Rise and Fall of Health Care System in Covid-19 Era

What is it that makes Americans overly enthusiastic over health care reform? A statement like “don’t change your Medicare” and “everyone should be able to access top of the line health care, regardless of the cost” are, to me, non-informed and apathetic reactions that show a poor knowledge of our health care system’s history, its present and future resources , and the challenges to funding that America is facing in the coming years. 

We all have questions about how the health system is reaching what some consider to be the crisis stage. Let’s take some of the tension from the discussion by looking at how the health care system in this country came into existence and how it has changed our perceptions and beliefs regarding health care. With that in mind, we can look at the benefits and drawbacks of the Obama health care reform plans. Then, let’s take a examine the ideas that are being proposed by Republicans?

Access to cutting-edge medical facilities is something we believe is beneficial for our nation. The experience of suffering from the effects of a serious illness is among of the most difficult challenges in life and the thought of not having the resources to cover the cost is truly terrifying. However, as we will learn, when we are aware of the facts, we’ll discover that the process of achieving this goal won’t be simple without our personal contribution.

These are the topics I’ll touch on to attempt to make sense of what’s going on with American health care , and what ways we can each take to improve the situation. For more details visit the link

https://www.journeyhealthcare.com/

Let’s first get some historical context on American medical care. It’s not meant to be an exhaustive study of that past, but rather an understanding of how the health care system as well as the expectations we have for it evolved. What factors drove costs to be higher and higher?

Let’s begin by turning toward our first topic, the American Civil War. The war was fought using outdated tactics and the calamity caused by modern-day weapons from the time produce horrific results. Not often discussed is the fact that the majority of deaths of both sides of the war were not due to actual battle, but instead of the aftermath of an injury from a battlefield.

The first thing to note is that the evacuation of wounded patients was carried out at a snail’s speed and caused significant delays in treating injured. Additionally, numerous wounded were treated with surgery for wounds, as well as related surgeries and/or amputations on the affected limbs, which often led to the onset of a massive infection.

In other words, you could be able to get a treatment for a wound but then to be killed at the hands of medical professionals who, while well-intentioned, their actions were frequently fatal. Death tolls that are high can be blamed on everyday illnesses and illnesses in a period where antibiotics were not available. There were around 600,000 deaths were attributed to all reasons, more than two percent in all of the U.S. population at the time!

We’ll skip the beginning in the early 20th century to gain an additional perspective, and also to get us to the present. Following the civil war, there was steady progress in American medical practice, both in the knowledge and treatment of specific illnesses, as well as innovative surgical techniques, and the education and training of physicians.

However, for the most part the only thing doctors could provide their patients was an “wait and look” method. Medical doctors could manage bone fractures , and was increasingly attempting surgical procedures that were risky (now generally carried out in clean surgical areas) however, there were no medications yet in use to treat serious diseases.

Most deaths were caused by untreatable diseases like pneumonia, tuberculosis scarlet fever, measles or related complications. Doctors were becoming more aware of vascular and heart conditions and cancer, yet they didn’t have the resources to treat these ailments.

This basic overview of American medical history allows us to comprehend that up prior to a time (around around 1950’s) there was hardly any techniques to treat major or minor illnesses. This is an important issue to be aware of; “nothing to treat you with” means that doctor visits or even a doctor were limited to emergencies. In this scenario, the costs of treatment are cut down.

The fact is there was not much that doctors could offer, and thus, virtually nothing was offered to drive the cost of health care. Another reason for the low expenses was the fact that medical services which were offered were paid for out-of-pocket which meant through an individual’s personal funds.

There was never a thing as health insurance , and certainly not health insurance that was paid through an employer. Other than the extremely poor who managed to get the way to a charity hospital, the cost of health care were entirely the responsibility of the person.

What does health insurance do to health expenses? The impact it has on health care costs is until today, massive.

The idea of health insurance for individual and families was introduced as an opportunity for businesses to avoid wage freezes and to retain and attract employees following World War II, almost immediately, a huge pool of cash was made available to fund medical care. The money, a result of the huge amounts of dollars in the health insurance pool, helped an ingenuous America to expand the research and development of medical professionals. More Americans were insured, not just through private, employer-sponsored health insurance but also by increasing federal funding, which led to the creation of Medicare in 1965 and Medicaid (1965).

In addition , funds were made available to expand veterans’ health benefits. Finding a cure for nearly anything has been extremely profitable. This is also the main reason for the variety of treatment options available to us today.

I don’t want to say that medical breakthroughs are bad. Consider the millions of lives saved, improved, extended and improved in productivity because of. However, as a funding source has increasing to its current size (hundreds in billions each year) increasing pressures on healthcare costs is inevitable.

Doctor’s offers and the majority of us require and receive access to the most recent medical technology, which includes medical devices, pharmaceuticals, instruments for diagnosis and surgical procedures. This means that we have more health care that we can invest our money in and, until the last few years, most of us had insurance and costs were paid for by a third party (government or employers).

Add unending and unreasonable public demand for treatment and access and you’ve got what is known as the “perfect storm” that is causing ever-increasing cost of health care. In the end, the situation is only getting worse.

Let’s now focus on the main questions that will guide us to a look and hopefully, a better understanding of the health reform plans that are currently in the news.

Does the current trend in U.S. health care spending long-term sustainable? Are we able to help America remain competitive in the world with 16% of the money that accounts for 20 percent of our national gross production, is spent on health care? What are other industrialized nations investing in health services, and is it even in line with the same amount? When you include the politics of an electoral year in the discussion the information needed to solve these issues becomes crucial.

It is essential to put time understanding the importance of health care and what we think about it. With the right knowledge, we can wisely assess whether certain health care plans could be able to solve or even worsen these issues. What can we do about these issues? What can we do as individuals to be a part of the solution?

The Obama health plan for health care is complicated, certain – I’ve not seen a health care plan that wasn’t. Through a myriad of initiatives, his plan aims to address the issues of) growing the number of American who are covered under an adequate coverage (almost 50 million don’t) and b) controlling costs in such as to ensure that the quality of care and access to health care are not negatively affected.

Republicans want to achieve the same basic and broad objectives, but their plan is portrayed as more market-driven rather than government-driven. Let’s examine exactly what Obama plan is doing to accomplish these two goals. Be aware, of course the plan was approved by Congress and will begin to begin to take effect in 2014. That’s the direction we’re taking now in our efforts to improve health care reform.

Through the insurance exchanges and the expansion of Medicaid, the Obama plan significantly increases the amount of Americans who are protected under health insurance.

To fund the cost of this expansion, the plan requires that everyone has health insurance, with a penalty to be paid in the event that we do not adhere to. The plan is said to provide money to states to pay for those that are added to states-based Medicaid programs.

To pay for the additional costs there were several tax changes for the purpose of covering the increased costs. One is an 2.5 percentage tax on all new medical devices. Another increase in taxes on dividends and interest income for the most wealthy Americans.

Obama’s Obama plan also incorporates concepts such as evidence-based medical accountable care organizations, research on comparative effectiveness and reduced reimbursements to health care service providers (doctors as well as hospitals) to reduce costs.

The insurance mandate outlined in the first and second points above is a worthwhile objective, and many industrialized nations other than the U.S. provide “free” (paid for through very high corporate and individual taxes) health insurance to the majority or all of their citizens.

It is crucial to remember that there are plenty of limitations for which the majority of Americans are not prepared culturally. This is the most controversial element in the Obama plan: that of the health insurance requirement. It was the U.S. Supreme Court recently made a decision to hear arguments pertaining to the legality for the insurance requirement as in response to the petition of 26 state attorneys general who claimed that the congress had overstepped its authority in the Commerce Clause of the U.S. constitution by passing this provision of the plan.

The issue is that if it is decided that the Supreme Court should rule against the mandate, it’s generally accepted to be a sign that the Obama plan as it stands today is in danger of being canceled. This is because the primary purpose of providing health insurance coverage to everyone would be severely restricted in the event that it is not completely eliminated with a similar decision.

You can imagine that the tax rates mentioned in point 3 above are quite disregarded by the organizations and people who have to pay these taxes. Pharmaceutical companies hospitals, doctors and insurance companies required have to “give the gift of” something that could generate new revenue or cut costs within their respective spheres of control.

For instance, Stryker Corporation, a large medical device firm has recently announced at a minimum an employee reduction of 1,000 in order to pay for the new costs. The same is happening to other medical device firms and pharmaceutical companies too.

The decrease in well-paying jobs in these areas as well as in the hospital industry could increase as the old cost structures will need to be addressed to allow for the reduction of reimbursement for hospitals. In the next 10 years, certain estimates place the reductions in costs for doctors and hospitals at half a trillion dollars . it will directly affect and affect companies which supply doctors and hospitals with the most modern medical technology.

All of this is not to suggest that efficiency gains won’t be achieved by these changes , or that no jobs will be created. However, this may be a painful transition for a time. It aids us in understanding that reforms to health care will impact us both positively as well as negative.

In the end, the Obama plan is aimed at changing the way that medical decision-making is taken. Although basic and clinical research are the foundation of nearly everything that is done in the field of medicine doctors are a creature of habit, just like the rest of us , and their education and daily experiences determine to a large extent how they approach diagnosing and treating the conditions we suffer from.

In the realm of evidence-based medicine as well as studies on comparative efficacy. Both seek to build and apply databases of data from electronic health records as well as other sources to provide more accurate and more up-to-date information and doctors with feedback on the effects and costs of the treatment they offer.

There is an enormous amount of healthcare waste in the present, which is estimated to be around 1/3 of the more than two trillion dollars of health care expenditure per year. Imagine the savings achievable from a decrease in unnecessary tests and procedures that don’t compare with treatments for health that have been proven to be efficient.

Today, the Republicans and many others don’t agree with these concepts as they generally describe them as “big state control” of our health healthcare. To be fair regardless of political affiliation those who know anything about health care in any way, are aware that more accurate information for the goals mentioned above are crucial for ensuring health care efficiency as well as patient safety and cost heading in the proper direction.

A brief summary of what Republicans and others who are more conservative are thinking about reforms to health care. I think they’d believe that the costs should be brought under control, and that more not less Americans are entitled to health care , regardless of their financial ability.

However, the primary differentiator is that these people consider competition and market forces as the best way to achieve the efficiency and cost reductions that we require. There are many strategies to create greater competition between health insurance companies as well as health healthcare suppliers (doctors and hospital) in order that the customer will begin to drive costs down with making the right choices.

It works across many areas of our economy, but this model has demonstrated that improvement is not always apparent when it comes to health healthcare. The main issue is that the choices for health care aren’t easy for people who are aware and connected. The general populace, however, is not as educated and we’ve been taught from a young age to “go to the doctor” whenever we believe it’s needed and also have a tradition of culture which has given a lot of us the notion that healthcare is something that can be found everywhere and that there is no reason to not access it, regardless of the reason and even more, we are all convinced that there’s no way to alter the cost of health care to ensure its accessibility to people with serious issues.

This article wasn’t intended to be a thorough research, but I wanted to be concise in order to grab my readers’ attention and give room for discussion about the ways we can assist in solving some of the issues. We must first realize that the funds available for health care aren’t indefinite.

Any changes made to provide greater insurance coverage and better access to healthcare will be more expensive. We must come up with the funds to cover these costs. While we need to reduce the cost of medical procedures and treatments and also limit the use of unproven or undocumented treatments since we have the most expensive health systems in the entire world. And we aren’t always the most effective outcomes in terms of longevity or the prevention of chronic illnesses early than is needed.

I believe that we must make radical changes in how we view healthcare, it’s accessibility and cost, and who will pay for it. And if you think that I will say that we must arbitrarily reduce the cost of health care, then you’re incorrect. It’s my you and your fellow citizens: healthcare spending must be protected and preserved for those who require it. In order to get the money, those who do not require it, or are able to delay it or avoid it should be proactive. The first step is to convince our elected officials that our country needs to continue public education regarding the benefits of preventive health practices.

This is a must and has helped decrease the amount of U.S. smokers for example. If the prevention approach would become the norm and become a reality, it is reasonable to expect that the number of people who require health care due to the many lifestyle caused chronic illnesses would drop drastically. Millions of Americans suffer from these illnesses much earlier than they did in the ago, and a large portion of this is due in part to bad lifestyle choices. This alone could make it possible to save a lot of money to pay for the health expenses of people in desperate need of treatment, be it because of an crisis or a chronic illness.

Let’s get into the first question. The majority of us aren’t willing to take action to incorporate simple wellness techniques to our everyday lives. We don’t exercise , but we make a lot of excuses. We don’t eat well, but we make a lot of excuses. We smoke, or consume alcohol in excess, and offer a variety of excuses for the reasons we aren’t doing something about the harmful personal health behaviors.

We aren’t taking benefit of the preventive health screenings which look at the levels of cholesterol, blood pressure and body weight, yet we make a variety of excuses. In the end, we ignore these aspects and the outcome is that we are prone to succumbing earlier than we should to chronic ailments like heart issues or diabetes, as well as hypertension. We are forced to see specialists for these and other routine issues because “health medical care is available” and yet we believe that we don’t have any responsibility for reducing the demand we place for it.

Leave a Reply