Improving the Health Care System in the U.S.
This is an excerpt from the paper...
The current health care system in the United States does not work efficiently or effectively and is unaffordable for many, if not most, people. A new system needs to be developed which will cover everyone, and be organized so that doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals can concentrate on healing the sick and not have to worry about the cost of care to their patients, and the paperwork. Too many of the current systems are business-oriented rather than patient-oriented and health-oriented. They benefit businesses and insurers rather than the patients. The new Medicare prescription plan is a glaring example of such a system. The people who benefit most from the plan will be the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance companies, not the patients. Many patients who take only a few prescriptions are much better off without the plan, which is too costly and too confusing for the elderly whom it is supposed to benefit most. A new healthcare plan needs to be put into place. This new plan would be simple enough for everyone to understand, and would cover everyone regardless of their socioeconomic status. It would be paid for by reinstating the taxes on the top five percent income bracket, improving efficiency of care and resulting paperwork, eliminating waste, and putting limits on the charges for medical equipment, supplies and medications which companies can charge the government, who will administrate the plan. The British National Health Service (NHS) is
. . .
and though these are seen by the public as one and the same, they are indeed separate entities.
Both Kaiser and the NHS provide comprehensive medical services including hospital care, preventive care, accident and emergency care, ambulance service, subacute and rehabilitative care, optometric care, and home health care, and there are nominal fees for prescriptions (Feachem, Sekhri and White, 2002). The NHS does provide better dental care and long-term psychiatric care than Kaiser. Additionally, the NHS covers all socioeconomic groups, whereas Kaiser members tend to come from the middle to mid-lower socioeconomic groups because wealthier families usually buy more flexible insurance. After all adjustments for such things as population differences and the costs per capita for medical care under the two systems were very similar.
In Kaiser, primary care physicians cover many specialties, where as in the NHS they are general practitioners, so Kaiser is able to perform more procedures at the primary level and free up referral specialists for more complicated cases (Feachem, Sekhri and White, 2002). The growing problem in the NHS is the long wait times at all levels: waiting to see a general practitioner, waiting to see a spe
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
, Rand Corporation, Kaiser Permanente, United Kingdom, Additionally NHS, Hillary Clinton, Sekhri White, Health Authorities, Retrieved Jan, Pounds Sterling, health care, retrieved jan, jan 23, medical care, 23 2006, jan 23 2006, kaiser permanente, retrieved jan 23, sekhri white 2002, mahon 2006, socioeconomic status, feachem sekhri white, feachem sekhri, primary care, national health service,
Approximate Word count = 1524
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Improving the Health Care System in the U.S.
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
