geographical range should be delivered to patients (Great Britain 2012, p. 81). The reforms encourage express erasure of medical charges – a factor that steers accessibility. On the other hand, America’s medical reforms will achieve freedom in the health facility by restraining from biases to the encouragement of equity among all ethnic communities present in the country. The reforms will fasten the access channel by limiting the barrier that a patient needs to visit a practitioner, who acknowledges whether the patient should seek service from the specialist. This mechanism is inconsistent with the health of individuals, and the reforms target to eradicate it entirely (Truglio-Londrigan & Lewenson 2011, p. 57). The US reforms imply liberation on the costs of medication by stating that individuals would access free medication through the insurance cover, which also serves as a basis for equity in accessing the health units without bias. Therefore, the USA and UK reforms will deviate on the issue of easy and free access to health since the US implies restricting bias and ensuring easy access to services whereas British reforms depict liberty in the health sector as express financial control and diversifying services to reach the community evenly. In both countries, the reforms will improvise an approach in the health sector that engulfs the entire community and produces the desired value. The governments forecast that liberating the health services encourages funding which similarly implicates performance of hospitals and diversification of opportunities (Truglio-Londrigan & Lewenson 2011, p. 59). The reforms target to implement a state whereby the health service units will create new jobs to the people. To that extent, similarities occur between the two countries since the reforms target to propel the economies through the creation of new jobs. The countries’ reforms show similarities in reduction of the costs of treatment, although from an indirect perspective. The fact is that whenever the US citizens access insurance policies, they will gain express rights to seek proper healthcare as a constitutional right. Effective and Efficient Technology in the Health Sector Health reforms in the two countries implement efficiency in the sector through improving communication media. The reforms target communication as the key to enhancing efficiency as the health units shall have the ability to render services at a faster rate. For example, the reforms targeted reducing costs through increasing efficiency and reducing inconveniences that in the long run cause unnecessary expenses (Weisfield et al. 2012, p. 54). The two countries view technology advances as the modern day tool of conforming to the effective delivery of obligations as the medical facilities are likely to serve the areas that call for immediate attention. Because of the advancements in technology, both countries’ reforms seek to derive and implement the best technology through funding of the health facilities, thus capacitating them to purchase the equipment that they perceive as a necessity (Great Britain 2012, p. 83). Therefore, U.S.A and UK show similarities in the approach to the application of technology. The US reforms establish the need to implement a modernised approach in almost all aspects in the health sector ranging from the treatment equipment to the databases. The technological approach serves to incline the health system to an extra step, as the sick shall bear the ability to communicate effectively with the health units who shall thereafter render immediate attention to the needy clients (Swanwick & Mckimm 2010, p. 56). Ambulances shall comprise improved emergency kits and machinery, thus serving as a platform to sustain lives before availing the patients to hospitals. The use of technology shall apply to the effect that outpatients will have the ability to deliver online correspondence to their respective physicians, thus serving to ease unnecessary congestion in the hospitals (Weisfield et al. 2012, p. 58). In this case, the UK government seeks to implement similar measures that affect online communication among the different medical facilities, the primary care systems, and patients throughout the different societal categories. To ascertain that the technological approach serves the population of the US evenly, the reforms establish children in the family as being entitled to the insurance policy. This step taken serves to eradicate any form of barrier that may cause the loss of lives because of lack of proper medication. The reforms draw on the importance of children in the policy, citing that some are born with complications while others may develop complications through accidents; thus, parents may lack the ability to cater for a variety of insurance policies for each of them. With the application of modern technology, the whole family finds easy access to the rights of health through online expressions (Crisp 2011, p. 66). The UK improves technology to link up institutions with the patients through the set websites. The reforms seek to consider the diverse British community that comprises many cultures from different races. Implications of the information technology approach between the two countries seek to propel efficiency, effectiveness and accountability in service delivery that entirely promotes the lives of the citizens. Both countries establish that the reforms shall offer a challenge to encourage practitioners to endure the necessary training to cope with the new systems (Kaye 2011, p. 130). The modernisation of technology will enable practitioners from both countries to advance and acquire modernised skills to serve to the desired effect. The similarity is that the reforms from both countries target to achieve the best services that practitioners would render to the community through the provision of effective knowledge. Efficiency and Equity in the Health Sector The approach defined laxity in the medical provision segment in America – a factor that coincides with the status of the client seeking medical service. The reforms analyse different components of the health unit that practices ineffective approaches to issues pertaining to health. The reforms push for the realisation of the best methods and programs to link up all medical facilities in states and the entire country (Tudor 2010, p. 142). The reforms imply the possibility that efficiency ensured by linkages among the medical facilities would propel success; thus, the entire US health system would shift positively towards achievement of goals and obligations. In the UK, reforms outline the salient role of linking up the prospective medical facilities as the aspect serves to promote the welfare of the citizens, mainly through tendering contracts on the exchange utility of the tangible and intangible assets necessary in the medical industry (Crisp 2011, p. 69). Therefore, the countries’ reforms seek to enhance service delivery through the approach of efficiency. The UK implements an autonomous approach to management; thus, the reforms state the necessity of modifying the managerial system so that the executives in the NHS board have the essential professionalism, as this will positively affect decision-making and the achievement of the target goals (Baker 2008, p. 79). On the other hand, The U.S.A reforms target to affect a democratic approach to the management of the health facilities. The reforms stipulate that the hospitals’ managements shall express a hierarchical approach, thus easing dictatorial and stringent employee approaches that restrain the achievement of target goals. Both countries share a similarity that well-managed health systems will perform effectively because of the motivational factors in prevalence. The US reforms apply a supervisory criterion that tames all the practitioners to initiate ethical behaviors while relating amongst themselves and towards the patients (Crisp 2011, p. 69). The tool is an effective solution to curb unnecessary deprivation of an individual of his or her constitutional rights to proper healthcare. The reforms apply stringent measures to the nonperforming practitioners as their rates of inefficiency may cause unnecessary deaths or development of other complications in patients (Weisfield et al. 2012, p. 98). On the other hand, UK embarks on diversification and continuous funding of public and private healthcare, which leads to improved efficiency in delivery (Macdonald 2007, p. 130). The UK reforms seek to implement a commissioning body that will supervise any undertakings in the health units and establish the rate of performance; thus, the authorities shall have the capacity to take necessary actions. Therefore, the US and UK reforms are similar in that both countries seek to improve efficiency in performance and facilitate patients’ lives. Conclusion Health reforms are crucial to a positive change in the health sector that initially upheld the plight of the wealthy but not the needy patients (Mandelstam 2007, p. 68). Arguably, the imposition of the reforms will reshape the health industry in UK and US in the best way possible as analysis depicts the possibility that reforms consider the whole population. Both countries consider health as a propellant to economic development, and thus, the individual wellbeing of citizens becomes an important asset (Crisp 2011, p. 79). Therefore, the comparison of the health reforms in the two countries establishes similarities in achieving health objectives whilst contrasting the methods of implementing the set of plans. Bibliography Baker, GR 2008, High performing healthcare systems: delivering quality by design, Longwoods Pub. Corp., Toronto. Crisp, N 2011, 24 hours to save the NHS: the chief executive's account of reform 2000 to 2006, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Great Britain 2012, NHS pay review today: twenty-sixth report 2012, Stationery Office, London. Kaye, SB 2011, Emerging therapeutic targets in ovarian cancer, Springer, New York. Macdonald, TH 2007, The global human right to health: dream or possibility? Radcliffe Pub., Oxford. Mandelstam, M 2007, Betraying the NHS health abandoned, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London, viewed 15 November 2012, . Swanwick, T & Mckimm, J 2010, ABC of clinical leadership, BMJ, London. Truglio-Londrigan, M & Lewenson, S 2011, Public health nursing: practicing population-based care, Mass, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury, Mass. Tudor, HJ 2010, The political economy of health care: where the NHS came from and where it could lead, Policy Press, Bristol. Weisfield, N, English, RA & Claiborne, AB 2012, Envisioning a transformed clinical trials enterprise in the United States: establishing an agenda for 2020: workshop summary, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. Read More