Healthcare Reform in America - Essay Example

Running Head: HEALTH CARE REFORM Health Care Reform [The [The s Health Care Reform After World War II, the consideration progression in developing health care reform in its infrastructure swerved away from any structure of socialized healthcare (Mahar, 2006). This appears to be a major slip-up, though it’s comprehensible at the time why politicians and physicians would reprimand such ideas owing to the sensitive political environment after the war. The origin of the AMA still, really positioned the power and the proceeds in the hands of the physicians (Mahar, 2006). The physicians already had power over the patients through knowledge. Patients rely on doctors because they are trained professionals, with the knowledge to help and cure patients’ medical conditions. A key aspect that reinforces the power of physicians is America’s vision of progressive health care technology, and the requirement to exploit new measures and medications. The United States is far behind the rest of the developed countries in terms of their life expectancies, but the cost for health care is much higher than all of the other developed countries as well (Cassel, 2005). This is due to the reliance on new technologies, and this problem is two-fold: on the one hand, pharmaceutical companies and medical technology producers push new drugs, prescriptions, and medical technologies and incentives are given to doctors to utilize this new technology (Mechanic, 2006). This is also coupled with the fact that nowadays; the American public is becoming more interested in these new technologies due to information provided, through advertising and other means, by the pharmaceutical companies themselves. As medical technologies, procedures, and medications continue to advance, the cost of providing such care also advances. In the first half of the 20th century, medical care was paid for out-of-pocket, by the patients themselves. When costs continued to rise above what patients could pay, another capitalist scheme was developed to cash in on the commodity of health care; insurance. The first forms of insurance were basically managed by businesses. They offered insurance to their employees, as an added fringe benefit; sacrificing a proportion of their salary or wages (Porter & Teisberg, 2006). This pretty much remains true to this day; most Americans receive their health care insurance from their employers. A growing problem in the uninsured population also exists in the waiting period that has been assigned to most business insurance programs; for a short period of time many employees and there families remain uninsured (Porter & Teisberg, 2006). This question also needs be addressed in healthcare reforms. Since businesses were the primary insurer for most of the American population, and the other portion of insured citizens were privately insured, an uninsured portion of the population existed, and was growing. Those who were unable to gain employment or who had retired, and could not afford private insurance, remained uninsured. As the aging population grew so to do this uninsured population. The new programs, such as Medicare, were working, but as costs continued to rise due to the factors listed above Medicare would soon either run out of funding, or would need to be supplemented with further taxes (Oberlander, 2008). This is a very similar problem to what social security is facing at the moment, and both stem from the same need for a more universal and well implemented plan. The condition of the U.S. health care system advanced and improved out of a stress on politics and business, rather than the initiative of health care itself. Employers were offered and given leverage in tax cuts for affording health care, pharmaceutical companies were also offered a free market with modest limitations, insurance companies carry on to increase premiums, and for a time physicians were capable to raise the charge of their services, and specialize in certain field in order to build a monopoly in a given field. The crisis of health care in the U.S. appears to mainly shoot from 1) a lack of medical information among politicians and citizens, when it should be in the hands of medical professionals, 2) ineptitude between politic circles and medical professionals in creating a universal health care plan, and 3) a lack of control and limits on the free markets of insurance, medical technology, and pharmaceutical companies. Development of regulation and policy is characterized by some major themes: a mixture of private and public interests, fragmented reform, the involvement of interest groups and the impact of legislators. Due to conflicting interests, reform of the healthcare system is usually a form of compromise. Some influential groups that can affect change in policy include Federal and State legislatures, employers, consumers, insurers, practitioners, provider organizations, and technology producers. (Shi and Singh, 2003) The Medicaid system exemplifies piecemeal regulatory development. Started in 1965, Medicaid has undergone additions and revisions in coverage through the years as different groups of disadvantaged citizens were identified as needing assistance. Since people had to qualify for Medicaid, some were not covered. Over the years children and pregnant women that otherwise would not have qualified have been added to ensure Medicaid access based on need. The market for the U.S. healthcare system is an extremely complex one that cannot immediately be examined by the standard microeconomic tools of supply and demand. A public generally uneducated in healthcare utilizes the modern day healthcare system, with treatments selected by physicians, and the final bill paid by a third party insurance or managed care organization. Healthcare Reforms can make this entire situation better. The disjoint nature of this market yields a system where FDA regulation is necessary to examine quality of the products and third party payers are responsible for the negotiation of drug prices. Since the government is the largest third party payer it at times may negotiate more rigidly than other organizations are capable, providing it with the lowest pharmaceutical costs. Regulation and reform process of healthcare in the U.S. is often varied and asymmetrical. It is also controversial, as most conservatives push for deregulation in all industries, including healthcare, while liberals look for the government to have an ever-expanding role. The majority of Americans would agree that some amount of regulation is a good thing. Although FDA is plagued by bottlenecks and increases the costs to bring a drug to market, few people would argue that FDA is an unnecessary institution. Most conservatives believe that in a competitive market, providers would regulate themselves as do physicians and medical schools, and that those groups that failed to properly regulate themselves would eventually exit the market as their businesses failed. Their solution would be to have the minimum amount of regulation through reforms; perhaps just enough to provide for adequate research and information for pharmaceuticals and medical treatments, and to deregulate the rest of the industry enough that free markets could operate. However, this method would not necessarily eliminate or minimize potential harm, as there would be at least a short period of time before word spread that a particular provider or service was untrustworthy or dangerous. On the other side of the debate, liberals would prefer to increase regulation to the point that all aspects of healthcare would be under government control, from universal insurance or single payer plans, to possibly deciding which treatments and doctors and consumers have access to. This maximum amount of regulation would at least initially minimize harm, but might eventually stifle innovation and lead to large tax burdens. As with most issues, the best approach is likely somewhere in between these two positions. We have seen how over-regulation can create slow-moving behemoths such as FDA, but we can also look back to the many deaths and injuries that occurred before FDA was created to protect consumers. Federal regulation of pharmaceuticals is a necessary evil, whose good outweighs harm done. Since regulation is such a complicated issue, it is one that might best be left to the will of the people. By clearly drawing a line where regulation should start and end, we would be undermining the democratic process laid out in our Constitution. When a significant portion of the electorate finds a need for increased regulation, such as increased powers for FDA, they can send messages to their elected representatives, who will then hopefully act on their behalf. Regulation should also be limited by the same means, with the masses determining the type and amount of government they desire. According to market justice philosophy, equitable distribution of healthcare services occurs as a result of market forces within a free economy. Following economic theory, the cost of healthcare will be directly related to supply and demand. Accessing healthcare services is correlated to an individual’s ability and willingness to pay for them. However, in order for this scenario to hold, a perfect economy must exist: the U.S. healthcare system, as mentioned early, is far from being a perfect market system. As a result, people who are unable to pay for healthcare services face additional barriers and are often unable to access much needed care. Resultantly, the superior good of the public’s health as a whole is put at hazard, as precautionary healthcare services are underutilized, menace of infectious disease increases, and the economy undergoes due to loss of productivity agents i.e. laborers. (Shi and Singh, 2003) In contrast, social justice philosophy holds that equitable distribution of healthcare is a responsibility of society. Instead of perceiving healthcare as an economic good, social justice views healthcare as a social good; therefore, removing financial and other barriers to healthcare goods and services is morally just. There are approximately 250 million people currently living in the United States and almost 75 millions are uninsured (Botterweck, 2004). This includes not only the poor and minorities but also a growing number of low-paid middle class Americans who, with their salaries, cannot afford to purchase insurance. In cases of illnesses or accidents, they are left to mercy of those who run the hospitals. Since ample health care security is indispensable for the public, health care system in the United States needs be reformed so that all Americans are covered in the hour of need irrespective of their capacity to pay for medical services. Today, the United States is the only industrial country in the world that does not provide a government-sponsored medical system for all citizens (Botterweck, 2004). The involvement of the government is only seen in some kind of support for those most in need, the children of the poor, and the elderly Medicaid for the poor and Medicare for the elderly. Both of these programs grew out of the controversy about public health. While these programs give a certain level of assistance to the poor and the elderly, there are growing numbers of low-paid middle class working people who do not fulfill requirements for receiving Medicaid insurance. Furthermore, neither their employers provide them with health insurance benefits nor their low-amount checks allow them to purchase any kind of insurance. This category of people suffers the most in cases of illnesses or other medical emergencies. According to Mortality, leading causes for deaths in the United States are heart diseases and different types of cancers, which are in direct correlation with a lack of the adequate health care. If these people were insured, they would be provided with services such as regular check-ups and in many cases death could be prevented. Most people would agree that everyone should be provided with health care. Most people will be in a situation when their well-being would be conditioned by the medical service they receive. Most people would agree that providing people with health care benefits cost a lot of tax-payers money. Rising health costs mean lower wages, higher prices for goods and services, and higher taxes. The points of disagreement arise from the question whether or not all the citizens should sacrifice and accept even higher tax rates for introducing a new health care program which would cover all the citizens regardless of their socio-economic status. Another question is how the government should address this issue and would the universal government-provided insurance mean interfering in people’s lives and limiting personal freedom of choice. To answer both questions, people should decide whether saving humans lives is worth of giving up on some amount of money or even losing some level of personal choice. The United States is without a question the leading country of medical and scientific innovations. There always seem to be a new medical breakthrough every time people watch the news or read the newspapers, especially in the cure of certain diseases. This means that it is less costly to prevent the disease than to cure it. Besides, if more people receive medical coverage for routine check-ups, the United States workforce would become much more productive since many people are taking days off because of illnesses. Therefore, by providing people with health care insurance the economy would progress and the money would be saved due to early detection and prevention of a diseases. People should have a sense of compassion and charity towards those that have had fewer chances to succeed. Many in our society have marked the poor class as unwanted and worthless. When people need medical treatment to save their life, it should not be important who they are. Because the working class comprises most of the uninsured group of people, the economy is also affected because the productivity of the workforce directly depends on their overall health. Most importantly, providing all Americans with health insurance would save countless lives and that should be the ultimate goal of American society. Works Cited Botterweck, Michael C., et al. (2004) Everyday Sociology; an Introduction. 4th ed. Elmhurst: Starpoint. Cassel, Christine K. (2005). Medicare Matters: Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Mahar, Maggie: (2006) Money-Driven Medicine: The Real Reason Health Care Costs So Much: Harper Business. Mechanic, David. (2006) The truth about healthcare: Why reform is not working in America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Press. Oberlander, Jonathon. (2008) The Political Life of Medicare. IL: University of Chicago. Porter, Michale and Elizabeth Olmsted Teisberg: (2006) Redefining health care: Creating value-based competition on results. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School. Shi, Leiyu & Singh A. Douglas: (2003): Delivering Health Care in America: A Systems Approach, Third Edition Jones & Bartlett Publishers; 3rd edition Read More