Posts Tagged ‘System’

Health Care System & Plan

June 2nd, 2011

Everyone, at some time in his or her life, will need to seek medical care. The American health care system is a billion dollar industry, and it discards people that can’t afford its services. The current health care system is divided into two groups–health care for the insured and no health care or limited care for the uninsured. The kind of medical and personal care that an individual receives under the current American health care system depends on the person’s insurance status. In the land of equal opportunity, segregation is still practiced.Many practitioners refuse to work with uninsured people, and won’t allow them to pay for medical care on a monthly payment plan. This additional exclusion prevents thousands of Americans from obtaining necessary health care. The American health care system has become so convoluted and expensive that American citizens are forced to seek health care outside the United States. Places like Argentina, Singapore, Manila, Bangalore, and Costa Rica provide high quality, low cost health care to American citizens that America should be providing to its own people.

Believe it or not, America boasts some of the world’s best doctors, the most advanced health care system, and the most technically superior resources in the world, bar none. Those who travel globally and have gotten sick know that their first choice for treatment would be in the U.S. Though health care in America is, more expensive than any other country, many of the worlds wealthiest come to the U.S for surgical procedures and complex care, because it holds a worldwide reputation for the gold standard in health care.One of the greatest mis-conceptions some people have relied on with regard to the health care debate is that, given a universal health care system, every person in the U.S. would receive the highest quality health care – the kind our nation is renowned for and that we currently receive.

Though our nation’s economy has recently lost millions of jobs, the health care industry has continued to add them. Not surprisingly, unions are eager to sign up health care workers. In the last 10 years, the rate of union wins in the health care industry has grown faster than the national average. Unions are uniting to lobby for labor-friendly legislation to promote increased union membership in the health care sector.The following article provides an overview of the major unions involved in the health care industry, as well as strategies to ensure your organization is prepared and remains successful.The coalition also encourages workers to unionize on an industry-wide basis, consolidating smaller unions within larger unions.

Comments Off »

Posted in Uncategorized

Tags:

Health Care Reform: an Opportunity for Insurance Industry Participation in Sierra Leone’s Medical Care System

May 22nd, 2011

The socialized system of healthcare delivery and financing, a relic of the British colonial era, still practiced in Sierra Leone has glaringly failed and any efforts at resuscitating it without implementation of major structural and systemic reform will only serve to prolong the inevitable.

Throughout the world, total state control and management of industries, services, markets and the means of production are gradually becoming a relic of the past. This model as practiced in the Sierra Leone healthcare system has empirically been proven to have served only to stifle innovation, growth, productivity and quality output with a resultant decline in overall living and healthcare standards of the citizenry. The current state of the hospitals and health centers glaringly highlights the systemic problems endemic in the entire government owned, managed, financed and operated health care system.

The continued operation of such a decadent and dilapidated delivery and financing system, lacking in even the basics of a modern healthcare infrastructure continues relegating Sierra Leone to the very bottom of the human development index.

The transformation thus of the medical healthcare delivery and financing system into a private insurance or a national insurance based system offers opportunities not only for insurers to develop market-based medical insurance plans and policies but also serves to effectuate the Ministry of Health & Sanitation’s desired policy goals, as espoused in the 2002 National Health Policy Paper.

Both policy and regulatory officials, healthcare providers, the insurance industry and other stakeholders must be engaged to effectuate implementation of fundamental systemic reforms if the country is to avert an even greater catastrophe.

Privatization:

 

Under the proposed privatization plan, the Ministry of Health & Sanitation will be transformed from ownership and management of hospitals, clinics, and employer of last resort for all physicians, nurses and ancillary healthcare providers into a health agency with only policy and regulatory functions.

The goal will be for the health agency to serve as a policy and regulatory watch dog mandated with ensuring that adequate and quality medical care is provided at the various private hospitals, clinics and pharmacies that will inevitably be established with the break-up of the current government owned facilities.

With the break-up and subsequent purchase or leases of these hospitals, clinics, health centers and other facilities, investors and entrepreneurs in an effort to realize maximum returns on investments, will economically be compelled to upgrade quality and standard of care, introduce state of the art equipment and technologies and engender a type of market forces competition which will inure only to the betterment of health consumers in the country.

A much needed infusion of capital into the health care industry by such a privatization plan will clearly spur additional economic activities in ancillary industries, as the dynamic forces of privatization and market mechanism forces of demand and supply will ensure competition for the healthcare pie.


Divestiture of Government Ownership:


The dismantling of the current mammoth and highly inefficient government owned healthcare delivery and financing entity must from a public policy perspective be designed and restructured to ensure governmental ownership and management divestiture from hospitals and other health care facilities.

Under such a scenario the government’s current enormous but woefully mismanaged capital outlay for health services will be substantially decreased as inefficiencies of corruption, salaries of providers, infrastructure maintenance, costs of medications and diagnostic equipments and other overhead operating costs will no longer be recurrent expenditures from the nation’s depleting coffers.

A system based entirely on a private market-based national health insurance plan with private enterprise and market competition at its core appears the most logical reform policy route to ensure a future sound, efficient and profitable health care infrastructure.

 Health Insurance Plans:

The cog which the proposed new system must revolve around is a nationwide network of affordable health insurance plans creatively designed to ensure a greater pool participation of a majority of the population. In such a system health insurance companies and provider organizations will be established to market various health plans, with minimum services and premiums based on market conditions. The responsibility for monitoring compliance by the various plans would fall under the ambit of both the Ministry of Health and Sanitation and the Sierra Leone Insurance Commission.


Multi-Payer System:


A major plank in this proposed health care delivery and financing privatization hinges on the enactment of health insurance legislation providing for employers to provide health care for their employees and dependants as part of a standard benefits package with concomitant tax incentives and governmental subsidies to ensure compliance. With such legislation the virtual free socialized medical care system, the costs of which have been borne exclusively by the government will now be based on a multi-payer system in which government, employees and employers will all participate.

With the system as currently structured however, only the government has a financial interest and stake and when other programs conflict with the financing of health care, politicians have only been too willing to sacrifice the health of their citizens on he alter of their greed and personal aggrandizement.

It is envisaged that health insurance providers will introduce concepts and plans, such as Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO) and Preferred Provider Organizations (PPO), through alliances of health providers and insurance companies and marketed to employers, labor unions, governmental ministries and corporations on an annual premium basis.

The competition engendered by such health organizations for the medical insurance pie will subsequently result in competitive rates, coverage, deductibles, co-payments and premiums to make health care costs affordable for all.


The Unemployed:


As unemployment and underemployment are perennial problems in the Sierra Leonean economy, the provision of health care benefits to this category of the population must remain the responsibility of government. Medical services provided to this category of citizens in a private enterprise environment must be reimbursed by the government on a negotiated and pre-determined fee schedule or an insurance mechanism established in which government negotiates with providers and carriers for the provision of services.

As an example a fund established by levying taxes on the private health care providers, envisaged to emerge with such privatization, could be instituted and utilized to pay for these indigent services.

Further, since the hospitals, medical clinics and other medical facilities will be operated as businesses, either for profit or as non-profit organizations, the market forces of demand and supply will certainly ensure that patient quality care, improvements in diagnostic technologies, competent personnel and a general responsiveness to the demands of the clients will drive the new marketplace. The lethargic and inefficient atmosphere witnessed at most government hospitals today with customer service virtually non existent would be a philosophy of the past.

The economic viability of healthcare businesses will depend largely on the clientele they can attract and maintain utilizing the above yardstick. Providers of lousy health care plans and services will inevitably loose business to competitors as every year participants will have an opportunity to change health insurance plans.

Since a large population of Sierra Leone resides in rural areas, the proposed privatization plan will ensure the expansion of health care facilities into areas currently inadequately serviced. This plan will ensure that clinics and doctors put up shop in every part of the country in order to tap into the healthcare services available in these rural areas.


Challenges to Insurance Companies:


Designing an insurance system and plan to cater to the needs of the rural population who often are self employed in farming and mining activities posses a challenge to insurers in Sierra Leone, who in the past have been largely passive and unimaginative in policy design to meet the challenges and risks confronting the nation’s socio-economic landscape.

Proactive and creative underwriting of risks must be undertaking by underwriters, actuaries and marketing specialists to design, tailor and price health insurance coverage to meet the diverse needs of the insuring public. For example, the creation of pools by occupational categories could be one method by which insured’s, engaged in similar trades could be encouraged to form co-operatives for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage at affordable rates for themselves and dependants. Premium payments through the pooling together of the co-operatives commodities can be an alternative payment method for the medical services. Health insurance companies could possibly establish subsidiary or ancillary companies solely for the handling of payments made by cash crops.

The current system under which nearly all doctors and related health care providers are employed by the government while at the same time owning private practices would be changed with a concomitant government savings on salaries, productivity and other fringe benefits. As privatization takes over in the hospitals, physicians, nurses and other providers will no longer be on the government’s payroll but will rather be independent contractors with their own practices.

Conclusion:

Whilst a micro version of the proposed reform has mushroomed in an ad hoc manner over the years with some large companies and corporations contracting with individual physicians and clinics for the provision of health care to their employees and dependants, the kind of systemic and structural overhaul needed to forestall a total collapse of the system and extend similar services to all could only be realized by a comprehensive approach along lines of reforms proposed in this policy paper.

 




Comments Off »

Posted in Uncategorized

Tags:

Health Care Systems Around The World: Spain’s Health Care System

February 10th, 2011

Health care is guaranteed

Spain’ national health care system operates on a highly decentralized basis, giving primary responsibility to the country’s 17 regions.  The Spanish Constitution guarantees all citizens the “right” to health care- including equal access to preventative, curative, and rehabilitative services.  Coverage under the Spanish system is nearly universal, estimated at 98.7% of the population.  The federal government provides each region with a block grant.  The money is not earmarked – the region decides how to use it. 

Physicians are assigned

Spanish patients cannot choose their physicians, either primary care or specialist.  Rather, they are assigned a primary care doctor from a list of physicians in their community.  If more specialized care is needed, the primary care physician refers patients to a network of specialists. One may not go “out of network” unless the patient has private health insurance.  This has sparked an interesting phenomenon whereby sick Spaniards move in order to change physicians or find networks with shorter waiting list.

 Waiting times are inevitable

Waiting lists vary from region to region but are a significant problem everywhere.  On average, Spaniards wait 65 days to see a specialist, 71 days to wait for a gynecologist, and 81 days for a neurologist.  The mean waiting time for a prostectomy is 62 days and for hip replacement surgery is 123 days.  Some health services that US citizens take for granted are almost totally unavailable.  For example, rehabilitation, convalescence, and care for those with terminal illness are usually left to the patient’s relatives.  There are few public nursing and retirement homes, and few hospices and convalescence homes.

Private health care and insurance is growing

As with most other national health care systems, the waiting lists and quality problems have led to the development of a growing private insurance alternative. About 12% of the population currently has private health insurance.  Overall, private insurance payments amount for 21% of total health care expenditures.  More commonly, Spaniards pay for care outside of the national health care system out of pocket. In fact, nearly 24% of health care spending in Spain is out of pocket – more than any European country except Greece and Switzerland, and even more than the United States.  Here again, a two-tier system has developed, with the wealthy able to buy their way around the defects of the national health care system, and the poor consigned to substandard services.

Modern medical technologies are in short supply

There are also shortages of modern medical technologies.  Spain has one-third as many MRI units per million people as the US and just over one-third as many CT units, and fewer lithotripters.  Some regions, like Ceuta and Melilla do not have a single MRI unit.  All hospital-based physicians and approximately 75% of all other physicians are considered quasi-civil servants and are paid a salary rather than receiving payment based on services provided.  As a result Spain has fewer physicians and fewer nurses per capita than most European countries and the US.

Mostly, Spaniards are happy with their health care system

Even so, Spaniards are generally happy with their system where nearly 60% describe their system as good, the second highest favorability rating in Europe. However, Spaniards do want more choice of doctors and hospitals, and they want the government to do a better job of dealing with the waiting lists.

Interesting factoids about Spain

The biggest industry in Spain is tourism Madrid, Spain’s capital city, is located in the exact center of the country The low birthrate registered in Spain is the result of the high unemployment, coupled with steep housing cost.  These factors make it difficult for most people in Spain to buy houses big enough to accommodate more than two children Spanish (Castilian Spanish) is not the only language spoken in Spain.  There are at least four other major languages spoken plus other variations and dialects.  The major other languages are Galician, Basque, and Catalan You won’t find corn or flour tortillas in Spanish food.  In Spain, tortillas are a popular egg and potato dish Soccer is Spain’s most popular sport Around 40% of Spaniards between 17 and 24 are smokers Spain has one of Europe’s highest rates of AIDS Prescription medications can be acquired over the counter at medicine shops

 

 

Comments Off »

Posted in Uncategorized

Tags:

An American Universal Health Care System

February 4th, 2011

Health Care System Needs Reform, Not a Government Takeover 

Believe it or not, America boasts some of the world’s best doctors, the most advanced health care system, and the most technically superior resources in the world, bar none. Those who travel globally and have gotten sick know that their first choice for treatment would be in the U.S. Though heatlh care in America is, more expensive thanany other country, many of the worlds wealthiest come to the U.S for surgical procedures and complex care, because it holds a worldwide reputation for the gold standard in health care.   

To examine the complex health care issue, a small research study was conducted from randomly selected doctors in mdnationwide.org’s best doctors database. We ask 50 top doctors, located in different states and who practice different specialty fields, ” Is a universal health care plan good for America?” Forty-eight of these doctors essentially responded that it was a “bad idea” that would have negative mpacts on the quality of our nation’s health care.   

 
Social Engineering Your Health Care 

One of the greatest mis-conceptions some people have relied on with regard to the health care debate is that, given a universal health care system, every person in the U.S. would receive the highest quality health care – the kind our nation is renowned for and that we currently receive. However, unlike some public amenities, health care is not a collective public service like police and fire protection services, therefore the Government cannot provide the same quality of health care to everyone, because not all physicians are equally good orthopaedic surgeons, internists, neurosurgeons, etc, in the same way that not all individuals in need of health care are equally good patients.  

As an analogy – stay with me – when you design a software program, there are many elements that are coded on the back-end, and used to manipulate certain aspects of the software program, that your average “John Doe” who uses the software(the end user) does not understand or utilize, nor do they care about these elements. Certain aspects of the program are coded, so that when one uses that portion of the program, other elements of the program are manipulated and automatically follow the present or next command.  

Likewise, once a universal health care plan is implemented in America and its massive infrastructure is shaped, private insurance companies will slowly disappear, and as a result, eventually patients will automatically be forced to utilize the government’s universal health care plan. As part of such a system, patients will be known as numbers rather than patients, because such a massive government program would provide compensation incentive based on care provided, patients would become “numbers,” rather than “patients.”

In addition, for cost savings reasons, every bit of health information, including your own, will be analyzed, and stored by the Government. What are the consequences? If you’re a senior citizen and need a kneereplacement at the age of 70, the government may determine that you’re to old and it’s not worth the investment cost, therefore instead of surgery, you may be given medication for the rest of your life at a substantial cost savings to the government, and at a high quality of life price to you.       

Solutions:   

Fixing the current U.S. health care system might require that we;

1. Encourage prevention and early diagnosis of chronic conditions and management.

2. Completely reform existing government health care programs, including Medicare and Medicaid.

3. Forgive medical school debt for those willing to practice primary care in under-served areas.

4. Improve access to care, provide small businesses and the self-employed with tax credits, not penalties for providing health care.

5. Encourage innovation in medical records management to reduce costs. 

6. Require tort reform in medical malpractice judgments to lower the cost of providing care. 

7. Keep what isn’t broken-research shows 80% of Americans are happy with their current insurance, therefore, why completely dismantle it?

8. Reimburse physicians for their services.

9. Innovate a system in which Medicare fraud is dramatically decreased.  

 Devil In the Details 

Socialized medicine means: 

1. Loss of private practice options, reduced pay for physicians, overwhelming numbers of patients, and increasing burn-out may reduce the number of doctors pursuing the profession.  

2. Patient confidentiality will need to be compromised, since centralized health care information will be maintained by the government and it’s databases.

3. Healthy people who take care of themselves will pay for the burden of those with unhealthy lifestyles, such as those who smoke, are obese, etc.

4. Patients lose the incentive to stay healthy or aren’t likely to take efforts to curb their prescription drug costs because health care is free and the system can easily be abused.   

5. The U.S. Government will need to call the shots about important health decisions dictating what procedures are best for you, rather than those decisions being made by your doctor(s), which will result in poor individualized patient care. 

6. Tax rates will rise substantially-universal health care is not free since citizens are required to pay for it in the form of taxes. 

7. Your freedom of choice will be restricted as to which doctor is best for you and your family. 

8. Like all public programs, government bureaucracy, even in the form of health care, does not promote healthy competition that reduces costs based on demand. What’s more, accountability is limited to the budgetary resources available to police such a system. 

9. Medicare is subsidized by private insurers to the tune of billions of dollars, therefore if you take them out of the equation, add a trillion dollars or more to the current trillion dollar- plus cost estimates.

10. Currently, the government loses an estimated $ 30 billion a year due to Medicare fraud. Therefore, what makes anyone think that this same government will be able to run & operate a universal health care system that is resistant to fraud and save money while doing so?.

Comments Off »

Posted in Uncategorized

Tags:

StudentScholarships.org – The Health Care System

January 29th, 2011

According to StudentScholarships.org, the quarrel over whether privatization of the Health Care System is beneficial is an ongoing and heated debate. Individuals in favor of the privatization quote numerous benefits, the primary argument being: a reduction in waiting times for all patients. While there is no question that the waiting times for medical care are a pressing issue, I believe privatization is no feasible solution. The overall standard of service received under the proposed new Health Care system would no doubt decline. Furthermore, privatization would undermine our Canadian values of equality for all individuals. Our belief that each citizen has the equal right to receive medical treatment would be challenged if a tiered Health Care system was enforced.

At first glance, privatization might be seen in a positive light, as those individuals who could afford it would jump the queue – in turn, the waiting line would be shorter for the remaining patients; however, another contributing factor to a shorter waiting line, would be the simple fact that those individuals recognizing that they cannot afford to receive medical care, would neglect to seek help. Privatization of health care alone would not suddenly increase the amount of physicians available to treat patients, nor would it suddenly free up time for physicians to see more patients.

As it stands right now, emergency room patients are treated on a basis of severity, not who can pay a higher fee. I believe introducing a private health care system would give an unfair advantage to the wealthy, while potentially neglecting those individuals who, while greatly needing the help, cannot afford it. The social question then arises over whether judging an individual’s worth through monetary values alone is justified. Surely one’s salary level does not determine just how valuable he is to society? Privatization of Health Care would certainly mean some individuals simply would not have access to the aid and services they require. It seems this model of health care is a very self-serving prophecy, rewarding those few wealthy proponents while leaving others to fend for themselves. Another potential downfall would be that the general level of service overall will undoubtedly decline. Those medical professionals with the necessary level of skill to charge a higher fee will be enticed to service only those who can afford it, whilst the greater majority of patients could potentially be left with few qualified health professionals to choose from.

While a select few would reap the benefits of privatization, it is hardly justification for seeing Canada’s universal health care system, rated one of the best in the world, crumble. To allow a tiered health care system to be implemented would be to take away the entitlement of each and every Canadian for equal treatment under the healthcare service. The consequences of privatizing our health care system are not limited to the realm of public health. If the above proposition were to occur, the likelihood that other services in our society, such as education, would follow suit is a scary thought indeed.

Comments Off »

Posted in Uncategorized

Tags:

Help Your Immune System Fight Diseases With Natural Health Medicine

January 18th, 2011

The benefits of taking care of yourself are some of the rewards you get from knowing that you are doing the best for your body. This includes the most important part of your body–the part which is in fact a mechanism that protects your body: your immune system.

Your immune system protects you against viruses, bacteria, and toxins. And to ensure that your body keeps doing all these things and more, you need to take good care of it. This includes taking precautions against diseases; and helping your body when you do get infected with diseases.

That is why only the best will do. Before you begin to incorporate a natural health lifestyle into your everyday life, you should first start to learn what options are available for you.

Natural health medicine is one of part of the pool of many medicines available in the natural health market. Because of its natural, anti-bacterial effects, many people are using in favor of traditional medicine to cure their illnesses.

Natural health medicine is good in that it has a harmonious effect. It does not act as a drug, but more as a supplement for all your bodies needs. You know that you are giving your body the best of that nature has to offer; rather than bombarding it with chemicals that will harm it as much as help it.

Natural health medicine does not cause drowsiness and it works with the body to help you get better. The most-praised element of natural health medicine is that it is made from natural ingredients. And these ingredients enhance your body’s effectiveness to work for you.

When you know what is at stake, you understand that natural health medicine can give you that ultra boost you need to get your body in the best defenses shape possible.

In addition to everything else, you will not suffer side-effects when you take natural health medicine; instead, the medicine will help your body to heal without harming it simultaneously.

Comments Off »

Posted in Uncategorized

Tags:

Introduction to the Health System in Australia (and the role of private health insurance)

January 12th, 2011

Health care in Australia is comprised of both the public and private health care systems.

Public health care in Australia

The public health system is called Medicare, and is funded partly through an income tax levy of 1.5%, with the rest of the costs coming from the general budget

Under Medicare, Australians can receive free treatment as public patients in public hospitals; free or subsidised treatment by doctors and specialists; free x-rays and pathology tests, and eye examinations performed by optometrists.

Private health care in Australia

Private health care goes a step further than Medicare, as it includes private hospitals and  ancillary (outside of hospital) services like dental, physiotherapy, chiropractic, etc.

In total, the private sector funds about a third of all health care in Australia.

The role of health insurance

 

Health funds provide average Australians with access to the private health system through the means of health insurance. Private health insurance pays benefits toward a wide range of health services including:

-  hospital treatment as a private patient

-  cover in private hospitals

-  doctors’ and specialists’ fees for in-patient costs

-  dental and optical care

-  therapies like physiotherapy, chiropractic and psychology

-  natural therapies including acupuncture, naturopathy, remedial massage

-  equipment like glucose monitors and hearing aids

 

In addition to these services, private health insurance also allows people to choose the hospital they wish to go to and the doctor they want to treat them. It also ensures shorter waiting times and greater flexibility in scheduling surgery.

Health insurance and the Australian Government

Private health cover is supported by the Australian Government through various means.

1. The health insurance rebate

The Australian Government currently offers a 30% rebate on the cost of private health insurance to all Australians. This applies to both hospital and ancillary cover.

The elderly are offered higher rebates, with 65-69 year olds eligible for 35%, and over 70s eligible for 40% rebate.

2. The Medicare Levy Surcharge

Higher income earners who do not have hospital cover must pay an extra 1% tax in the form of the Medicare Levy Surcharge. This is on top of the normal 1.5% Medicare Levy that all taxpayers contribute towards.

To avoid the Medicare Levy Surcharge, Australians are encouraged to take out private health insurance.

3. Lifetime Health Cover

Lifetime Health Cover is a Government initiative that encourages people to take out health insurance earlier in life. By joining before they turn 30, young people can lock in the lowest base rate premium. After this age, a loading of 2% is charged for every year without health cover after the age of 30.

The type of private health insurance you require depends on your circumstances. Health insurance comparison sites can help you compare different policies from a range of top Australian health funds, providing you with the most suitable cover for your needs at no charge.

 

Comments Off »

Posted in Uncategorized

Tags:

boomers will cripple health-care system

December 9th, 2010

Four in every five Canadians believe that the demands placed on the health system by aging Baby Boomers will result in reduced access and lower quality care, a poll commissioned by the Canadian Medical Association reveals.

There are also widespread fears – by close to 75 per cent of respondents – that growing health costs will result in significant tax hikes and an inability of seniors to afford health care as they age.

At the same time, the survey shows strong support for user fees and having well-to-do Canadians pay more out-of-pocket to help attenuate the impact of caring for a growing population of seniors.

According to the poll, younger Canadians in particular (those born after 1966) are willing to adapt to the pressures on the medicare system by buying private health insurance to supplement publicly provided care, using their retirement savings to pay for health care and going into debt to pay the health costs of their parents and themselves.

“What we see in these poll results is a refreshing acknowledgment of reality,” Anne Doig, president of the CMA, said in an interview.

“Canadians are not giving up on medicare but they’re recognizing that medicare needs to be transformed to deal with current realities, demographic and otherwise,” she said.

The poll, which is being released Monday at the CMA general council meeting in Niagara Falls, Ont., dovetails nicely with a report released earlier this month entitled Health Care Transformation in Canada: Change that Works, Care that Lasts.

In that document, the CMA, the group representing Canada’s 72,000 physicians, argues that the current health system cannot meet future needs, in part because of the aging population. It calls for significant changes, including a universal prescription drug plan, a charter that enshrines the rights of patients, an independent body that can monitor whether health dollars are being spent efficiently, and monetary incentives for doctors and hospitals to treat more patients. The proposals are based on the premise that health care in Canada needs to be more patient-centred, with a greater focus on prevention and ensuring that geography, income level and age are not a barrier to getting quality, timely care.

Dr. Doig said the poll results show Canadians are pretty savvy about the challenges facing the health system.

Asked to rank who or what is most responsible for increased demand for health-care services, survey respondents blamed individual Canadians not taking responsibility for their own health (33 per cent), the large number of Baby Boomers reaching retirement age (30 per cent), higher demands and expectations by all Canadians (21 per cent) and new medical advances (16 per cent.)

Dr. Doig expressed concern that fingers would be pointed unfairly at Baby Boomers (those born between 1947 and 1966) for many of the woes of the health system.

“I worry that the blaming will happen,” she said. “We don’t want intergenerational tension, we want intergenerational fairness.”

Dr. Doig said she takes comfort in the fact that the younger Canadians who were polled “are being extremely realistic about the limits of medicare and so-called free health care.”

For example, the survey found that, among Canadians under the age of 46, 44 per cent said they were willing to buy private health insurance to supplement the publicly funded system; 37 per cent said they would also buy insurance to ensure their long-term care when they were elderly; and 29 per cent said they would save specifically to pay for health costs after retirement.

Ipsos Reid polled 3,483 Canadian adults online between June 8 and June 21. A sample of this size is considered accurate within 1.66 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

The survey, which has been conducted annually by the CMA for the past 10 years, also asks Canadians to rank the performance of governments in managing the health-care system as they would on a report card.

The marks awarded remained virtually unchanged over the past year: 41 per cent of respondents assigned either an A or B grade to the federal government performance (as 40 per cent did in 2009). Similarly, 41 per cent of Canadians awarded their provincial government either an A or B, consistent with the 2009 results (42 per cent).

Overall, 35 per cent of those polled said they thought health-care services would improve in the next year, while 51 per cent predicted they would get worse.

Health-care spending in Canada was an estimated 3-billion last year, according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information.

Comments Off »

Posted in Uncategorized

Tags:

National Health Care System In Japan And Taiwan – Would It Be Possible For Us

November 17th, 2010

Health care is an immediate issue that concerns all of us. We all experience it and need it. Let’s serious ask ourselves if the current health care system is satisfactory and available to everyone. Should health, medicare and treatments be available to only selected groups? Many people are voting for the presidential candidate who can restore the present health care system or who can pioneer a better healthcare distribution for our country. Personally, I hope to see a change that health care is available and affordable to everyone.

Being able to receive basic health care is a fundamental need of all people. Fulfilling this fundamental need makes people feel secured, and it makes sense that people with better health can contribute more to the society. A realistic and reachable standard of health should be set for all people. This effort needs a non profit driving entity to establish and to maintain it. People’s life and health should not be compromised for the profit of few organizations.

Before moving to Japan, I was covered under my parents’ insurance policy in the United States. Their policy covered children of the family until the age of twenty-four. Upon graduating from university, I moved to Japan and started my first job there. I joined the Japanese national health insurance through the company I worked for. There are basically two types of health insurance in Japan: national health insurance and employer-sponsored health insurance. Usually, under employer sponsored insurance, the insurance premium is calculated according to income, number of dependents, and the company’ subsidies. For someone who is self-employed or unemployed, the national health insurance costs a minimum of 13300 yen, or about 0 per month plus a small percentage of income for those who are self-employed. In other words, everyone can get insurance from around 0 dollars a month. Unlike the Medicaid program in the U.S. which is only available to certain low-income groups with specific requirements for eligibility, the Japanese health insurance is available to every citizen and legal residents. There is a ceiling to what the Japanese National insurance covers, but it covers all the basics and beyond.

In most cases in Japan, patients choose their doctor and hospital. There is no limitation to the doctors or hospital they can visit. This is a true competition among the clinics, hospitals, and medical practitioners, not for profit, but for quality. The same insurance that people have in Japan gives them the freedom to get second opinions and naturally eliminates those doctors whose practices are in question. The doctor visits, treatments, and medicine are not free; one is responsible for thirty percent of their medical bills. Japanese health costs are much lower than the costs in the United States. Thirty percent of the medical bill is still a reasonable amount one can afford. There are also special cases or categories of illness for which the insurance would give more coverage. If one is late on his payment, his insurance will not automatically be invalid. The insurance will still cover the person as long as he makes up the missed payments. After all, some people do run into difficulties in life at one point or another. Sounds to good to be true? Well, It’s real.

Taiwan, a place with no world recognition politically, has one of the top public health care system in the world. After moving to Taiwan due to my husband’s transfer a year a go, I learned and appreciated the system where universal or national health care is available to all more than ever. When speaking of universal, national, or pubic health insurance, people often turn their attention to the well-debated and discussed health care system in Canada. There are those whose views are negative, claiming that the medical service in a single-payer insurance system may not perform at its ultimate, and those whose views are positive, saying that they do not live in fear of ever having to face bankruptcy for outrageous medical bills. From my informal inquiries, more Canadian I came across favor their national health care system. Most of those who favor their national health care system commented that people of Canada are more secured in having their basic physical and psychological needs met.

In Taiwan, there is also government-sponsored universal health care for not only their citizens but also for foreign residents who live in Taiwan. Foreign residents can apply for the government-sponsored insurance after proving their legal status of residing in Taiwan. The insurance fee starts from the basic 600NT, or around a month. For people in higher income brackets, their insurance is calculated based on a percentage of their income over the 600Nt. Fees are waived for retired soldiers, those who are physically challenged, and people who have economic disadvantages.

Interestingly, Taiwan’s national health insurance has only been established for little more than two decades, since 1985. The government policy-makers studied health care system from different foreign countries and composes the first Taiwan national health care from the ideas and methods of the system of other countries. It was said that Taiwan’s national insurance system is like a completed puzzle made from pieces of which fit its country and people. This insurance now covers the entire population, including foreign legal residents. According to research funded by Taiwan’s National Health Research and Taiwan’s Bureau of National Health Insurance, the cost of health care did not rise after the universal coverage was established (Jui-Fen & Hsiao, 2003.) What does that tell us?

A basic health care program can greatly reduce the consequences of illness left untreated. Basic health care does not mean free of charge or mindless spending without control. To build a healthy nation, we should take a closer look at the current U.S. health insurance. After all, a sound nation starts with the health of its people.

Writer’s Information:
The writer is a Chinese-American. After graduating from Queens College, New York, she moved to Japan and started teaching English as second language. In the 15years of living in Japan, she became a wife, a mother and a university lecturer. She continued her education after giving birth to her daughter and is now pursuing her ph.d in education. She is a positive person who is always looking forward to challenging new things. In Japan, many friends and students were affected by her words and encouragement, especially women. Using herself as examples, she encourages women to be a life time learner, open minded and to have self confidence. Now she is temporarily residing in Taiwan with her family.

Comments Off »

Posted in Uncategorized

Tags:

The Many Problems of the Health Care System

November 5th, 2010

The World Health Organization reports that the United States has the 37th best health care system in the world. America’s health care system is fraught with problems and its patient satisfaction is rated among the worst in the world. Even though the America’s health care system is envied by the world, it ranks at the bottom of many health care indicators. In the developed world, the United States is at the bottom of the list for infant mortality and life expectancy.

Health care is not the same as it was fifty years ago. Many things have improved over the last fifty years, but the personal touch of medicine has been lost in the process. Medical science has made tremendous advances in the treatment of heart disease, cancer, infectious disease and diabetes just to name a few – but these advances have come at a cost.

Health care is expensive. Not only in dollars and cents, but also in time. A patient can call for an appointment, be told they can be squeezed into the doctor’s busy schedule tomorrow at 3 PM, and then not be seen until 5 PM the next day.

This problem is likely to get worse as time passes as fewer and fewer doctors are choosing to go into primary care medicine specialties such as pediatrics, family practice, geriatrics and internal medicine. Instead doctors are opting for more lucrative specialties – and why not when many specialties pay over twice the annual salary of a primary care provider.

The use of mid-level providers, such as the nurse practitioner or the physician assistant, will help ease the shortage. None-the-less it is critical that patients learn to take care of themselves and know when they should go to the doctor and when a trial over the counter medications or other measures can be helpful.

Health care in America is the most expensive in the world. In 2006, the United States spent ,421 in per capita health expenditures, which is over 50 percent more than any other country. Contributing to high health care cost in the United States are cost of medications, top rate medical technologies, the extensive use of diagnostic tests, salaries of doctors and hospital administrators.

The use of the emergency room as a primary care service not only results in poor health care but it is a costly form of care. Emergency room physicians do not know the patients and are more prone to ordering expensive tests and treatments.

The health care system is overburdened, fragmented and as a whole not concerned about your health as much as you are. Each patient must assume responsibility for his or her own health.

Running to the doctor, urgent clinic or emergency room is not necessarily the best option for every situation. Health care providers often do things to appease the patient instead of doing the right thing.

Doctor appointments, in the eyes of many patients, are sub-par. Health care visits are typically about 15 minutes. The health care provider has a lot of work to do in that short visit. The health care provider needs to review the chart, talk to the patient, examine the patient, write in the chart, answer questions, fill out forms and dispense prescriptions. Time limits placed on office visits do not allow the health care provider to spend adequate time with the patient.

Health care consumers need to maximize this short time with the doctor. This includes being knowledgeable, organized and knowing how to communicate with the health care system. Some doctor’s practice under the assumption that doctor knows best and do not feel it is necessary to share all information with their patients.

Health care consumers are ultimately responsible for their health and need to act accordingly. The health care system is in need of many changes and people need to realize that they need to take responsibility for their health. If you do not take an active role in your health care you will waste a lot of time, money and quality of life.

Get educated about how to improve the quality of your care. With improved knowledge you will be better able to care for yourself.

As a health care consumer you need to:

Understand the health care system Understand doctor visits Improve the quality of your health care visit Improve the quality of your health

 

Comments Off »

Posted in Uncategorized

Tags: