health care system in america essay

Should Healthcare Be Free? Essay on Medical System in America

Introduction, problem statement, why healthcare should be free, why healthcare should be paid, works cited.

The US government has historically taken a keen interest in the health of its citizens. As far back as the beginning of the 1900s, President Theodore Roosevelt declared that “nothing can be more important to a state than its public health: the state’s paramount concern should be the health of its people” (Gallup and Newport 135). Despite these, the United States is classified as the nation with the most expensive, and yet inefficient, health care system among developed nations.

An expensive health care system translates to an increasing proportion of the population being unable to access the much needed medical care. The New York Times reports that according to census survey carried out in the year 2007, an estimated 45.6 million people in the USA were uninsured and hence unlikely to receive comprehensive medical care from hospitals (1). Due to the perceived inefficiencies, there has been agreement that the current health care system is faulty and therefore in need of radical changes to make it better.

Majority of American’s are greatly dissatisfied with the current health care system which is extremely expensive and highly inefficient. While an effective system can be deemed to be one which is efficient, acceptable and at the same time equitable, the current system is lacking in this attributes.

The aim of this paper will be to analyze the effects that free health care system in America would have. This paper will argue that a health care system which guarantees free health care for all Americans is the most effective system and the government should therefore adopt such a system.

Free health care would result in a healthier nation since people would visit the doctors when necessary and follow prescriptions. Research by Wisk et al. indicated that both middle and lower class families were suffering from the high cost of health care (1). Some families opted to avoid going to the doctor when a member of the family is sick due to the high cost of visiting the doctor and the insurance premiums associated with health care.

In the event that they go to the doctor, they do not follow prescriptions strictly so as to reduce cost. Brown reveals that “60 percent of uninsured people skipped taking dosages of their medication or went without it because it cost too much” (6). Such practices are detrimental to a person’s health and they cost more in the long run.

The last few years have been characterized by financial crises and recessions which have negatively affected the financial well being of many Americans. In these economic realities, the cost of health care has continued to rise to levels that are unaffordable to many Americans. This loss of access to health care has led to people being troubled and generally frustrated. A report by Brown indicates that the price for prescription drugs in the US has escalated therefore becoming a financial burden for the citizens (6).

The productivity of this people is thereby greatly decreased as they live in uncertainty as to the assurance of their health and thereby spend more time worrying instead of being engaged in meaningful activities that can lead the country into even greater heights of prosperity. Free health care would lead to a peace of mind and therefore enable people to be more productive.

Since medical care is not free, many people have to make do with curative care since they cannot afford to visit medical facilities for checkups or any other form of preventive medical care. This assertion is corroborated by Colliver who reveals that many people are opting to go without preventative care or screening tests that might prevent more serious health problems due to the expenses (1).

Research shows that approximately 18,000 adults die annually due to lack of timely medical intervention (The New York Times 1). This is mostly as a result of lack of a comprehensive insurance cover which means that the people cannot receive medical attention until the disease has progressed into advanced stages. This is what has made medical care so expensive since “sick patients need more care than relatively healthy ones” (Sutherland, Fisher, and Skinner 1227).

This is an opinion shared by Sebelius who reveals that 85% of medical costs incurred in the country arise from people ailing from chronic conditions (1). She further notes that if screened early, these diseases such as diabetes and obesity can be prevented thus saving the medical cost to be incurred in their treatment. It therefore makes sense to have a health care system that makes it possible for everyone to access preventive care thus curbing these conditions before they are fully blown.

While most people assume that free health care will result in better services as more people will be able to access health care, this is not the case. The increase in people who are eligible for health care will lead to an increase in the patients’ level meaning that one may have to wait for long before receiving care due to shortage of medical personnel or the rationing of care.

A European doctor, Crespo Alphonse, reveals that when health care is free, people start overusing it with negative implications for the entire system (AP). In addition to this, free health care would invariably lead to cost cutting strategies by hospitals.

This would lead to scenario where finding specialized care is hard and the rate of medical mistakes would increase significantly. As a matter of fact, a survey on Switzerland hospitals found that medical errors had jumped by 40% owing to the introduction of mandatory health insurance (AP). While it is true that free health care will increase the number of people visiting the doctor, this may be a positive thing since it will encourage preventive care as opposed to the current emphasis on curative care.

Free health care is a move towards a socialistic system. As it is, the US is a nation that is built on strong capitalistic grounds. This is against the strong capitalistic grounds on which the United States society is build on. While detractors of the private insurance firms are always quick to point out that the firms make billions of dollars from the public, they fail to consider the tax that these firms give back to the federal government (Singer 1).

Free health care would render players in the health industry such as private insurance companies unprofitable. Free health care will bring about a shift from a profit oriented system to a more people oriented system. Without money as a motivation, research efforts will plummet thereby leading to a decrease in the medical advancement as investment in research will not be as extensive (Singer 1).

The Associate Press reveals that doctors may also lack to be as motivated if they are no incentives and thereby the quality of their work may weaken (1). As such, a free health care system would have far reaching consequences for the economy of the nation since the health care industry is a profitable industry for many.

The Healthcare system is one of the most important components of the U.S. social system since full productivity cannot be achieved without good health. This paper has argued that a free health care system would be the most effective system for America. To reinforce this assertion, the paper has articulated the benefits that the country would accrue from free health care.

With free health care, all Americans would be able to access health services when they need it leading to increased quality of life. In addition, many people would make use of preventive healthcare services, therefore reducing the financial burden that the expensive curative services result in.

The paper has taken care to point out that free health care has some demerits, most notably of which is overloading the health services with a high number of patients. Even so, the observably advantages to be reaped from the system far outweigh the perceived risks. As it is, decades of reform on the US health care system have failed to provide any lasting solution to the problem.

Making health care free for all may be the strategy that will provide a solution for the ideal health care system that has thus far remained elusive. From the arguments presented in this paper, it can irrefutably be stated that free health care will result in a better health care system for the country.

Associate Press. (AP). Europe’s free health care has a hefty price tag . 2009. Web.

Brown, Paul. Paying the Price: The High Cost of Prescription Drugs for Uninsured Americans. U.S. PIRG Education Fund, 2006.

Colliver, Victoria. “Jump in middle-income Americans who go without health insurance,” San Francisco Chronicle (SFGate), 2006.

Gallup, Andrew, and Newport Francis. The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion . Gallup Press, 2005. Print.

Sebelius, Kathleen. Health Insurance Reform Will Benefit All Americans . 2009. Web.

Singer, Peter. Why We Must Ration Health Care . 2009. Web.

Sutherland, Jason., Fisher Elliott, and Skinner Jonathan. “Getting Past Denial – The High Cost of Health Care in the United States” . New England Journal of Medicine 361;13, 2009).

The New York Times. The Uninsured . 2009. Web.

Wisk, Lauren. High Cost a Key Factor in Deciding to Forgo Health Care . 2011. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, October 29). Should Healthcare Be Free? Essay on Medical System in America. https://ivypanda.com/essays/free-health-care-in-america/

"Should Healthcare Be Free? Essay on Medical System in America." IvyPanda , 29 Oct. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/free-health-care-in-america/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Should Healthcare Be Free? Essay on Medical System in America'. 29 October.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Should Healthcare Be Free? Essay on Medical System in America." October 29, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/free-health-care-in-america/.

1. IvyPanda . "Should Healthcare Be Free? Essay on Medical System in America." October 29, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/free-health-care-in-america/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Should Healthcare Be Free? Essay on Medical System in America." October 29, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/free-health-care-in-america/.

• Group Therapy as a Curative Factor - Psychology
• HIV, AIDS Health Determinants in Africa: The Research and Development in Curative and Preventive Medicare
• Healthcare Cost Reduction in Affordable Care Act
• Health Perspective in Public
• Utility Method for Distributing Healthcare Resources
• Prostate Cancer: Preventive Approaches and Treatment
• Group Psychotherapy Session Breakdown
• The US Healthcare Financing Concerns
• Hospice – Dying with Comfort and Dignity
• Importance of Health Systems and Health Equity
• Africa Regional Conference: Should Democracy Be Promoted in Africa?
• Why did Tunisia and Egypt’s governments fall? Will they become democracies?
• The Spread of Democracy
• Trustee vs. Delegate Models of Representation
• The United States Constitution

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay

Article Critique

• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper

Research Paper

• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

Health Care in the United States, Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 1013

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

In the United States, there has long been discussion about the quality and nature of the delivery of healthcare.  The debates have included who may receive such services, whether or not healthcare is a privilege or an entitlement, whether and how to make patient care affordable to all segments of the population, and the ways in which the government should, or should not, be involved in the provision of such services.  Indeed, many people feel that the healthcare in this country is the best in the world; others believe tha (The Free Dictionary)t our health delivery system is broken.  This paper shall examine different aspects of the healthcare system in our country, discussing whether it has been successful in providing essential services to American citizens.

The delivery of healthcare services is considered to be a system; according to the Free Diction- ary (Farlex, 2010), a system is defined as “a group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole.” This is an apt description of our healthcare structure, as it is compiled of patients, medical and mental health providers, hospitals, clinics, laboratories, insurance companies, and many other parties that are reliant on each other and that, when combined, make up the entity known as our healthcare system.

Those who believe that our healthcare system is the best in the world often point to the fact that leaders as well as private citizens from countries throughout the world frequently come to the United States to have surgeries and other treatments that they require for survival.  A more cynical view of this phenomenon is that if people have the money, they are able to purchase quality care in the U.S., a “survival of the fittest” situation.  Those who lack the resources to travel to the U.S. for medical treatment are simply out of luck, and often will die without the needed care.

In fact, reports by the World Health Organization and other groups consistently indicate that while the United States spends more than any other country on healthcare costs, Americans receive lower quality, less efficient and less fairness from the system.  These conclusions come as a result of studying quality of care, access to care, equity and the ability to lead long, productive lives.  (World Health Organization,2001.) What cannot be disputed is that the cost of healthcare is constantly rising, a fact which was the precipitant to the large movement to reform healthcare in our country in 2010.  More than 10 years ago, the goal of managed care was to drive down the costs of healthcare, but those promises did not materialize (Garsten, 2010.) A large segment of the population is either uninsured or underinsured, and it is speculated that over the next decade, these problems will only increase while other difficulties will arise (Garson, 2010.)

When examining the healthcare system, there are three aspects of care that call for evaluation: the impact of delivering care on the patient, the benefits and harms of that treatment, and the functioning of the healthcare system, as described in an article by Adrian Levy.  Levy argues that each of these outcomes should be assessed and should include both the successes and the limitations of each aspect.  The idea is that there should be operational measurements of patients’ interactions with the healthcare system that would include patients’ experiences in hospitals, using measurements of their functional abilities and their qualities of life following discharge.  The results of patients’ interactions with the healthcare system should be utilized to develop and improve the delivery of healthcare treatment, as well as to develop policy changes that would affect the entire field of healthcare in the United States.

One view of the state of American healthcare is that the system is fragmented; there have been many failed attempts by several presidents to introduce the idea of universal healthcare.  Instead, American citizens are saddled with a system in which government pays either directly or indirectly for over 50% of the healthcare in our country, but the actual delivery of insurance and of care is undertaken by an assortment of private insurers, for-profit hospitals, and other parties who raise costs without increasing quality of service (Wells, Krugman, 2006.) If the United States were to switch to a single-payer system such as that provided in Canada, the government would directly provide insurance which would most likely be less expensive and provide better results than our current system.

It is clear that throwing money at a problem does not necessarily resolve it; the fact that the United States spends more than twice as much on healthcare provision as any other country in the world only makes it more ironic that when it comes to evaluating the service, Americans fall appallingly flat.  In my opinion, if the new healthcare reform bill had included a public option which would have taken the profit margin out of the equation, the nation and its citizens would have been in a much better position to receive quality healthcare.  The fact that people die every day from preventable illnesses and conditions simply because they do not have affordable insurance is a national disgrace.  In addition, many of the people who have been the most adamantly against government “intrusion” into their healthcare are actually on Medicaid or Medicare, federally-funded programs.  Their lack of understanding of what the debate actually involves is striking, and they are rallying against what is in their own best interests.  These are people that equate Federal involvement in healthcare as socialism.  Unless and until our healthcare system is able to provide what is needed to all of its citizens, all claims that we have the best healthcare system in the world are, sadly, utterly hollow.

Adrian R Levy (2005, December). Categorizing outcomes of Health Care delivery. Clinical and investigative medicine, pp. 347-351.

Arthur Garson (2000). The U.S. Healthcare System 2010: Problems Principles and Potential Solutions. Retrieved July 3, 2010, from Circulation: The Journal of the American Heart Association: http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/reprint/101/16/2015

The Free Dictionary. (n.d.). Farlex. Retrieved July 3, 2010. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/system

World Health Organization. (2003, July). WHO World Health Report 2000. Retrieved July 3, 2010, from State of World Health: http://faculty.washington.edu/ely/Report2000.htm

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

Using Learning Journals in Continuing and Higher Education, Article Critique Example

Prolonged Exposure Therapy, Research Paper Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Voting as a civic responsibility, essay example.

Pages: 1

Words: 287

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Words: 999

The Term “Social Construction of Reality”, Essay Example

Words: 371

Suggestions or feedback?

MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Machine learning
• Social justice
• Black holes
• Classes and programs

Departments

• Aeronautics and Astronautics
• Brain and Cognitive Sciences
• Architecture
• Political Science
• Mechanical Engineering

Centers, Labs, & Programs

• Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)
• Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
• Lincoln Laboratory
• School of Architecture + Planning
• School of Engineering
• School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
• Sloan School of Management
• School of Science
• MIT Schwarzman College of Computing

What has the pandemic revealed about the US health care system — and what needs to change?

Press contact :.

Previous image Next image

With vaccinations for Covid-19 now underway across the nation, MIT SHASS Communications asked seven MIT scholars engaged in health and health care research to share their views on what the pandemic has revealed about the U.S. health care system — and what needs to change. Representing the fields of medicine, anthropology, political science, health economics, science writing, and medical humanities, these researchers articulate a range of opportunities for U.S. health care to become more equitable, more effective and coherent, and more prepared for the next pandemic.

Dwaipayan Banerjee , associate professor of science, technology, and society

On the heels of Ebola, Covid-19 put to rest a persistent, false binary between diseases of the rich and diseases of the poor. For several decades, health care policymakers have labored under the impression of a great epidemiological transition. This theory holds that the developed world has reached a stage in its history that it no longer needs to worry about communicable diseases. These "diseases of the poor" are only supposed to exist in distant places with weak governments and struggling economies. Not here in the United States.

On the surface, Covid-19 made clear that diseases do not respect national boundaries. More subtly, it tested the hypothesis that the global north no longer need concern itself with communicable disease. And in so doing, it undermined our assumptions about global north health-care infrastructures as paradigmatically more evolved. Over the last decades, the United States has been focused on developing increasingly sophisticated drugs. While this effort has ushered in several technological breakthroughs, a preoccupation with magic-bullet cures has distracted from public health fundamentals. The spread of the virus revealed shortages in basic equipment and hospitals beds, the disproportionate effects of disease on the marginalized, the challenge of prevention rather than cure, the limits of insurance-based models to provide equitable care, and our unacknowledged dependence on the labor of underpaid health care workers.

To put it plainly, the pandemic did not create a crisis in U.S. health care. For many in the United States, crisis was already a precondition of care, delivered in emergency rooms and negotiated through denied insurance claims. As we begin to imagine a "new normal," we must ask questions about the old. The pandemic made clear that the "normal" had been a privilege only for a few well-insured citizens. In its wake, can we imagine a health-care system that properly compensates labor and recognizes health care as a right, rather than a privilege only available to the marginalized when an endemic crisis is magnified by a pandemic emergency? 

Andrea Campbell , professor of political science

No doubt, the pandemic reveals the dire need to invest in public-health infrastructure to better monitor and address public-health threats in the future, and to expand insurance coverage and health care access. To my mind, however, the pandemic’s greatest significance is in revealing the racism woven into American social and economic policy.

Public policies helped create geographic and occupational segregation to begin with; inadequate racist and classist public policies do a poor job of mitigating their effects. Structural racism manifests at the individual level, with people of color suffering worse housing and exposure to toxins, less access to education and jobs, greater financial instability, poorer physical and mental health, and higher infant mortality and shorter lifespans than their white counterparts. Residential segregation means many white Americans do not see these harms.

Structural racism also materializes at the societal level, a colossal waste of human capital that undercuts the nation’s economic growth, as social and economic policy expert Heather McGhee shows in her illuminating book, "The Sum of Us." These society-wide costs are hidden as well; it is difficult to comprehend the counterfactual of what growth would look like if all Americans could prosper. My hope is that the pandemic renders this structural inequality visible. There is little point in improving medical or public-health systems if we fail to address the structural drivers of poor health. We must seize the opportunity to improve housing, nutrition, and schools; to enforce regulations on workplace safety, redlining, and environmental hazards; and to implement paid sick leave and paid family leave, among other changes. It has been too easy for healthy, financially stable, often white Americans to think the vulnerable are residual. The pandemic has revealed that they are in fact central. It’s time to invest for a more equitable future.

Jonathan Gruber , Ford Professor of Economics

The Covid-19 pandemic is the single most important health event of the past 100 years, and as such has enormous implications for our health care system. Most significantly, it highlights the importance of universal, non-discriminatory health insurance coverage in the United States. The primary source of health insurance for Americans is their job, and with unemployment reaching its highest level since the Great Depression, tens of millions of workers lost, at least temporarily, their insurance coverage.

Moreover, even once the economy recovers, millions of Americans will have a new preexisting condition, Covid-19. That’s why it is critical to build on the initial successes of the Affordable Care Act to continue to move toward a safety net that provides insurance options for all without discrimination.

The pandemic has also illustrated the power of remote health care. The vast majority of patients in the United States have had their first experience with telehealth during the pandemic and found it surprisingly satisfactory. More use of telehealth can lead to increased efficiency of health care delivery as well as allowing our system to reach underserved areas more effectively.

The pandemic also showed us the value of government sponsorship of innovation in the health sciences. The speed with which the vaccines were developed is breathtaking. But it would not have been possible without decades of National Institute of Health investments such as the Human Genome Project, nor without the large incentives put in place by Operation Warp Speed. Even in peacetime, the government has a critical role to play in promoting health care innovation

The single most important change that we need to make to be prepared for the next pandemic is to recognize that proper preparation is, by definition, overpreparation. Unless we are prepared for the next pandemic that doesn’t happen, we won’t possibly be ready for the next pandemic that does.

This means working now, while the memory is fresh, to set up permanent, mandatorily funded institutions to do global disease surveillance, extensive testing of any at-risk populations when new diseases are detected, and a permanent government effort to finance underdeveloped vaccines and therapeutics.

Jeffrey Harris , professor emeritus of economics and a practicing physician The pandemic has revealed the American health care system to be a non-system. In a genuine system, health care providers would coordinate their services. Yet when Elmhurst Hospital in Queens was overrun with patients, some 3,500 beds remained available in other New York hospitals. In a genuine system, everyone would have a stable source of care at a health maintenance organization (HMO). While our country has struggled to distribute the Covid-19 vaccine efficiently and equitably, Israel, which has just such an HMO-based system, has broken world records for vaccination.

Germany, which has all along had a robust public health care system, was accepting sick patients from Italy, Spain, and France. Meanwhile, U.S. hospitals were in financial shock and fee-for-service-based physician practices were devastated. We need to move toward a genuine health care system that can withstand shocks like the Covid-19 pandemic. There are already models out there to imitate. We need to strengthen our worldwide pandemic and global health crisis alert systems. Despite concerns about China’s early attempts to suppress the bad news about Covid-19, the world was lucky that Chinese investigators posted the full genome of SARS-CoV-2 in January 2020 — the singular event that triggered the search for a vaccine. With the recurrent threat of yet another pandemic — after H1N1, SARS, MERS, Ebola, and now SARS-Cov-2 — along with the anticipated health consequences of global climate change, we can’t simply cross our fingers and hope to get lucky again.

Erica Caple James , associate professor of medical anthropology and urban studies The coronavirus pandemic has revealed some of the limits of the American medical and health care system and demonstrated many of the social determinants of health. Neither the risks of infection nor the probability of suffering severe illness are equal across populations. Each depends on socioeconomic factors such as type of employment, mode of transportation, housing status, environmental vulnerability, and capacity to prevent spatial exposure, as well as “preexisting” health conditions like diabetes, obesity, and chronic respiratory illness.

Such conditions are often determined by race, ethnicity, gender, and “biology,” but also poverty, cultural and linguistic facility, health literacy, and legal status. In terms of mapping the prevalence of infection, it can be difficult to trace contacts among persons who are regular users of medical infrastructure. However, it can be extraordinarily difficult to do so among persons who lack or fear such visibility, especially when a lack of trust can color patient-clinician relationships.

One’s treatment within medical and health care systems may also reflect other health disparities — such as when clinicians discount patient symptom reports because of sociocultural, racial, or gender stereotypes, or when technologies are calibrated to the norm of one segment of the population and fail to account for the severity of disease in others.

The pandemic has also revealed the biopolitics and even the “necropolitics” of care — when policymakers who are aware that disease and death fall disproportionately in marginal populations make public-health decisions that deepen the risks of exposure of these more vulnerable groups. The question becomes, “Whose lives are deemed disposable?” Similarly, which populations — and which regions of the world — are prioritized for treatment and protective technologies like vaccines and to what degree are such decisions politicized or even racialized?

Although no single change will address all of these disparities in health status and access to treatment, municipal, state, and federal policies aimed at improving the American health infrastructure — and especially those that expand the availability and distribution of medical resources to underserved populations — could greatly improve health for all.

Seth Mnookin , professor of science writing

The Covid-19 pandemic adds yet another depressing data point to how the legacy and reality of racism and white supremacy in America is lethal to historically marginalized groups. A number of recent studies have shown that Black, Hispanic, Asian, and Native Americans have a significantly higher risk of infection, hospitalization, and death compared to white Americans.

The reasons are not hard to identify: Minority populations are less likely to have access to healthy food options, clean air and water, high-quality housing, and consistent health care. As a result, they’re more likely to have conditions that have been linked to worse outcomes in Covid patients, including diabetes, hypertension, and obesity.

Marginalized groups are also more likely to be socioeconomically disadvantaged — which means they’re more likely to work in service and manufacturing industries that put them in close contact with others, use public transportation, rely on overcrowded schools and day cares, and live in closer proximity to other households. Even now, more vaccines are going to wealthier people who have the time and technology required to navigate the time-consuming vaccine signup process and fewer to communities with the highest infection rates.

This illustrates why addressing inequalities in Americans’ health requires addressing inequalities that infect every part of society. Moving forward, our health care systems should take a much more active role in advocating for racial and socioeconomic justice — not only because it is the right thing to do, but because it is one of the most effective ways to improve health outcomes for the country as a whole.

On a global level, the pandemic has illustrated that preparedness and economic resources are no match for lies and misinformation. The United States, Brazil, and Mexico have, by almost any metric, handled the pandemic worse than virtually every other country in the world. The main commonality is that all three were led by presidents who actively downplayed the virus and fought against lifesaving public health measures. Without a global commitment to supporting accurate, scientifically based information, there is no amount of planning and preparation that can outflank the spread of lies.

Parag Pathak , Class of 1922 Professor of Economics   The pandemic has revealed the strengths and weaknesses of America’s health care systems in an extreme way. The development and approval of three vaccines in roughly one year after the start of the pandemic is a phenomenal achievement. At the same time, there are many innovations for which there have been clear fumbles, including the deployment of rapid tests and contact tracing.   The other aspect the pandemic has made apparent is the extreme inequality in America’s health systems. Disadvantaged communities have borne the brunt of Covid-19 both in terms of health outcomes and also economically. I’m hopeful that the pandemic will spur renewed focus on protecting the most vulnerable members of society. A pandemic is a textbook situation in economics of externalities, where an individual’s decision has external effects on others. In such situations, there can be major gains to coordination. In the United States, the initial response was poorly coordinated across states. I think the same criticism applies globally. We have not paid enough attention to population health on a global scale. One lesson I take from the relative success of the response of East Asian countries is that centralized and coordinated health systems are more equipped to manage population health, especially during a pandemic. We’re already seeing the need for international cooperation with vaccine supply and monitoring of new variants. It will be imperative that we continue to invest in developing the global infrastructure to facilitate greater cooperation for the next pandemic.

Prepared by MIT SHASS Communications Editor and designer: Emily Hiestand Consulting editor: Kathryn O'Neill

Share this news article on:

Related links.

• Program in Science, Technology and Society
• Graduate Program in Science Writing
• MIT Anthropology
• Department of Economics
• Department of Political Science
• Department of Urban Studies and Planning

Related Topics

• Anthropology
• Political science
• Program in STS
• Science writing
• Public health
• Health care
• Diversity and inclusion
• Science, Technology, and Society
• School of Humanities Arts and Social Sciences

Related Articles

Reflecting on a year of loss, grit, and pulling together

Building equity into vaccine distribution.

In online vigil, MIT community shares grief, anger, and hope

Previous item Next item

More MIT News

A faster, better way to prevent an AI chatbot from giving toxic responses

Read full story →

Has remote work changed how people travel in the US?

Physicist Netta Engelhardt is searching black holes for universal truths

MIT community members gather on campus to witness 93 percent totality

Extracting hydrogen from rocks

When an antibiotic fails: MIT scientists are using AI to target “sleeper” bacteria

• More news on MIT News homepage →

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, USA

• Map (opens in new window)
• Events (opens in new window)
• People (opens in new window)
• Careers (opens in new window)
• Accessibility
• Social Media Hub
• MIT on Facebook
• MIT on YouTube
• MIT on Instagram

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

5 Critical Priorities for the U.S. Health Care System

• Marc Harrison

A guide to making health care more accessible, affordable, and effective.

The pandemic has starkly revealed the many shortcomings of the U.S. health care system — as well as the changes that must be implemented to make care more affordable, improve access, and do a better job of keeping people healthy. In this article, the CEO of Intermountain Healthcare describes five priorities to fix the system. They include: focus on prevention, not just treating sickness; tackle racial disparities; expand telehealth and in-home services; build integrated systems; and adopt value-based care.

Since early 2020, the dominating presence of the Covid-19 pandemic has redefined the future of health care in America. It has revealed five crucial priorities that together can make U.S. health care accessible, more affordable, and focused on keeping people healthy rather than simply treating them when they are sick.

• Marc Harrison , MD, is president and CEO of Salt Lake City-based Intermountain Healthcare.

Partner Center

Featured Clinical Reviews

• Screening for Atrial Fibrillation: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement JAMA Recommendation Statement January 25, 2022
• Evaluating the Patient With a Pulmonary Nodule: A Review JAMA Review January 18, 2022

Select Your Interests

Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.

• Academic Medicine
• Acid Base, Electrolytes, Fluids
• Allergy and Clinical Immunology
• American Indian or Alaska Natives
• Anesthesiology
• Anticoagulation
• Art and Images in Psychiatry
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assisted Reproduction
• Bleeding and Transfusion
• Caring for the Critically Ill Patient
• Challenges in Clinical Electrocardiography
• Climate and Health
• Climate Change
• Clinical Challenge
• Clinical Decision Support
• Clinical Implications of Basic Neuroscience
• Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Consensus Statements
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Critical Care Medicine
• Cultural Competency
• Dental Medicine
• Dermatology
• Diabetes and Endocrinology
• Diagnostic Test Interpretation
• Drug Development
• Electronic Health Records
• Emergency Medicine
• End of Life, Hospice, Palliative Care
• Environmental Health
• Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
• Facial Plastic Surgery
• Gastroenterology and Hepatology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Genomics and Precision Health
• Global Health
• Guide to Statistics and Methods
• Hair Disorders
• Health Care Delivery Models
• Health Care Economics, Insurance, Payment
• Health Care Quality
• Health Care Reform
• Health Care Safety
• Health Care Workforce
• Health Disparities
• Health Inequities
• Health Policy
• Health Systems Science
• History of Medicine
• Hypertension
• Images in Neurology
• Implementation Science
• Infectious Diseases
• Innovations in Health Care Delivery
• JAMA Infographic
• Law and Medicine
• Leading Change
• Less is More
• LGBTQIA Medicine
• Lifestyle Behaviors
• Medical Coding
• Medical Devices and Equipment
• Medical Education
• Medical Education and Training
• Medical Journals and Publishing
• Mobile Health and Telemedicine
• Narrative Medicine
• Neuroscience and Psychiatry
• Notable Notes
• Nutrition, Obesity, Exercise
• Obstetrics and Gynecology
• Occupational Health
• Ophthalmology
• Orthopedics
• Otolaryngology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Care
• Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
• Patient Care
• Patient Information
• Performance Improvement
• Performance Measures
• Perioperative Care and Consultation
• Pharmacoeconomics
• Pharmacoepidemiology
• Pharmacogenetics
• Pharmacy and Clinical Pharmacology
• Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
• Physical Therapy
• Physician Leadership
• Population Health
• Primary Care
• Professional Well-being
• Professionalism
• Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
• Public Health
• Pulmonary Medicine
• Regulatory Agencies
• Reproductive Health
• Research, Methods, Statistics
• Resuscitation
• Rheumatology
• Risk Management
• Scientific Discovery and the Future of Medicine
• Shared Decision Making and Communication
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports Medicine
• Stem Cell Transplantation
• Substance Use and Addiction Medicine
• Surgical Innovation
• Surgical Pearls
• Teachable Moment
• Technology and Finance
• The Art of JAMA
• The Arts and Medicine
• The Rational Clinical Examination
• Tobacco and e-Cigarettes
• Translational Medicine
• Trauma and Injury
• Treatment Adherence
• Ultrasonography
• Users' Guide to the Medical Literature
• Vaccination
• Venous Thromboembolism
• Veterans Health
• Women's Health
• Workflow and Process
• Wound Care, Infection, Healing
• Download PDF
• Share X Facebook Email LinkedIn
• Permissions

US Health Policy—2020 and Beyond : Introducing a New JAMA Series

• 1 Medicine/Cardiology, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri
• 2 JAMA , Chicago, Illinois
• Viewpoint The Implications of “Medicare for All” for US Hospitals Kevin A. Schulman, MD; Arnold Milstein, MD JAMA

Health care is always on the minds of the public, usually ranking among the top 3 concerns. Virtually all of the Democratic presidential candidates have discussed or will shortly detail health care proposals, whereas President Trump and the current administration recently expressed support for repealing the Affordable Care Act. With the presidential election just 18 months away, it is an opportune time to introduce a new health policy series in JAMA .

While various proposals to improve US health care will certainly differ in content, they will all by necessity share a common theme—a focus on reducing health care costs. In 2017, US health care spending reached $3.5 trillion, and such costs now consume approximately 18% of the gross domestic product (GDP). 1 Even though there has been a slight slowing in the annual growth of health care expenditures, 2 a recent projection suggested that by 2027, health care will consume 22% of the GDP, 3 outpacing the annual rate of inflation and increases in GDP over the next 5 years. This is an unsustainable trajectory.

At the same time, there are also crises of access and equity. Recent estimates suggest that nearly 14% of US residents are uninsured, and these numbers are markedly higher among people living in poverty compared with those who are wealthier, as well as among racial and ethnic minority populations compared with white populations. According to the 2017 National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Report, an estimated 40% of adults reported lacking a usual source of care, of which 15% indicated a financial or insurance reason for lacking regular access; these figures are also higher among impoverished persons and individuals of racial or ethnic minority. 4 Quality, though improving overall, remains inequitable as well: substantial differences across a range of quality domains persist for black and Hispanic individuals compared with white individuals.

The key question for policy makers is whether there are achievable health policies that will reduce the annual increase in health care expenditures yet at the same time increase access to care (fewer uninsured or underinsured), improve quality, and reduce inequities. Feasible policies likely must also maintain choice, which the majority of people repeatedly maintain is important to them.

To set the stage for a constructive policy debate, the first step requires defining the current starting point in coverage and spending ( Table ). For its population of 325 million in 2017, the United States spent $3.5 trillion on health care. Private health insurance covered approximately 197 million individuals and accounted for $1.2 trillion in health care spending. Medicare covered approximately 57 million individuals and accounted for approximately $706 billion in expenditures, and Medicaid covered approximately 72 million individuals and accounted for approximately $582 billion in health care spending. 2

These coverage numbers represent a significant shift over the past decade. Medicare has had relatively stable enrollment growth in its core populations of individuals aged 65 years or older and individuals younger than 65 years with end-stage renal disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or disabilities. However, the proportion of Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in private Medicare plans (ie, Medicare Advantage), which are administered by private insurance companies, has increased to approximately one-third in 2018. 5 Even more marked changes have taken place in Medicaid. Medicaid is a heterogeneous program and covers children, pregnant women, and adults living in poverty or with disabilities. Although children represent approximately 44% of Medicaid recipients (34 million of a total of 72 million), they account for only approximately 19% of the cost. 6 Medicaid has expanded substantially with the passage of the Affordable Care Act, with an increase in the number of individuals covered from approximately 50 million in 2010 to an estimated 76 million by 2020, as additional states have indicated that they will expand Medicaid. 7

Across these payers, how does the United States spend $3.5 trillion in health care dollars? Various estimates are available, but overall, hospitals account for approximately 33% of spending, 1 , 2 physician and clinical services approximately 20%, 1 , 2 and prescription drugs (including retail, ambulatory, and hospital costs) about 18%. 8 Skilled nursing facilities, nursing homes, dental care, home health care, other health and residential care services (such as mental health and substance abuse facilities and ambulance services), and durable and nondurable medical equipment also contribute to the $3.5 trillion, but virtually none of those services or products individually exceed 5% of total expenditures. 1 , 2 An additional important expense involves the cost of medical devices, and with a continued increase in the number of hip and knee replacements each year, and expanding use of devices like transcatheter aortic valves and mitral valve clips, it is likely that the cost of devices, like the costs of drugs, will increase substantially in the coming years.

Because of efforts to reduce costs and improve quality, the past 8 years have seen a number of new initiatives in payment reform. For example, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has been at the center of a major transition to value-based payment via many programs created or expanded under the Affordable Care Act. These include mandatory hospital-based programs like the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, voluntary programs like accountable care organizations and bundled payments, and ambulatory care payment programs like the Merit-based Incentive Payment System. 9 - 12 At the state level, there has been additional experimentation, including global budgeting in Maryland 13 and a rural hospital global payment model in Pennsylvania, 14 among others. Private insurers have also been involved, with major shifts toward value-based care, innovative delivery models, and new experiments in vertical and horizontal integration. Care delivery organizations have consolidated substantially as well. In part because of this complexity, it is difficult to estimate the percentage of the US insured population that receive care under a value-based or alternative payment model, although it is clear that the proportion continues to increase.

Even though the Affordable Care Act and the health care industry in general have been modestly successful at improving coverage, there has been less progress in improving quality or reducing health care costs. Most delivery system reform efforts have been iterative rather than transformative, although it may be too early to assess whether these efforts are at least setting the stage for more major and sustained effective subsequent changes. Nonetheless, even though current health statistics do not necessarily reflect the entire health of a nation, the recent decline in life expectancy, 15 the recent increase in cardiovascular disease deaths and prevalence of cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality, 16 the ongoing epidemic of opioid-related deaths, 17 and the sustained high prevalence of obesity in the United States, with substantial differences by race, ethnicity, and extent of urbanization, 18 - 20 raise the issue of whether the United States is addressing the health of its population effectively and spending $3.5 trillion wisely.

Many potential solutions have been proposed or may be possible. Some may be market based and some may rely more on regulation; some may prioritize population health and wellness and others may focus on innovation in technology and cures. All will require difficult choices, compromise, and prioritization. Simply spending more on health care will not be an effective approach.

The new JAMA series on health policy will consist of scholarly and evidence-based Viewpoints that will focus on solutions aimed at controlling health care costs, expanding access to care, and improving quality and value, with an emphasis on needed modifications of current health care programs and policies, and analysis of various proposals introduced by governmental agencies and by presidential candidates. In the first article in this series, Schulman and Milstein 21 discuss the implications of proposals that advocate for a “Medicare for all” approach for US health insurance as it would relate to hospitals. The authors explore the potential ramifications of a universal application of Medicare payment rates to hospitals, which currently account for the largest share of US health care spending. As epitomized by this scholarly Viewpoint, the goal of this new series is to ensure robust, enlightened, and meaningful discussion and debate about how health care should be paid for and delivered in the United States—not just for today or in 2020, but importantly, well beyond.

Corresponding Author: Karen E. Joynt Maddox, MD, MPH, Medicine/Cardiology, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, 660 S Euclid, St Louis, MO 63110 ( [email protected] ).

Published Online: April 4, 2019. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.3451

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Joynt Maddox reported contract work for the US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Planning and Evaluation. No other disclosures were reported.

See More About

Joynt Maddox KE , Bauchner H , Fontanarosa PB. US Health Policy—2020 and Beyond : Introducing a New JAMA Series . JAMA. 2019;321(17):1670–1672. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.3451

Manage citations:

© 2024

Artificial Intelligence Resource Center

Cardiology in JAMA : Read the Latest

Browse and subscribe to JAMA Network podcasts!

Others Also Liked

• Register for email alerts with links to free full-text articles
• Access PDFs of free articles
• Manage your interests
• Save searches and receive search alerts

How to build a better health system: 8 expert essays

We need to focus on keeping people healthy, not just treating them when they're sick Image:  REUTERS/Rupak De Chowdhuri

.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} Global Future Council on Health and Healthcare

Introduction

By Francesca Colombo , Head, Health Division, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and Helen E. Clark , Prime Minister of New Zealand (1999-2008), The Helen Clark Foundation

Our healthy future cannot be achieved without putting the health and wellbeing of populations at the centre of public policy.

Ill health worsens an individual’s economic prospects throughout the lifecycle. For young infants and children, ill health affects their capacity to acumulate human capital; for adults, ill health lowers quality of life and labour market outcomes, and disadvantage compounds over the course of a lifetime.

And, yet, with all the robust evidence available that good health is beneficial to economies and societies, it is striking to see how health systems across the globe struggled to maximise the health of populations even before the COVID-19 pandemic – a crisis that has further exposed the stresses and weaknesses of our health systems. These must be addressed to make populations healthier and more resilient to future shocks.

Each one of us, at least once in our lives, is likely to have been frustrated with care that was inflexible, impersonal and bureaucratic. At the system level, these individual experiences add up to poor safety, poor care coordination and inefficiencies – costing millions of lives and enormous expense to societies.

This state of affairs contributes to slowing down the progress towards achieving the sustainable development goals to which all societies, regardless of their level of economic development, have committed.

Many of the conditions that can make change possible are in place. For example, ample evidence exists that investing in public health and primary prevention delivers significant health and economic dividends. Likewise, digital technology has made many services and products across different sectors safe, fast and seamless. There is no reason why, with the right policies, this should not happen in health systems as well. Think, for example, of the opportunities to bring high quality and specialised care to previously underserved populations. COVID-19 has accelerated the development and use of digital health technologies. There are opportunities to further nurture their use to improve public health and disease surveillance, clinical care, research and innovation.

To encourage reform towards health systems that are more resilient, better centred around what people need and sustainable over time, the Global Future Council on Health and Health Care has developed a series of stories illustrating why change must happen, and why this is eminently possible today. While the COVID-19 crisis is severally challenging health systems today, our healthy future is – with the right investments – within reach.

1. Five changes for sustainable health systems that put people first

The COVID-19 crisis has affected more than 188 countries and regions worldwide, causing large-scale loss of life and severe human suffering. The crisis poses a major threat to the global economy, with drops in activity, employment, and consumption worse than those seen during the 2008 financial crisis . COVID-19 has also exposed weaknesses in our health systems that must be addressed. How?

For a start, greater investment in population health would make people, particularly vulnerable population groups, more resilient to health risks. The health and socio-economic consequences of the virus are felt more acutely among disadvantaged populations, stretching a social fabric already challenged by high levels of inequalities. The crisis demonstrates the consequences of poor investment in addressing wider social determinants of health, including poverty, low education and unhealthy lifestyles. Despite much talk of the importance of health promotion, even across the richer OECD countries barely 3% of total health spending is devoted to prevention . Building resilience for populations also requires a greater focus on solidarity and redistribution in social protection systems to address underlying structural inequalities and poverty.

Beyond creating greater resilience in populations, health systems must be strengthened.

High-quality universal health coverage (UHC) is paramount. High levels of household out-of-pocket payments for health goods and services deter people from seeking early diagnosis and treatment at the very moment they need it most. Facing the COVID-19 crisis, many countries have strengthened access to health care, including coverage for diagnostic testing. Yet others do not have strong UHC arrangements. The pandemic reinforced the importance of commitments made in international fora, such as the 2019 High-Level Meeting on Universal Health Coverage , that well-functioning health systems require a deliberate focus on high-quality UHC. Such systems protect people from health threats, impoverishing health spending, and unexpected surges in demand for care.

Second, primary and elder care must be reinforced. COVID-19 presents a double threat for people with chronic conditions. Not only are they at greater risk of severe complications and death due to COVID-19; but also the crisis creates unintended health harm if they forgo usual care, whether because of disruption in services, fear of infections, or worries about burdening the health system. Strong primary health care maintains care continuity for these groups. With some 94% of deaths caused by COVID-19 among people aged over 60 in high-income countries, the elder care sector is also particularly vulnerable, calling for efforts to enhance control of infections, support and protect care workers and better coordinate medical and social care for frail elderly.

Third, the crisis demonstrates the importance of equipping health systems with both reserve capacity and agility. There is an historic underinvestment in the health workforce, with estimated global shortages of 18 million health professionals worldwide , mostly in low- and middle-income countries. Beyond sheer numbers, rigid health labour markets make it difficult to respond rapidly to demand and supply shocks. One way to address this is by creating a “reserve army” of health professionals that can be quickly mobilised. Some countries have allowed medical students in their last year of training to start working immediately, fast-tracked licenses and provided exceptional training. Others have mobilised pharmacists and care assistants. Storing a reserve capacity of supplies such as personal protection equipment, and maintaining care beds that can be quickly transformed into critical care beds, is similarly important.

Fourth, stronger health data systems are needed. The crisis has accelerated innovative digital solutions and uses of digital data, smartphone applications to monitor quarantine, robotic devices, and artificial intelligence to track the virus and predict where it may appear next. Access to telemedicine has been made easier. Yet more can be done to leverage standardised national electronic health records to extract routine data for real-time disease surveillance, clinical trials, and health system management. Barriers to full deployment of telemedicine, the lack of real-time data, of interoperable clinical record data, of data linkage capability and sharing within health and with other sectors remain to be addressed.

Fifth, an effective vaccine and successful vaccination of populations around the globe will provide the only real exit strategy. Success is not guaranteed and there are many policy issues yet to be resolved. International cooperation is vital. Multilateral commitments to pay for successful candidates would give manufacturers certainty so that they can scale production and have vaccine doses ready as quickly as possible following marketing authorisation, but could also help ensure that vaccines go first to where they are most effective in ending the pandemic. Whilst leaders face political pressure to put the health of their citizens first, it is more effective to allocate vaccines based on need. More support is needed for multilateral access mechanisms that contain licensing commitments and ensure that intellectual property is no barrier to access, commitments to technology transfer for local production, and allocation of scarce doses based on need.

The pandemic offers huge opportunities to learn lessons for health system preparedness and resilience. Greater focus on anticipating responses, solidarity within and across countries, agility in managing responses, and renewed efforts for collaborative actions will be a better normal for the future.

OECD Economic Outlook 2020 , Volume 2020 Issue 1, No. 107, OECD Publishing, Paris

OECD Employment Outlook 2020 : Worker Security and the COVID-19 Crisis, OECD Publishing, Paris

OECD Health at a Glance 2019, OECD Publishing, Paris

https://www.un.org/pga/73/wp-content/uploads/sites/53/2019/07/FINAL-draft-UHC-Political-Declaration.pdf

OECD (2020), Who Cares? Attracting and Retaining Care Workers for the Elderly, OECD Health Policy Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris

Working for Health and Growth: investing in the health workforce . Report of the High-Level Commission on Health Employment and Economic Growth, Geneva.

Colombo F., Oderkirk J., Slawomirski L. (2020) Health Information Systems, Electronic Medical Records, and Big Data in Global Healthcare: Progress and Challenges in OECD Countries . In: Haring R., Kickbusch I., Ganten D., Moeti M. (eds) Handbook of Global Health. Springer, Cham.

2. Improving population health and building healthy societies in times of COVID-19

By Helena Legido-Quigley , Associate Professor, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a stark reminder of the fragility of population health worldwide; at time of writing, more than 1 million people have died from the disease. The pandemic has already made evident that those suffering most from COVID-19 belong to disadvantaged populations and marginalised communities. Deep-rooted inequalities have contributed adversely to the health status of different populations within and between countries. Besides the direct and indirect health impacts of COVID-19 and the decimation of health systems, restrictions on population movement and lockdowns introduced to combat the pandemic are expected to have economic and social consequences on an unprecedented scale .

Population health – and addressing the consequences of COVID-19 – is about improving the physical and mental health outcomes and wellbeing of populations locally, regionally and nationally, while reducing health inequalities.¹ Moreover, there is an increasing recognition that societal and environmental factors, such as climate change and food insecurity, can also influence population health outcomes.

The experiences of Maria, David, and Ruben – as told by Spanish public broadcaster RTVE – exemplify the real challenges that people living in densely populated urban areas have faced when being exposed to COVID-19.¹

Maria is a Mexican migrant who has just returned from Connecticut to the Bronx. Her partner Jorge died in Connecticut from COVID-19. She now has no income and is looking for an apartment for herself and her three children. When Jorge became ill, she took him to the hospital, but they would not admit him and he was sent away to be cared for by Maria at home with their children. When an ambulance eventually took him to hospital, it was too late. He died that same night, alone in hospital. She thinks he had diabetes, but he was never diagnosed. They only had enough income to pay the basic bills. Maria is depressed, she is alone, but she knows she must carry on for her children. Her 10-year old child says that if he could help her, he would work. After three months, she finds an apartment.

David works as a hairdresser and takes an overcrowded train every day from Leganés to Chamberi in the centre of Madrid. He lives in a small flat in San Nicasio, one of the poorest working-class areas of Madrid with one of the largest ageing populations in Spain. The apartments are very small, making it difficult to be in confinement, and all of David’s neighbours know somebody who has been a victim of COVID-19. His father was also a hairdresser. David's father was not feeling well; he was taken to hospital by ambulance, and he died three days later. David was not able to say goodbye to his father. Unemployment has increased in that area; small local shops are losing their customers, and many more people are expecting to lose their jobs.

Ruben lives in Iztapalapa in Mexico City with three children, a daughter-in-law and five grandchildren. Their small apartment has few amenities, and no running water during the evening. At three o’clock every morning, he walks 45 minutes with his mobile stall to sell fruit juices near the hospital. His daily earnings keep the family. He goes to the central market to buy fruit, taking a packed dirty bus. He thinks the city's central market was contaminated at the beginning of the pandemic, but it could not be closed as it is the main source of food in the country. He has no health insurance, and he knows that as a diabetic he is at risk, but medication for his condition is too expensive. He has no alternative but to go to work every day: "We die of hunger or we die of COVID."

These real stories highlight the issues that must be addressed to reduce persistent health inequalities and achieve health outcomes focusing on population health. The examples of Maria, David and Ruben show the terrible outcomes COVID-19 has had for people living in poverty and social deprivation, older people, and those with co-morbidities and/or pre-existing health conditions. All three live in densely populated urban areas with poor housing, and have to travel long distances in overcrowded transport. Maria’s loss of income has had consequences for her housing security and access to healthcare and health insurance, which will most likely lead to worse health conditions for her and her children. Furthermore, all three experienced high levels of stress, which is magnified in the cases of Maria and David who were unable to be present when their loved ones died.

The COVID-19 pandemic has made it evident that to improve the health of the population and build healthy societies, there is a need to shift the focus from illness to health and wellness in order to address the social, political and commercial determinants of health; to promote healthy behaviours and lifestyles; and to foster universal health coverage.² Citizens all over the world are demanding that health systems be strengthened and for governments to protect the most vulnerable. A better future could be possible with leadership that is able to carefully consider the long-term health, economic and social policies that are needed.

In order to design and implement population health-friendly policies, there are three prerequisites. First, there is a need to improve understanding of the factors that influence health inequalities and the interconnections between the economic, social and health impacts. Second, broader policies should be considered not only within the health sector, but also in other sectors such as education, employment, transport and infrastructure, agriculture, water and sanitation. Third, the proposed policies need to be designed through involving the community, addressing the health of vulnerable groups, and fostering inter-sectoral action and partnerships.

Finally, within the UN's Agenda 2030 , Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 3 sets out a forward-looking strategy for health whose main goal is to attain healthier lives and wellbeing. The 17 interdependent SDGs offer an opportunity to contribute to healthier, fairer and more equitable societies from which both communities and the environment can benefit.

The stories of Maria, David and Ruben are real stories featured in the Documentary: The impact of COVID19 in urban outskirts, Directed by Jose A Guardiola. Available here. Permission has been granted to narrate these stories.

Buck, D., Baylis, A., Dougall, D. and Robertson, R. (2018). A vision for population health: Towards a healthier future . [online] London: The King's Fund. [Accessed 20 Sept. 2020]

Wilton Park. (2020). Healthy societies, healthy populations (WP1734). Wiston House, Steyning. Retrieved from https://www.wiltonpark.org.uk/event/wp1734/ Cohen B. E. (2006). Population health as a framework for public health practice: a Canadian perspective. American journal of public health , 96 (9), 1574–1576.

3. Imagine a 'well-care' system that invests in keeping people healthy

By Maliha Hashmi , Executive Director, Health and Well-Being and Biotech, NEOM, and Jan Kimpen , Global Chief Medical Officer, Philips

Imagine a patient named Emily. Emily is aged 32 and I’m her doctor.

Emily was 65lb (29kg) above her ideal body weight, pre-diabetic and had high cholesterol. My initial visit with Emily was taken up with counselling on lifestyle changes, mainly diet and exercise; typical advice from one’s doctor in a time-pressured 15-minute visit. I had no other additional resources, incentives or systems to support me or Emily to help her turn her lifestyle around.

I saw Emily eight months later, not in my office, but in the hospital emergency room. Her husband accompanied her – she was vomiting, very weak and confused. She was admitted to the intensive care unit, connected to an insulin drip to lower her blood sugar, and diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. I talked to Emily then, emphasizing that the new medications for diabetes would only control the sugars, but she still had time to reverse things if she changed her lifestyle. She received further counselling from a nutritionist.

Over the years, Emily continued to gain weight, necessitating higher doses of her diabetes medication. More emergency room visits for high blood sugars ensued, she developed infections of her skin and feet, and ultimately, she developed kidney disease because of the uncontrolled diabetes. Ten years after I met Emily, she is 78lb (35kg) above her ideal body weight; she is blind and cannot feel her feet due to nerve damage from the high blood sugars; and she will soon need dialysis for her failing kidneys. Emily’s deteriorating health has carried a high financial cost both for herself and the healthcare system. We have prevented her from dying and extended her life with our interventions, but each interaction with the medical system has come at significant cost – and those costs will only rise. But we have also failed Emily by allowing her diabetes to progress. We know how to prevent this, but neither the right investments nor incentives are in place.

Emily could have been a real patient of mine. Her sad story will be familiar to all doctors caring for chronically ill patients. Unfortunately, patients like Emily are neglected by health systems across the world today. The burden of chronic disease is increasing at alarming rates. Across the OECD nearly 33% of those over 15 years live with one or more chronic condition, rising to 60% for over-65s. Approximately 50% of chronic disease deaths are attributed to cardiovascular disease (CVD). In the coming decades, obesity, will claim 92 million lives in the OECD while obesity-related diseases will cut life expectancy by three years by 2050.

These diseases can be largely prevented by primary prevention, an approach that emphasizes vaccinations, lifestyle behaviour modification and the regulation of unhealthy substances. Preventative interventions have been efficacious. For obesity, countries have effectively employed public awareness campaigns, health professionals training, and encouragement of dietary change (for example, limits on unhealthy foods, taxes and nutrition labelling).⁴,⁵ Other interventions, such as workplace health-promotion programmes, while showing some promise, still need to demonstrate their efficacy.

The COVID-19 crisis provides the ultimate incentive to double down on the prevention of chronic disease. Most people dying from COVID-19 have one or more chronic disease, including obesity, CVD, diabetes or respiratory problems – diseases that are preventable with a healthy lifestyle. COVID-19 has highlighted structural weaknesses in our health systems such as the neglect of prevention and primary care.

While the utility of primary prevention is understood and supported by a growing evidence base, its implementation has been thwarted by chronic underinvestment, indicating a lack of societal and governmental prioritization. On average, OECD countries only invest 2.8% of health spending on public health and prevention. The underlying drivers include decreased allocation to prevention research, lack of awareness in populations, the belief that long-run prevention may be more costly than treatment, and a lack of commitment by and incentives for healthcare professionals. Furthermore, public health is often viewed in a silo separate from the overall health system rather than a foundational component.

Health benefits aside, increasing investment in primary prevention presents a strong economic imperative. For example, obesity contributes to the treatment costs of many other diseases: 70% of diabetes costs, 23% for CVD and 9% for cancers. Economic losses further extend to absenteeism and decreased productivity.

Fee-for-service models that remunerate physicians based on the number of sick patients they see, regardless the quality and outcome, dominate healthcare systems worldwide. Primary prevention mandates a payment system that reimburses healthcare professionals and patients for preventive actions. Ministries of health and governmental leaders need to challenge skepticism around preventive interventions, realign incentives towards preventive actions and those that promote healthy choices by people. Primary prevention will eventually reduce the burden of chronic diseases on the healthcare system.

As I reflect back on Emily and her life, I wonder what our healthcare system could have done differently. What if our healthcare system was a well-care system instead of a sick-care system? Imagine a different scenario: Emily, a 32 year old pre-diabetic, had access to a nutritionist, an exercise coach or health coach and nurse who followed her closely at the time of her first visit with me. Imagine if Emily joined group exercise classes, learned where to find healthy foods and how to cook them, and had access to spaces in which to exercise and be active. Imagine Emily being better educated about her diabetes and empowered in her healthcare and staying healthy. In reality, it is much more complicated than this, but if our healthcare systems began to incentivize and invest in prevention and even rewarded Emily for weight loss and healthy behavioural changes, the outcome might have been different. Imagine Emily losing weight and continuing to be an active and contributing member of society. Imagine if we invested in keeping people healthy rather than waiting for people to get sick, and then treating them. Imagine a well-care system.

Anderson, G. (2011). Responding to the growing cost and prevalence of people with multiple chronic conditions . Retrieved from OECD.

Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. GBD Data Visualizations. Retrieved here.

OECD (2019), The Heavy Burden of Obesity: The Economics of Prevention, OECD Health Policy Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris.

OECD. (2017). Obesity Update . Retrieved here.

Malik, V. S., Willett, W. C., & Hu, F. B. (2013). Global obesity: trends, risk factors and policy implications. Nature Reviews Endocrinology , 9 (1), 13-27.

Lang, J., Cluff, L., Payne, J., Matson-Koffman, D., & Hampton, J. (2017). The centers for disease control and prevention: findings from the national healthy worksite program. Journal of occupational and environmental medicine , 59 (7), 631.

Gmeinder, M., Morgan, D., & Mueller, M. (2017). How much do OECD countries spend on prevention? Retrieved from OECD.

Jordan RE, Adab P, Cheng KK. Covid-19: risk factors for severe disease and death. BMJ. 2020;368:m1198.

Richardson, A. K. (2012). Investing in public health: barriers and possible solutions. Journal of Public Health , 34 (3), 322-327.

Yong, P. L., Saunders, R. S., & Olsen, L. (2010). Missed Prevention Opportunities The healthcare imperative: lowering costs and improving outcomes: workshop series summary (Vol. 852): National Academies Press Washington, DC.

OECD. (2019). The Heavy Burden of Obesity: The Economics of Prevention. Retrieved here .

McDaid, D., F. Sassi and S. Merkur (Eds.) (2015a), “Promoting Health, Preventing Disease: The Economic Case ”, Open University Press, New York.

OECD. (2019). The Heavy Burden of Obesity: The Economics of Prevention. Retrieved from OECD.

4. Why e arly detection and diagnosis is critical

By Paul Murray , Head of Life and Health Products, Swiss Re, and André Goy , Chairman and Executive Director & Chief of Lymphoma, John Theurer Cancer Center, Hackensack University Medical Center

Although healthcare systems around the world follow a common and simple principle and goal – that is, access to affordable high-quality healthcare – they vary significantly, and it is becoming increasingly costly to provide this access, due to ageing populations, the increasing burden of chronic diseases and the price of new innovations.

Governments are challenged by how best to provide care to their populations and make their systems sustainable. Neither universal health, single payer systems, hybrid systems, nor the variety of systems used throughout the US have yet provided a solution. However, systems that are ranked higher in numerous studies, such as a 2017 report by the Commonwealth Fund , typically include strong prevention care and early-detection programmes. This alone does not guarantee a good outcome as measured by either high or healthy life expectancy. But there should be no doubt that prevention and early detection can contribute to a more sustainable system by reducing the risk of serious diseases or disorders, and that investing in and operationalizing earlier detection and diagnosis of key conditions can lead to better patient outcomes and lower long-term costs.

To discuss early detection in a constructive manner it makes sense to describe its activities and scope. Early detection includes pre-symptomatic screening and treatment immediately or shortly after first symptoms are diagnosed. Programmes may include searching for a specific disease (for example, HIV/AIDS or breast cancer), or be more ubiquitous. Prevention, which is not the focus of this blog, can be interpreted as any activities undertaken to avoid diseases, such as information programmes, education, immunization or health monitoring.

Expenditures for prevention and early detection vary by country and typically range between 1-5% of total health expenditures.¹ During the 2008 global financial crisis, many countries reduced preventive spending. In the past few years, however, a number of countries have introduced reforms to strengthen and promote prevention and early detection. Possibly the most prominent example in recent years was the introduction of the Affordable Care Act in the US, which placed a special focus on providing a wide range of preventive and screening services. It lists 63 distinct services that must be covered without any copayment, co-insurance or having to pay a deductible.

Whilst logic dictates that investment in early detection should be encouraged, there are a few hurdles and challenges that need to be overcome and considered. We set out a few key criteria and requirements for an efficient early detection program:

1. Accessibility The healthcare system needs to provide access to a balanced distribution of physicians, both geographically (such as accessibility in rural areas), and by specialty. Patients should be able to access the system promptly without excessive waiting times for diagnoses or elective treatments. This helps mitigate conditions or diseases that are already quite advanced or have been incubating for months or even years before a clinical diagnosis. Access to physicians varies significantly across the globe from below one to more than 60 physicians per 10,000 people.² One important innovation for mitigating access deficiencies is telehealth. This should give individuals easier access to health-related services, not only in cases of sickness but also to supplement primary care.

2. Early symptoms and initial diagnosis Inaccurate or delayed initial diagnoses present a risk to the health of patients, can lead to inappropriate or unnecessary testing and treatment, and represents a significant share of total health expenditures. A medical second opinion service, especially for serious medical diagnoses, which can occur remotely, can help improve healthcare outcomes. Moreover, studies show that early and correct diagnosis opens up a greater range of curative treatment options and can reduce costs (e.g. for colon cancer, stage-four treatment costs are a multiple of stage-one treatment costs).³

3. New technology New early detection technologies can improve the ability to identify symptoms and diseases early: i. Advances in medical monitoring devices and wearable health technology, such as ECG and blood pressure monitors and biosensors, enable patients to take control of their own health and physical condition. This is an important trend that is expected to positively contribute to early detection, for example in atrial fibrillation and Alzheimers’ disease. ii. Diagnostic tools, using new biomarkers such as liquid biopsies or volatile organic compounds, together with the implementation of machine learning, can play an increasing role in areas such as oncology or infectious diseases.⁴

4. Regulation and Intervention Government regulation and intervention will be necessary to set ranges of normality, to prohibit or discourage overdiagnosis and to reduce incentives for providers to overtreat patients or to follow patients' inappropriate requests. In some countries, such as the US, there has been some success through capitation models and value-based care. Governments might also need to intervene to de-risk the innovation paradigm, such that private providers of capital feel able to invest more in the development of new detection technologies, in addition to proven business models in novel therapeutics.

OECD Health Working Papers No. 101 "How much do OECD countries spend on prevention" , 2017

World Health Organization; Global Health Observatory (GHO) data; https://www.who.int/gho/health_workforce/physicians_density/en/

Saving lives, averting costs; A report for Cancer Research UK, by Incisive Health, September 2014

Liquid Biopsy: Market Drivers And Obstacles; by Divyaa Ravishankar, Frost & Sullivan, January 21, 2019

Liquid Biopsies Become Cheap and Easy with New Microfluidic Device; February 26, 2019

How America’s 5 Top Hospitals are Using Machine Learning Today; by Kumba Sennaar, February 19, 2019

5. The business case for private investment in healthcare for all

Pascal Fröhlicher, Primary Care Innovation Scholar, Harvard Medical School, and Ian Wijaya, Managing Director in Lazard’s Global Healthcare Group

Faith, a mother of two, has just lost another customer. Some households where she is employed to clean, in a small town in South Africa, have little understanding of her medical needs. As a type 2 diabetes patient, this Zimbabwean woman visits the public clinic regularly, sometimes on short notice. At her last visit, after spending hours in a queue, she was finally told that the doctor could not see her. To avoid losing another day of work, she went to the local general practitioner to get her script, paying more than three daily wages for consultation and medication. Sadly, this fictional person reflects a reality for many people in middle-income countries.

Achieving universal health coverage by 2030, a key UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG), is at risk. The World Bank has identified a $176 billion funding gap , increasing every year due to the growing needs of an ageing population, with the health burden shifting towards non-communicable diseases (NCDs), now the major cause of death in emerging markets . Traditional sources of healthcare funding struggle to increase budgets sufficiently to cover this gap and only about 4% of private health care investments focus on diseases that primarily affect low- and middle-income countries.

In middle-income countries, private investors often focus on extending established businesses, including developing private hospital capacity, targeting consumers already benefiting from quality healthcare. As a result, an insufficient amount of private capital is invested in strengthening healthcare systems for everyone.

Why is this the case? We discussed with senior health executives investing in Lower and Middle Income Countries (LMIC) and the following reasons emerged:

• Small market size . Scaling innovations in healthcare requires dealing with country-specific regulatory frameworks and competing interest groups, resulting in high market entry cost.
• Talent . Several LMICs are losing nurses and doctors but also business and finance professionals to European and North American markets due to the lack of local opportunities and a significant difference in salaries.
• Untested business models with relatively low gross margins. Providing healthcare requires innovative business models where consumers’ willingness to pay often needs to be demonstrated over a significant period of time. Additionally, relatively low gross margins drive the need for scale to leverage administrative costs, which increases risk.
• Government Relations. The main buyer of health-related products and services is government; yet the relationship between public and private sectors often lacks trust, creating barriers to successful collaboration. Add to that significant political risk, as contracts can be cancelled by incoming administrations after elections. Many countries also lack comprehensive technology strategies to successfully manage technological innovation.
• Complexity of donor funding. A significant portion of healthcare is funded by private donors, whose priorities might not always be congruent with the health priorities of the government.

Notwithstanding these barriers, healthcare, specifically in middle-income settings, could present an attractive value proposition for private investors:

• Economic growth rates . A growing middle class is expanding the potential market for healthcare products and services.
• Alignment of incentives . A high ratio of out-of-pocket payments for healthcare services is often associated with low quality. However, innovative business models can turn out of pocket payments into the basis for a customer-centric value proposition, as the provider is required to compete for a share of disposable income.
• Emergence of National Health Insurance Schemes . South Africa, Ghana, Nigeria and others are building national health insurance schemes, increasing a population’s ability to fund healthcare services and products .
• Increased prevalence of NCDs. Given the increasing incidence of chronic diseases and the potential of using technology to address these diseases, new business opportunities for private investment exist.

Based on the context above, several areas in healthcare delivery can present compelling opportunities for private companies.

• Aggregation of existing players.
• Leveraging primary care infrastructure. Retail companies can leverage their real estate, infrastructure and supply chains to deploy primary care services at greater scale than is currently the case.
• Telemedicine . Telecommunications providers can leverage their existing infrastructure and customer base to provide payment mechanisms and telehealth services at scale. As seen during the COVID-19 pandemic, investment in telemedicine can ensure that patients receive timely and continuous care in spite of restrictions and lockdowns.
• Cost effective diagnostics . Diagnostic tools operated by frontline workers and combined with the expertise of specialists can provide timely and efficient care.

To fully realize these opportunities, government must incentivise innovation, provide clear regulatory frameworks and, most importantly, ensure that health priorities are adequately addressed.

Venture capital and private equity firms as well as large international corporations can identify the most commercially viable solutions and scale them into new markets. The ubiquity of NCDs and the requirement to reduce costs globally provides innovators with the opportunity to scale their tested solutions from LMICs to higher income environments.

Successful investment exits in LMICs and other private sector success stories will attract more private capital. Governments that enable and support private investment in their healthcare systems would, with appropriate governance and guidance, generate benefits to their populations and economies. The economic value of healthy populations has been proven repeatedly , and in the face of COVID-19, private sector investment can promote innovation and the development of responsible, sustainable solutions.

Faith – the diabetic mother we introduced at the beginning of this article - could keep her client. As a stable patient, she could measure her glucose level at home and enter the results in an app on her phone, part of her monthly diabetes programme with the company that runs the health centre. She visits the nurse-led facility at the local taxi stand on her way to work when her app suggests it. The nurse in charge of the centre treats Faith efficiently, and, if necessary, communicates with a primary care physician or even a specialist through the telemedicine functionality of her electronic health system.

Improving LMIC health systems is not only a business opportunity, but a moral imperative for public and private leaders. With the appropriate technology and political will, this can become a reality.

6. How could COVID-19 change the way we pay for health services?

John E. Ataguba, Associate Professor and Director, University of Cape Town and Matthew Guilford, Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Common Health

The emergence of the new severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-Cov-2), causing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has challenged both developing and developed countries.

Countries have approached the management of infections differently. Many people are curious to understand their health system’s performance on COVID-19, both at the national level and compared to international peers. Alongside limited resources for health, many developing countries may have weak health systems that can make it challenging to respond adequately to the pandemic.

Even before COVID-19, high rates of out-of-pocket spending on health meant that every year, 800 million people faced catastrophic healthcare costs ,100 million families were pushed into poverty, and millions more simply avoided care for critical conditions because they could not afford to pay for it.

The pandemic and its economic fallout have caused household incomes to decline at the same time as healthcare risks are rising. In some countries with insurance schemes, and especially for private health insurance, the following questions have arisen: How large is the co-payment for a COVID-19 test? If my doctor’s office is closed, will the telemedicine consultation be covered by my insurance? Will my coronavirus care be paid for regardless of how I contracted the virus? These and other doubts can prevent people from seeking medical care in some countries.

In Nigeria, like many other countries in Africa, the government bears the costs associated with testing and treating COVID-19 irrespective of the individual’s insurance status. In the public health sector, where COVID-19 cases are treated, health workers are paid monthly salaries while budgets are allocated to health facilities for other services. Hospitals continue to receive budget allocations to finance all health services including the management and treatment of COVID-19. That implies that funds allocated to address other health needs are reduced and that in turn could affect the availability and quality of health services.

Although health workers providing care for COVID-19 patients in isolation and treatment centres in Nigeria are paid salaries that are augmented with a special incentive package, the degree of impact on the quality improvement of services remains unclear. The traditional and historical allocation of budgets does not always address the needs of the whole population and could result in poor health services and under-provision of health services for COVID-19 patients.

In some countries, the reliance on out-of-pocket funding is hardly better for private providers, who encounter brand risks, operational difficulties, and – in extreme cases – the risk of creating “debtor prisons” as they seek to collect payment from patients. Ironically, despite the huge demand for medical services to diagnose and treat COVID-19, large healthcare institutions and individual healthcare practitioners alike are facing financial distress.

Dependence on a steady stream of fee-for-service payments for outpatient consultations and elective procedures is leading to pay cuts for doctors in India , forfeited Eid bonuses for nurses in Indonesia , and hospital bankruptcies in the United States . In a recent McKinsey & Company survey, 77% of physicians reported that their business would suffer in 2020 , and 46% were concerned about their practice surviving the coronavirus pandemic.

COVID-19 is exposing how fee-for-service, historical budget allocation and out-of-pocket financing methods can hinder the performance of the health system. Some providers and health systems that deployed “value-based” models prior to the pandemic have reported that these approaches have improved financial resilience during COVID-19 and may support better results for patients. Nevertheless, these types of innovations do not represent the dominant payment model in any country.

How health service providers are paid has implications for whether service users can get needed health services in a timely fashion, and at an appropriate quality and an affordable cost. By shifting from fee-for-service reimbursements to fixed "capitation" and performance-based payments, these models incentivize providers to improve quality and coordination while also guaranteeing a baseline income level, even during times of disruption.

Health service providers could be paid either in the form of salaries, a fee for services they provide, by capitation (whether adjusted or straightforward), through global budgets, or by using a case-based payment system (for example, the diagnostics-related groups), among others. Because there are different incentives to consider when adopting any of the methods, they could be combined to achieve a specific goal. For example, in some countries, health workers are paid salaries , and some specific services are paid on a fee-for-service basis.

Ideally, health services could be purchased strategically , incorporating aspects of provider performance in transferring funds to providers and accounting for the health needs of the population they serve.

In this regard, strategic purchasing for health has been advocated and should be highlighted as crucial with the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic. There is a need to ensure value in the way health providers are paid, inter alia to increase efficiency, ensure equity, and improve access to needed health services. Value-based payment methods, although not new in many countries, provide an avenue to encourage long-term value for money, better quality, and strategic purchasing for health, helping to build a healthier, more resilient world.

7. L essons in integrated care from the COVID-19 pandemic

Sarah Ziegler, Postdoctoral Researcher, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Zurich, and Ninie Wang, Founder & CEO, Pinetree Care Group.

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, people suffering non-communicable diseases (NCDs) have been at higher risk of becoming severely ill or dying. In Italy, 96.2% of people who died of COVID-19 lived with two or more chronic conditions.

Beyond the pandemic, cardiovascular disease, cancer, respiratory disease and diabetes are the leading burden of disease, with 41 million annual deaths. People with multimorbidity - a number of different conditions - often experience difficulties in accessing timely and coordinated healthcare, made worse when health systems are busy fighting against the pandemic.

Here is what happened in China with Lee, aged 62, who has been living with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) for the past five years.

Before the pandemic, Lee’s care manager coordinated a multi-disciplinary team of physicians, nurses, pulmonary rehabilitation therapists, psychologists and social workers to put together a personalized care plan for her. Following the care plan, Lee stopped smoking and paid special attention to her diet, sleep and physical exercises, as well as sticking to her medication and follow-up visits. She participated in a weekly community-based physical activity program to meet other COPD patients, including short walks and exchange experiences. A mobile care team supported her with weekly cleaning and grocery shopping.

Together with her family, Lee had follow-up visits to ensure her care plan reflected her recovery and to modify the plan if needed. These integrated care services brought pieces of care together, centered around Lee’s needs, and provided a continuum of care that helped keep Lee in the community with a good quality of life for as long as possible.

Since the COVID-19 outbreak, such NCD services have been disrupted by lockdowns, the cancellation of elective care and the fear of visiting care service . These factors particularly affected people living with NCDs like Lee. As such, Lee was not able to follow her care plan anymore. The mobile care team was unable to visit her weekly as they were deployed to provide COVID-19 relief. Lee couldn’t participate in her community-based program, follow up on her daily activities, or see her family or psychologists. This negatively affected Lee’s COPD management and led to poor management of her physical activity and healthy diet.

The pandemic highlights the need for a flexible and reliable integrated care system to enable healthcare delivery to all people no matter where they live, uzilizing approaches such as telemedicine and effective triaging to overcome care disruptions.

Lee’s care manager created short videos to assist her family through each step of her care and called daily to check in on the implementation of the plan and answer questions. Lee received tele-consultations, and was invited to the weekly webcast series that supported COPD patient communities. When her uncle passed away because of pneumonia complications from COVID-19 in early April, Lee’s care manager arranged a palliative care provider to support the family through the difficult time of bereavement and provided food and supplies during quarantine. Lee could even continue with her physical activity program with an online training coach. There were a total of 38 exercise videos for strengthening and stretching arms, legs and trunk, which she could complete at different levels of difficulty and with different numbers of repetitions.

Lee’s case demonstrates that early detection, prevention, and management of NCDs play a crucial role in a global pandemic response. It shows how we need to shift away from health systems designed around single diseases towards health systems designed for the multidimensional needs of individuals. As part of the pandemic responses, addressing and managing risks related to NCDs and prevention of their complications are critical to improve outcomes for vulnerable people like Lee.

How to design and deliver successful integrated care

The challenge for the successful transformation of healthcare is to tailor care system-wide to population needs. A 2016 WHO Framework on integrated people-centered health services developed a set of five general strategies for countries to progress towards people-centered and sustainable health systems, calling for a fundamental transformation not only in the way health services are delivered, but also in the way they are financed and managed . These strategies call for countries to:

• Engage and empower people / communities: an integrated care system must mobilize everyone to work together using all available resources, especially when continuity of essential health and community services for NCDs are at risk of being undermined.
• Strengthen governance and accountability, so that integration emphasizes rather than weakens leadership in every part of the system, and ensure that NCDs are included in national COVID-19 plans and future essential health services.
• Reorient the model of care to put the needs and perspectives of each person / family at the center of care planning and outcome measurement, rather than institutions.
• Coordinate services within and across sectors, for example, integrate inter-disciplinary medical care with social care, addressing wider socio-economic, environmental and behavioral determinants of health.
• Create an enabling environment, with clear objectives, supportive financing, regulations and insurance coverage for integrated care, including the development and use of systemic digital health care solutions.

Whether due to an unexpected pandemic or a gradual increase in the burden of NCDs, each person could face many health threats across the life-course.

Only systems that dynamically assess each person’s complex health needs and address them through a timely, well-coordinated and tailored mix of health and social care services will be able to deliver desired health outcomes over the longer term, ensuring an uninterrupted good quality of life for Lee and many others like her.

• Wang B, Li R, Lu Z, Huang Y. Does comorbidity increase the risk of patients with COVID-19: evidence from meta-analysis. Aging (Albany NY) 2020;12: 6049–57.
• WHO. Noncommunicable diseases in emergencies. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2016.
• WHO. COVID-19 significantly impacts health services for noncommunicable diseases. June 2020.
• Kluge HHP, Wickramasinghe K, Rippin HL, et al. Prevention and control of non-communicalbe diseases in the COVID-19 response. The Lancet. 2020. 395:1678-1680
• WHO. Framework on integrated people-centred health services. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2016.

8 . Why access to healthcare alone will not save lives

Donald Berwick, President Emeritus and Senior Fellow, Institute for Healthcare Improvement; Nicola Bedlington, Special Adviser, European Patient Forum; and David Duong, Director, Program in Global Primary Care and Social Change, Harvard Medical School.

Joyce lies next to 10 other women in bare single beds in the post-partum recovery room at a rural hospital in Uganda. Just an hour ago, Joyce gave birth to a healthy baby boy. She is now struggling with abdominal pain. A nurse walks by, and Joyce tries to call out, but the nurse was too busy to attend to her; she was the only nurse looking after 20 patients.

Another hour passes, and Joyce is shaking and sweating profusely. Joyce’s husband runs into the corridor to find a nurse to come and evaluate her. The nurse notices Joyce’s critical condition - a high fever and a low blood pressure - and she quickly calls the doctor. The medical team rushes Joyce to the intensive care unit. Joyce has a very severe blood stream infection. It takes another hour before antibiotics are started - too late. Joyce dies, leaving behind a newborn son and a husband. Joyce, like many before her, falls victim to a pervasive global threat: poor quality of care.

Adopted by United Nations (UN) in 2015, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) are a universal call to action to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure that all enjoy peace and prosperity by 2030. SDG 3 aims to ensure healthy lives and promote wellbeing for all. The 2019 UN General Assembly High Level Meeting on Universal Health Coverage (UHC) reaffirmed the need for the highest level of political commitment to health care for all.

However, progress towards UHC, often measured in terms of access, not outcomes, does not guarantee better health, as we can see from Joyce’s tragedy. This is also evident with the COVID-19 response. The rapidly evolving nature of the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted long-term structural inefficiencies and inequities in health systems and societies trying to mitigate the contagion and loss of life.

Systems are straining under significant pressure to ensure standards of care for both COVID-19 patients and other patients that run the risk of not receiving timely and appropriate care. Although poor quality of care has been a long-standing issue, it is imperative now more than ever that systems implement high-quality services as part of their efforts toward UHC.

Poor quality healthcare remains a challenge for countries at all levels of economic development: 10% of hospitalized patients acquire an infection during their hospitalization in low-and-middle income countries (LMIC), whereas 7% do in high-income countries. Poor quality healthcare disproportionally affects the poor and those in LMICs. Of the approximately 8.6 million deaths per year in 137 LMICs, 3.6 million are people who did not access the health system, whereas 5 million are people who sought and had access to services but received poor-quality care.

Joyce’s story is all too familiar; poor quality of care results in deaths from treatable diseases and conditions. Although the causes of death are often multifactorial, deaths and increased morbidity from treatable conditions are often a reflection of defects in the quality of care.

The large number of deaths and avoidable complications are also accompanied by substantial economic costs. In 2015 alone, 130 LMICs faced US $6 trillion in economic losses. Although there is concern that implementing quality measures may be a costly endeavor, it is clear that the economic toll associated with a lack of quality of care is far more troublesome and further stunts the socio-economic development of LMICs, made apparent with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Poor-quality care not only leads to adverse outcomes in terms of high morbidity and mortality, but it also impacts patient experience and patient confidence in health systems. Less than one-quarter of people in LMICs and approximately half of people in high-income countries believe that their health systems work well.

A lack of application and availability of evidenced-based guidelines is one key driver of poor-quality care. The rapidly changing landscape of medical knowledge and guidelines requires healthcare workers to have immediate access to current clinical resources. Despite our "information age", health providers are not accessing clinical guidelines or do not have access to the latest practical, lifesaving information.

Getting information to health workers in the places where it is most needed is a delivery challenge. Indeed, adherence to clinical practice guidelines in eight LMICs was below 50%, and in OECD countries, despite being a part of national guidelines, 19-53% of women aged 50-69 years did not receive mammography screening.4 The evidence in LMICs and HICs suggest that application of evidence-based guidelines lead to reduction in mortality and improved health outcomes.

Equally, the failure to change and continually improve the processes in health systems that support the workforce takes a high toll on quality of care. During the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, countries such as Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore and Vietnam, which adapted and improved their health systems after the SARS and H1N1 outbreaks, were able to rapidly mobilize a large-scale quarantine and contact tracing strategy, supported with effective and coordinated mass communication.

These countries not only mitigated the economic and mortality damage, but also prevented their health systems and workforce from enduring extreme burden and inability to maintain critical medical supplies. In all nations, investing in healthcare organizations to enable them to become true “learning health care systems,” aiming at continual quality improvement, would yield major population health and health system gains.

The COVID-19 pandemic underscores the importance for health systems to be learning systems. Once the dust settles, we need to focus, collectively, on learning from this experience and adapting our health systems to be more resilient for the next one. This implies a need for commitment to and investment in global health cooperation, improvement in health care leadership, and change management.

With strong political and financial commitment to UHC, and its demonstrable effect in addressing crises such as COVID-19, for the first time, the world has a viable chance of UHC becoming a reality. However, without an equally strong political, managerial, and financial commitment to continually improving, high-quality health services, UHC will remain an empty promise.

1. United Nations General Assembly. Political declaration of the high-level meeting on universal health coverage. New York, NY2019.

2. Marmot M, Allen J, Boyce T, Goldblatt P, Morrison J. Health equity in England: the Marmot review 10 years on. Institute of Health Equity;2020.

3. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine: Committee on Improving the Quality of Health Care Globally. Crossing the global quality chasm: Improving health care worldwide. Washington, DC: National Academies Press;2018.

4. World Health Organization, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, World Bank Group. Delivering quality health services: a global imperative for universal health coverage. World Health Organization; 2018.

5. Kruk ME, Gage AD, Arsenault C, et al. High-quality health systems in the Sustainable Development Goals era: time for a revolution. The Lancet Global Health. 2018;6(11):e1196-e1252.

6. Ricci-Cabello I, Violán C, Foguet-Boreu Q, Mounce LT, Valderas JM. Impact of multi-morbidity on quality of healthcare and its implications for health policy, research and clinical practice. A scoping review. European Journal of General Practice. 2015;21(3):192-202.

7. Valtis YK, Rosenberg J, Bhandari S, et al. Evidence-based medicine for all: what we can learn from a programme providing free access to an online clinical resource to health workers in resource-limited settings. BMJ global health. 2016;1(1).

8. Institute of Medicine. Best Care at Lower Cost: The Path to Continuously Learning Health Care in America . Washington, DC: National Academies Press 2012.

Related topics:

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essay Examples >
• Essays Topics >
• Essay on Government

Essay About Health Care System In The US

Type of paper: Essay

Topic: Government , Nursing , Services papers , Insurance , Medicine , Workplace , Politics , Health

Words: 2500

Published: 01/21/2020

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

Problems in the Us Healthcare System

There have been numerous debates regarding the state of healthcare in the USA. The country’s healthcare system was declared broken a decade ago. Healthcare consumers have long complained about the quality of services received without much reprieve. Industry players including physicians, nurses and allied workers have been caught between blame and concern over the future of their profession. The only hope remains with healthcare administrators and policy makers to make the necessary changes. Some of the issues such as the cost rising cost of healthcare services and the huge number of uninsured Americans require strategic solutions and committed implementation. This paper will list some of the problems and suggest solutions from a healthcare administrator’s point of view. In the last two decades, the US bill on healthcare has expanded dramatically. Healthcare costs expand one and a half times faster than the average annual economic growth rate. At the moment, healthcare accounts for about 20% of all economic costs (LaPierre, 2012). Should the trend witnesses in the last 20 years continues, the US economy will collapse under the burden of healthcare spending. There will be no money to spend on other important social services such as defense and social security. The government could take different approaches to tackle the problem. There is the economic outlook, in which focus should shift to creating value for every penny spent on healthcare and eliminating excesses. Another approach is the managerial approach in which all resources allocated to healthcare are planned, organized and controlled to create a healthy, working and productive nation. In all these approaches, healthcare administrators have a key role to play. This is because they are the first line of contact for government, patients and doctors. They are the central cog in the wheel of healthcare service provision. Nearly 45 million Americans are uninsured. The exact number is not known, however, this means that there is a large population of individuals who have no reliable means of covering their healthcare expenses. Consequently, healthcare costs take up a large portion of household expenditure for the uninsured. The harsh economic economy has made an already bad situation worse. Employers are cutting down on expenditure to avoid losses. Many Americans have had to make do with smaller coverage packages or no healthcare coverage at all. Companies justify these cuts by saying that either make the cuts and retain the employees or provide full benefits and risk bankruptcy and the resultant job losses. With such arguments, it is impossible to blame the companies for choosing to save jobs for many households. Another common justification for the benefits cuts is that the government provides monetary incentives for companies that create employment opportunities. Companies are choosing to cut down on indirect costs such as healthcare in order to budgetary allocations for new employees. The overall result of these cuts is that the average middle-class family is increasingly disenfranchised. The population is not healthy due to poor lifestyle choices. Obesity is quickly becoming a morbid problem. Doctors are reporting more cases of depression and other stress related psychological conditions than at any other time in history. More people are choosing to self medicate instead of visiting a qualified doctor for proper diagnosis. This situation speaks volumes of the luxury that healthcare has become in the USA. The first solution to correcting the healthcare situation is basic universal health insurance. Universal basic healthcare coverage guarantees every citizen access to basic healthcare whenever they need it (Sameer, Neha, and Ronak, 2011). Just like other insurance types such as automobile insurance, all citizens would be required to have some form of healthcare coverage. The idea is to secure the collective health of the citizens. The insurance coverage will be used for most of the basic visits to healthcare service providers. All citizens including the old, the disabled and the mentally challenged will be covered (Sameer, Neha, and Ronak, 2011). Universal coverage is just the first step in solving the healthcare crisis. As far back as 1965, the government had put in place plans to provide aided cover for citizens. This was the time when Medicaid and Medicare were introduced. Medicare and Medicaid have been marred with numerous implementation challenges. Firstly, Medicaid was designed to cover the medical expenses of senior citizens and young people with mental illnesses. This essentially left out those who were of employable age but could not meet their healthcare expenses. Over the years, this group has grown to about 45million people with no healthcare coverage and no reliable means to pay for their healthcare costs. In 2010, the government made the first major attempt to correct the flaws witnessed in Medicare and Medicaid. President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) commonly termed as Obamacare. This act, together with Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, overhauled the healthcare system as it had been since 1965. PPACA primarily hopes to reduce significantly the number of uninsured Americans. Unlike Medicare, the Act requires all insurance companies to provide healthcare coverage even to clients with pre-existing conditions that would normally disqualify them. The Act also aims to provide several avenues through which healthcare providers can cover for their costs and ease the burden on the healthcare consumer. These avenues are subsidies, tax credits and mandates which organizations utilize to increase healthcare coverage to the citizens. The act makes it easy for individuals to purchase good cover while creating a bigger pool for insurance firms to sell their health covers. The new healthcare coverage system should allow healthcare consumers to change insurance providers according to their needs. This means that an individual will not be forced to stick to one insurer for fear of losing their covers. It will also mean that employees can ask their employers to allow them to shop around for the best mix of packages from various service providers. Healthcare administrators can take advantage of the provisions to partner with the government in healthcare provision. It is not be possible for on faction of the stakeholders to take up the responsibility of streamlining the industry single handedly. A government-service provider partnership is the best way to implement the universal healthcare coverage plan. Healthcare administrators and other healthcare service providers have firsthand information of the challenges of providing health services. On the other hand, the government has the resources to support the provision of healthcare services. Furthermore, it is the moral obligation of the government to ensure that all citizens live a comfortable life. This collaboration will ensure that all the projections made for PPACA will be met or surpassed. The projections are that in ten years, Medicare Advantage policies will have reduced by $132 billion. Medicare home health care payments could drop by $40billion while hospital payments could reduce by $22 billion (Sameer, Neha, and Ronak, 2011). The second problem with the healthcare system is the quality of healthcare services offered to the citizens. Healthcare administrators should be more worried about this problem since it affects the image of the healthcare industry. Healthcare is a necessary service; it is therefore not possible to say that poor quality service can lead to the death of the sector. However, for professionalism and integrity purposes, it is imperative that all service providers maintain the highest standards of service. Healthcare administrators have the responsibility of maintaining professional standards and order within their individual establishments and by extension, the entire healthcare sector. They are also charged with the added task of ensuring consistency in the provision of all healthcare services ranging from simple examinations to complex operations. In a recent survey, Americans reported more medical malpractices than Canadians, Britons and Germans. The study found that any of the complaints involved medical misdiagnosis, wrong medication and inaccurate lab reports. There are several reasons why Americans reported many of these medical malpractices. Firstly, the healthcare system in the US is largely fragmented. Individuals rarely go to one service provider for all their healthcare needs. It is very common for people to have a doctor in different locations for all their major healthcare needs such as a dentist, gynecologist, pediatrician and general physician. In the end, these individuals receive varying quality of service due to the absence of detailed history at any one of these service providers. Another plausible explanation for the high incidences of medical malpractice is the slow rate in which the healthcare sector adopts technology. Many hospitals and private establishments use unreliable manual record keeping systems to record patient information. In many cases, during emergencies, doctors are not able to access accurate client information in time. The result has been endless malpractice lawsuits against doctors and hospitals. It should be noted that the service industry is prone to customer dissatisfaction. In healthcare, this dissatisfaction often results in a malpractice lawsuit. The courts have the responsibility of determining whether a tort has been committed against the plaintiff or not. To avoid such lawsuits, healthcare administrators should ensure that doctors and other direct healthcare service providers are insured against malpractice. This is a very important administrative task because it protects the entire organization from possibly devastating punitive damages. Secondly, the healthcare administrator should ensure that all roles relating to healthcare service provision are clearly cut out for each employee. This information should be made available during employment and in other subsequent employer-employee engagements. Additionally, the administrator can ensure that employees have access to vital operational manuals in the form of strategically placed easy-to –read pin-ups, memos, e-mails and other acceptable communiqué. When employees are provided with adequate information on what they are expected to do, the chances of errors occurring reduce significantly. Thirdly, administrators should conduct assessments on the areas with the most number of malpractices. These evaluations will reveal the actual problem areas and allow for thorough investigations. Investigations may reveal procedural shortcomings, technical weaknesses or human error. Whatever the outcome, such assessments should be conducted regularly and their findings used to find permanent solutions for recurrent problems. Lastly, there should be an open and honest approach to dealing with healthcare malpractices. Administrators should ensure that the hospital gives regular and accurate reports on malpractice cases. This will build faith in the healthcare facility by making it clear to the clients that the facility is committed to quality, honesty and integrity in the provision of healthcare services. The last major problem facing the healthcare system is the lack of efficient information management systems. As mentioned earlier, hospitals and other healthcare facilities still rely on physical patient files for information. The nurse’s station often doubles up as a filing station. This manual system pushes costs in terms of labor, space, staff and the time required to retrieve and store files (Shortliffe & Cimino, 2006). Apart from increasing administrative costs, manual filing systems reduce the quality of service by increasing average patient waiting time and increasing the possibility of error. Insurance companies that provide healthcare insurance spend millions of dollars in manual filing systems and application procedures. These costs are added onto the huge healthcare bill that is already chocking the economy. Should insurance companies adopt more efficient information management systems, insurers could save as much as $27.7 billion. A similar system would save hospitals about $17 billion (Odier, 2010). The same benefits could accrue to physicians who choose to adopt information management systems. Such physicians could save up to $6.9 billion in administrative costs. Hospital management systems are very important in ensuring efficiency and cost effectiveness within a hospital setting. Furthermore, healthcare administrators can benefit from customized payment systems, faster communication networks and secure security systems. It is the responsibility of healthcare administrators to determine the needs of their facility and shop for the best solutions. Hospital managers can choose from commonly used solutions. They can also opt for customized solutions which are designed specifically to meet the peculiar needs of an organization. Regardless of the option taken, the system should meet all, or most of the needs of the organization. The system should be flexible to changes and unique circumstances. Administrators and the clients being served should be able to understand quickly and operate the system. The user interface should be appealing, easy to understand and maneuver. Lastly, the system should be usable for a long time into the future without becoming redundant or obsolete. The problems identified in this paper are only but a fragment of what ails the healthcare system in the USA. The solutions suggested would tackle the problem from the providers’ endpoint; government and healthcare service providers. The middle point which is composed of healthcare consumers is not covered. Healthcare providers make up the equation of the healthcare system. They are the primary reason why healthcare costs have been skyrocketing over the years. The population has grown faster than the social capacity. Healthcare is just one of the sectors affected by unplanned increase in the demand for social services. The financial status of healthcare consumers is another important areas not addressed in this paper (Zydziunaite, & Egle, 2007). The debate is whether the poor and unemployed deserve the same benefits as corporate big wigs and the upper echelon of society. Such debates speak to the core of universal healthcare and what it means to individuals and society in its entirety. A lot remains to be done in order to raise the profile of healthcare in the USA. The best part is that there is government goodwill expressed through revolutionary legislation. Healthcare providers are quickly realizing that they have a pivotal role to play in healthcare cost reduction by providing quality services at the lowest cost possible (Mango, and Vivian, 2009). The individual healthcare consumer should join the fray by making better lifestyle choices and finding good healthcare covers within the insurance market. In all this, the healthcare administrator is responsible for running an efficient establishment. Efficiency is required in administrative procedures, financial management, and human resource management and procurement procedures. The role of the administrator is vital because he or she ensures quality and value at the point of service delivery. Administrators manage the image of the organization together with client expectations. They do this by managing the day to day operations in hospitals and other healthcare institutions across the country. In the quest to resolve the healthcare crisis, healthcare administrators should be consulted and involved in the actual implementation of solutions (Mango, and Vivian, 2009). Their position gives them a unique vantage to the problems within the healthcare industry and the contributory effect of the government and healthcare consumers. They can then use their management skills to come up with workable solutions for the entire sector through leadership and initiative.

LaPierre, T. A. (2012). Comparing the Canadian and US Systems of Health Care in an Era of Health Care Reform. Journal of Health Care Finance. 38(4): 1-18 Mango, P. and Vivian, E, R, (2009). Three imperatives for improving US health care. McKinsey Quarterly 3. Odier, N. (2010). The US Health-care system: A proposal for reform. Journal of Medical Marketing. 10(4): 279-304 Sameer K., Neha S. Ghildayal, and Ronak N. S., (2011). "Examining quality and efficiency of the US healthcare system", International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 24(5): 366 – 388 Shortliffe E. & Cimino J.J., (2006). Biomedical Informatics: Computer Applications in Health Care and Biomedicine (3rd edition). New York: Springer Zydziunaite, V., & Egle, K. (2007). Improving motivation among health care workers in private health care organisations: a perspective of nursing personnel. Baltic Journal of Management, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 213-22.

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 2027

This paper is created by writer with

ID 280669059

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Incapability research papers, farm bill research papers, lancet research papers, egocentrism research papers, day care research papers, time off research papers, transcription research papers, screaming research papers, alcoholic research papers, heading research papers, middle school argumentative essays, indias politics essay examples, example of stem careers for african american girls thesis proposal, compensations and benefits essay example, issues of the european union research paper sample, research proposal on effects of empowerment on police force, sample critical thinking on a sociology of religion, the great depression research paper sample, good essay on lickert scale, modern day business is a survival of the fittest essay examples, example of can one be moral and not believe in god essay, free science milestones and their impact on society research paper example, free music from the caribbean and latin america research paper sample, good international law essay example, good research paper on alcohol consumption and its effect on peoples health and social life, sample course work on spirituality discussion, fall 2013 article review sample, good essay on social media growth and impact across the middle east, piety and holiness essay sample, good essay on cultural studies, free brief paper 2 essay sample, good example of essay on if this is not taken into consideration there will be deaths from the use of technology, hyams essays, walbridge essays, pope leo xiii essays, macky sall essays, ringgold essays, al pacino essays, pine forest essays, alexa vega essays, lecompton essays, gerton essays, melrose essays.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

The independent source for health policy research, polling, and news.

Americans’ Challenges with Health Care Costs

Lunna Lopes , Alex Montero , Marley Presiado , and Liz Hamel Published: Mar 01, 2024

This issue brief was updated on March 1, 2024 to include the latest KFF polling data. 

For many years, KFF polling has found that the high cost of health care is a burden on U.S. families, and that health care costs factor into decisions about insurance coverage and care seeking. These costs and the prospect of unexpected medical bills also rank as the top financial worries for adults and their families, and recent polling shows that lowering out-of-pocket health care costs is by and large the public’s top health care priority. Health care affordability is also one of the top issues that voters want to hear presidential candidates talk about during the 2024 election. This data note summarizes recent KFF polling on the public’s experiences with health care costs. Main takeaways include:

• About half of U.S. adults say it is difficult to afford health care costs, and one in four say they or a family member in their household had problems paying for health care in the past 12 months. Younger adults, those with lower incomes, adults in fair or poor health, and the uninsured are particularly likely to report problems affording health care in the past year.
• The cost of health care can lead some to put off needed care. One in four adults say that in the past 12 months they have skipped or postponed getting health care they needed because of the cost. Notably six in ten uninsured adults (61%) say they went without needed care because of the cost.
• The cost of prescription drugs prevents some people from filling prescriptions. About one in five adults (21%) say they have not filled a prescription because of the cost while a similar share say they have instead opted for over-the-counter alternatives. About one in ten adults say they have cut pills in half or skipped doses of medicine in the last year because of the cost.
• Those who are covered by health insurance are not immune to the burden of health care costs. About half (48%) of insured adults worry about affording their monthly health insurance premium and large shares of adults with employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) and those with Marketplace coverage rate their insurance as “fair” or “poor” when it comes to their monthly premium and to out-of-pocket costs to see a doctor.
• Health care debt is a burden for a large share of Americans. About four in ten adults (41%) report having debt due to medical or dental bills including debts owed to credit cards, collections agencies, family and friends, banks, and other lenders to pay for their health care costs, with disproportionate shares of Black and Hispanic adults, women, parents, those with low incomes, and uninsured adults saying they have health care debt.
• Notable shares of adults still say they are worried about affording medical costs such as unexpected bills, the cost of health care services (including out-of-pocket costs not covered by insurance, such as co-pays and deductibles), prescription drug costs, and long-term care services for themselves or a family member. About three in four adults say they are either “very” or “somewhat worried” about being able to afford unexpected medical bills (74%) or the cost of health care services (73%) for themselves and their families. Additionally, about half of adults would be unable to pay an unexpected medical bill of $500 in full without going into debt.

Difficulty Affording Medical Costs

Many U.S. adults have trouble affording health care costs. While lower income and uninsured adults are the most likely to report this, those with health insurance and those with higher incomes are not immune to the high cost of medical care. About half of U.S. adults say that it is very or somewhat difficult for them to afford their health care costs (47%). Among those under age 65, uninsured adults are much more likely to say affording health care costs is difficult (85%) compared to those with health insurance coverage (47%). Additionally, at least six in ten Black adults (60%) and Hispanic adults (65%) report difficulty affording health care costs compared to about four in ten White adults (39%). Adults in households with annual incomes under $40,000 are more than three times as likely as adults in households with incomes over $90,000 to say it is difficult to afford their health care costs (69% v. 21%). (Source: KFF Health Care Debt Survey: Feb.-Mar. 2022 )

When asked specifically about problems paying for health care in the past year, one in four adults say they or a family member in their household had problems paying for care, including three in ten adults under age 50 and those with lower household incomes (under $40,000). Affording health care is particularly a problem for those who may need it the most as one-third of adults who describe their physical health as “fair” or “poor” say they or a family member had problems paying for health care in the past 12 months. Among uninsured adults, half (49%) say they or a family member in their household had problems paying for health care, including 51% of uninsured adults who say they are in fair or poor health.

The cost of care can also lead some adults to skip or delay seeking services. One-quarter of adults say that in the past 12 months, they have skipped or postponed getting health care they needed because of the cost. The cost of care can also have disproportionate impacts among different groups of people; for instance, women are more likely than men to say they have skipped or postponed getting health care they needed because of the cost (28% vs. 21%). Adults ages 65 and older, most of whom are eligible for health care coverage through Medicare, are much less likely than younger age groups to say they have not gotten health care they needed because of cost.

One in four immigrant adults (22%) say they have skipped or postponed care in the past year, rising to about a third (36%) among those who are uninsured. Seven in ten (69%) of immigrant adults who skipped or postponed care (15% of all immigrant adults) said they did so due to cost or lack of health coverage. (Source: The 2023 KFF/LA Times Survey of Immigrants: Apr.-June 2023 )

Six in ten uninsured adults (61%) say they have skipped or postponed getting health care they needed due to cost. Health insurance, however, does not offer ironclad protection as one in five adults with insurance (21%) still report not getting health care they needed due to cost.

KFF health polling from March 2022 also looked at the specific types of care adults are most likely to report putting off and found that dental services are the most common type of medical care that people report delaying or skipping, with 35% of adults saying they have put it off in the past year due to cost. This is followed by vision services (25%), visits to a doctor’s offices (24%), mental health care (18%), hospital services (14%), and hearing services, including hearing aids (10%). (Source: KFF Health Tracking Poll: March 2022 )

A 2022 KFF report found that people who already have debt due to medical or dental care are disproportionately likely to put off or skip medical care. Half (51%) of adults currently experiencing debt due to medical or dental bills say in the past year, cost has been a probititor to getting the medical test or treatment that was recommended by a doctor. (Source: KFF Health Care Debt Survey: Feb.-Mar. 2022 )

Prescription Drug Costs

For many U.S. adults, prescription drugs are a component of their routine care. More than one in four (28%) adults say it is either “somewhat” or “very difficult” for them to afford to pay for prescription drugs. Affording prescription drugs is particularly difficult for adults who take four or more prescription medications (37%) and those in households with annual incomes under $40,000 (40%). Black and Hispanic adults are also more likely than White adults to say it is difficult for them to afford to pay for prescription drugs. (Source: KFF Health Tracking Poll: July 2023 )

The high cost of prescription drugs also leads some people to cut back on their medications in various ways. About one in five adults (21%) say in the past 12 months they have not filled a prescription because of the cost. A similar share (21%) say they have taken an over-the-counter drug instead of getting a prescription filled – rising to about one third of Hispanic adults (32%) and more than one in four adults (27%) with annual household incomes under $40,000. About one in ten adults say that in the past 12 months they have cut pills in half or skipped doses of medicine due to cost. (Source: KFF Health Tracking Poll: July 2023 )

Health Insurance Cost Ratings

Overall, most insured adults rate their health insurance as “excellent” or “good” when it comes to the amount they have to pay out-of-pocket for their prescriptions (61%), the amount they have to pay out-of-pocket to see a doctor (53%), and the amount they pay monthly for insurance (54%). However, at least three in ten rate their insurance as “fair” or “poor” on each of these metrics, and affordability ratings vary depending on the type of coverage people have.

Adults who have private insurance through employer-sponsored insurance or Marketplace coverage are more likely than those with Medicare or Medicaid to rate their insurance negatively when it comes to their monthly premium, the amount they have to pay out of pocket to see a doctor, and their prescription co-pays. About one in four adults with Medicare give negative ratings to the amount they have to pay each month for insurance and to their out-of-pocket prescription costs, while about one in five give their insurance a negative rating when it comes to their out-of-pocket costs to see a doctor.

Medicaid enrollees are less likely than those with other coverage types to give their insurance negative ratings on these affordability measures (Medicaid does not charge monthly premiums in most states, and copays for covered services, where applied, are required to be nominal.) (Source: KFF Survey of Consumer Experiences with Health Insurance )

Health Care Debt

In June 2022, KFF released an analysis of the KFF Health Care Debt Survey , a companion report to the investigative journalism project on health care debt conducted by KFF Health News and NPR, Diagnosis Debt . This project found that health care debt is a wide-reaching problem in the United States and that 41% of U.S. adults currently have some type of debt due to medical or dental bills from their own or someone else’s care, including about a quarter of adults (24%) who say they have medical or dental bills that are past due or that they are unable to pay, and one in five (21%) who have bills they are paying off over time directly to a provider. One in six (17%) report debt owed to a bank, collection agency, or other lender from loans taken out to pay for medical or dental bills, while similar shares say they have health care debt from bills they put on a credit card and are paying off over time (17%). One in ten report debt owed to a family member or friend from money they borrowed to pay off medical or dental bills.

While four in ten U.S. adults have some type of health care debt, disproportionate shares of lower income adults, the uninsured, Black and Hispanic adults, women, and parents report current debt due to medical or dental bills.

Vulnerabilities and Worries About Health Care and Long-Term Care Costs

A February 2024 KFF Health Tracking Poll shows unexpected medical bills and the cost of health care services are at the top of the list of people’s financial worries, with about three-quarters of the public – and similar shares of insured adults younger than 65 – saying they are at least somewhat worried about affording unexpected medical bills (74%) or the cost of health care services (73%) for themselves and their families. Just over half (55%) of the public say they are “very” or “somewhat worried” about being able to afford their prescription drug costs, while about half (48%) of insured adults say they are worried about affording their monthly health insurance premium.

Worries about health care costs pervade among a majority of adults regardless of their financial situation . Among adults who report difficulty affording their monthly bills, more than eight in ten say they are worried about the cost of health care services (86%) or unexpected medical bills (83%). Among those who report being just able to afford their bills, about eight in ten say they are worried about being able to afford unexpected medical bills (84%) or health care services (83%). And even among adults who say they can afford their bills with money left over, six in ten nonetheless say they are “very” or “somewhat worried” about being able to afford unexpected medical bills (62%) or the cost of health care services (60%) for themselves and their family. (Source: KFF Health Tracking Poll: February 2024 )

Many U.S. adults may be one unexpected medical bill from falling into debt. About half of U.S. adults say they would not be able to pay an unexpected medical bill that came to $500 out of pocket. This includes one in five (19%) who would not be able to pay it at all, 5% who would borrow the money from a bank, payday lender, friends or family to cover the cost, and one in five (21%) who would incur credit card debt in order to pay the bill. Women, those with lower household incomes, Black and Hispanic adults are more likely than their counterparts to say they would be unable to afford this type of bill. (Source: KFF Health Care Debt Survey: Feb.-Mar. 2022 )

Among older adults, the costs of long-term care and support services are also a concern. Almost six in ten (57%) adults 65 and older say they are at least “somewhat anxious” about affording the cost of a nursing home or assisted living facility if they needed it, and half say they feel anxious about being able to afford support services such as paid nurses or aides. These concerns also loom large among those between the ages of 50 and 64, with more than seven in ten saying they feel anxious about affording residential care (73%) and care from paid nurses or aides (72%) if they were to need these services. See The Affordability of Long-Term Care and Support Services: Findings from a KFF Survey for a deeper dive into concerns about the affordability of nursing homes and support services.

• Health Costs
• Racial Equity and Health Policy
• Private Insurance
• Affordability
• High Deductible Plans
• Tracking Poll

Also of Interest

• Health Care Debt In The U.S.: The Broad Consequences Of Medical And Dental Bills
• KFF Health Tracking Poll – March 2022: Economic Concerns and Health Policy, The ACA, and Views of Long-term Care Facilities
• KFF’s Kaiser Health News and NPR Launch Diagnosis: Debt, a Yearlong Reporting Partnership Exploring the Scale, Impact, and Causes of the Health Care Debt Crisis in America
• How Financially Vulnerable are People with Medical Debt?

We've detected unusual activity from your computer network

To continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a robot.

Why did this happen?

Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and that you are not blocking them from loading. For more information you can review our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy .

For inquiries related to this message please contact our support team and provide the reference ID below.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

• Your Health
• Treatments & Tests
• Health Inc.
• Public Health

Mental health care is hard to find, especially for people with Medicare or Medicaid

Rhitu Chatterjee

With rates of suicide and opioid deaths rising in the past decade and children's mental health declared a national emergency , the United States faces an unprecedented mental health crisis. But access to mental health care for a significant portion of Americans — including some of the most vulnerable populations — is extremely limited, according to a new government report released Wednesday.

The report, from the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General, finds that Medicare and Medicaid have a dire shortage of mental health care providers.

The report looked at 20 counties with people on Medicaid, traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans, which together serve more than 130 million enrollees — more than 40% of the U.S. population, says Meridith Seife , the deputy regional inspector general and the lead author of the report.

Medicaid serves people on low incomes, and Medicare is mainly for people 65 years or older and those who are younger with chronic disabilities.

The report found fewer than five active mental health care providers for every 1,000 enrollees. On average, Medicare Advantage has 4.7 providers per 1,000 enrollees, whereas traditional Medicare has 2.9 providers and Medicaid has 3.1 providers for the same number of enrollees. Some counties fare even worse, with not even a single provider for every 1,000 enrollees.

"When you have so few providers available to see this many enrollees, patients start running into significant problems finding care," says Seife.

The findings are especially troubling given the level of need for mental health care in this population, she says.

"On Medicare, you have 1 in 4 Medicare enrollees who are living with a mental illness," she says. "Yet less than half of those people are receiving treatment."

Among people on Medicaid, 1 in 3 have a mental illness, and 1 in 5 have a substance use disorder. "So the need is tremendous."

The results are "scary" but "not very surprising," says Deborah Steinberg , senior health policy attorney at the nonprofit Legal Action Center. "We know that people in Medicare and Medicaid are often underserved populations, and this is especially true for mental health and substance use disorder care."

Among those individuals able to find and connect with a provider, many see their provider several times a year, according to the report. And many have to drive a long way for their appointments.

"We have roughly 1 in 4 patients that had to travel more than an hour to their appointments, and 1 in 10 had to travel more than an hour and a half each way," notes Seife. Some patients traveled two hours each way for mental health care, she says.

Mental illnesses and substance use disorders are chronic conditions that people need ongoing care for, says Steinberg. "And when they have to travel an hour, more than an hour, for an appointment throughout the year, that becomes unreasonable. It becomes untenable."

"We know that behavioral health workforce shortages are widespread," says Heather Saunders , a senior research manager on the Medicaid team at KFF, the health policy research organization. "This is across all payers, all populations, with about half of the U.S. population living in a workforce shortage."

But as the report found, that's not the whole story for Medicare and Medicaid. Only about a third of mental health care providers in the counties studied see Medicare and Medicaid patients. That means a majority of the workforce doesn't participate in these programs.

This has been well documented in Medicaid, notes Saunders. "Only a fraction" of providers in provider directories see Medicaid patients, she says. "And when they do see Medicaid patients, they often only see a few."

Lower reimbursement rates and a high administrative burden prevent more providers from participating in Medicaid and Medicare, the report notes.

"In the Medicare program, they set a physician fee rate," explains Steinberg. "Then for certain providers, which includes clinical social workers, mental health counselors and marriage and family therapists, they get reimbursed at 75% of that rate."

Medicaid reimbursements for psychiatric services are even lower when compared with Medicare , says Ellen Weber , senior vice president for health initiatives at the Legal Action Center.

"They're baking in those discriminatory standards when they are setting those rates," says Steinberg.

The new report recommends that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) take steps to increase payments to providers and lower administrative requirements. In a statement, CMS said it has responded to those recommendations within the report.

According to research by Saunders and her colleagues at KFF, many states have already started to take action on these fronts to improve participation in Medicaid.

Several have upped their payments to mental health providers. "But the scale of those increases ranged widely across states," says Saunders, "with some states limiting the increase to one provider type or one type of service, but other states having rate increases that were more across the board."

Some states have also tried to simplify and streamline paperwork, she adds. "Making it less complex, making it easier to understand," says Saunders.

But it's too soon to know whether those efforts have made a significant impact on improving access to providers.

CMS has also taken steps to address provider shortages, says Steinberg.

"CMS has tried to increase some of the reimbursement rates without actually fixing that structural problem," says Steinberg. "Trying to add a little bit here and there, but it's not enough, especially when they're only adding a percent to the total rate. It's a really small increase."

The agency has also started covering treatments and providers it didn't use to cover before.

"In 2020, Medicare started covering opioid treatment programs, which is where a lot of folks can go to get medications for their substance use disorder," says Steinberg.

And starting this year, Medicare also covers "mental health counselors, which includes addiction counselors, as well as marriage and family therapists," she adds.

While noteworthy and important, a lot more needs to be done, says Steinberg. "For example, in the substance use disorder space, a lot of addiction counselors do not have a master's degree. And that's one of their requirements to be a counselor in the Medicare program right now."

Removing those stringent requirements and adding other kinds of providers, like peer support specialists, is key to improving access. And the cost of not accessing care is high, she adds.

"Over the past two decades, [in] the older adult population, the number of overdose deaths has increased fourfold — quadrupled," says Steinberg. "So this is affecting people. It is causing deaths. It is causing people to go to the hospital. It increases [health care] costs."

• Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
• mental health

• About the Hub
• Announcements
• Faculty Experts Guide
• Subscribe to the newsletter

Explore by Topic

• Arts+Culture
• Politics+Society
• Science+Technology
• Student Life
• University News
• Voices+Opinion
• About Hub at Work
• Gazette Archive
• Benefits+Perks
• Health+Well-Being
• Current Issue
• About the Magazine
• Past Issues
• Support Johns Hopkins Magazine
• Subscribe to the Magazine

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Hospital City, Health Care Nation: Race, Capital, and the Costs of American Health Care

Who can attend.

• General public

Description

Alicia Puglionesi and Andrew Jewett will join Guian McKee in conversation about McKee's book Hospital City, Health Care Nation: Race, Capital, and the Costs of American Health Care as part of the Vital Perspectives on Healthcare and Science series.

This is an evening of scholarship made accessible, opening conversation around this book, which recasts the story of the health care system by emphasizing the economic and social importance of hospitals in American communities. While hospitals have become vital economic anchors in cities across the country, the spending that supports them has constrained possibilities for comprehensive health care reform.

Guian McKee is a professor of presidential studies at the Miller Center. He earned a doctorate in American history at the University of California, Berkeley in May 2002 and is the author of Hospital City, Health Care Nation: Race, Capital, and the Costs of American Health Care , published in March 2023 by the University of Pennsylvania Press, as well as The Problem of Jobs: Liberalism, Race, and Deindustrialization in Philadelphia , published in 2008 by the University of Chicago Press. At the Miller Center, McKee is co-chair of the Presidential Recordings Program and also co-directs the Health Care Policy Project.

Registration

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/vital-perspectives-on-healthcare-and-science-series-guian-mckee-tickets-863979344477?aff=oddtdtcreator

News Network

• Johns Hopkins Magazine
• Get Email Updates
• Submit an Announcement
• Submit an Event
• Privacy Statement
• Accessibility

Discover JHU

• About the University
• Schools & Divisions
• Academic Programs
• Plan a Visit
• my.JohnsHopkins.edu
• © 2024 Johns Hopkins University . All rights reserved.
• University Communications
• 3910 Keswick Rd., Suite N2600, Baltimore, MD
• X Facebook LinkedIn YouTube Instagram

• Alzheimer's disease & dementia
• Arthritis & Rheumatism
• Attention deficit disorders
• Autism spectrum disorders
• Biomedical technology
• Diseases, Conditions, Syndromes
• Endocrinology & Metabolism
• Gastroenterology
• Gerontology & Geriatrics
• Health informatics
• Inflammatory disorders
• Medical economics
• Medical research
• Medications
• Neuroscience
• Obstetrics & gynaecology
• Oncology & Cancer
• Ophthalmology
• Overweight & Obesity
• Parkinson's & Movement disorders
• Psychology & Psychiatry
• Radiology & Imaging
• Sleep disorders
• Sports medicine & Kinesiology
• Vaccination
• Breast cancer
• Cardiovascular disease
• Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
• Colon cancer
• Coronary artery disease
• Heart attack
• Heart disease
• High blood pressure
• Kidney disease
• Lung cancer
• Multiple sclerosis
• Myocardial infarction
• Ovarian cancer
• Post traumatic stress disorder
• Rheumatoid arthritis
• Schizophrenia
• Skin cancer
• Type 2 diabetes
• Full List »

share this!

April 9, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

reputable news agency

More patients are losing their doctors—and trust in the primary care system

by Lynn Arditi, The Public's Radio, KFF Health News

First, her favorite doctor in Providence, Rhode Island, retired. Then her other doctor at a health center a few miles away left the practice. Now, Piedad Fred has developed a new chronic condition: distrust in the American medical system.

"I don't know," she said, her eyes filling with tears. "To go to a doctor that doesn't know who you are? That doesn't know what allergies you have, the medicines that make you feel bad? It's difficult."

At 71, Fred has never been vaccinated against COVID-19. She no longer gets an annual flu shot. And she hasn't considered whether to be vaccinated against respiratory syncytial virus , or RSV, even though her age and an asthma condition put her at higher risk of severe infection.

"It's not that I don't believe in vaccines," Fred, a Colombian immigrant, said in Spanish at her home last fall. "It's just that I don't have faith in doctors."

The loss of a trusted doctor is never easy, and it's an experience that is increasingly common.

The stress of the pandemic drove a lot of health care workers to retire or quit. Now, a nationwide shortage of doctors and others who provide primary care is making it hard to find replacements. And as patients are shuffled from one provider to the next, it's eroding their trust in the health system .

The American Medical Association's president, Jesse Ehrenfeld, recently called the physician shortage a " public health crisis ."

"It's an urgent crisis, hitting every corner of this country, urban and rural, with the most direct impact hitting families with high needs and limited means," Ehrenfeld told reporters in October.

In Fred's home state of Rhode Island, the percentage of people without a regular source of routine health care increased from 2021 to 2022, though the state's residents still do better than most Americans.

Hispanic residents and those with less than a high school education are less likely to have a source of routine health care, according to the nonprofit organization Rhode Island Foundation.

The community health centers known as federally qualified health centers, or FQHCs, are the safety net of last resort, serving the uninsured, the underinsured, and other vulnerable people . There are more than 1,400 community health centers nationwide, and about two-thirds of them lost between 5% and a quarter of their workforce during a six-month period in 2022, according to a report by the National Association of Community Health Centers.

Another 15% of FQHCs reported losing between a quarter and half of their staff. And it's not just doctors: The most severe shortage, the survey found, was among nurses.

In a domino effect , the shortage of clinicians has placed additional burdens on support staff members such as medical assistants and other unlicensed workers.

Their extra tasks include "sterilizing equipment, keeping more logs, keeping more paperwork, working with larger patient loads," said Jesse Martin, executive vice president of District 1199 NE of the Service Employees International Union, which represents 29,000 health care workers in Connecticut and Rhode Island.

"When you add that work to the same eight hours' worth of a day's work you can't get everything done," Martin said.

Last October, scores of SEIU members who work at Providence Community Health Centers, Rhode Island's largest FQHC, held an informational picket outside the clinics, demanding improvements in staffing, work schedules, and wages.

The marketing and communications director for PCHC, Brett Davey, declined to comment.

Staff discontent has rippled through community health care centers across the country. In Chicago, workers at three health clinics held a two-day strike in November, demanding higher pay, better benefits, and a smaller workload.

Then just before Thanksgiving at Unity Health Care, the largest federally qualified health center in Washington, D.C., doctors and other medical providers voted to unionize. They said they were being pressed to prioritize patient volume over quality of care, leading to job burnout and more staff turnover.

The staffing shortages come as community health centers are caring for more patients. The number of people served by the centers between 2015 and 2022 increased by 24% nationally, and by 32.6% in Rhode Island, according to the Rhode Island Health Center Association, or RIHCA.

"As private practices close or get smaller, we are seeing patient demand go up at the health centers," said Elena Nicolella, RIHCA's president and CEO. "Now with the workforce challenges, it's very difficult to meet that patient demand."

In Rhode Island, community health centers in 2022 served about 1 in 5 residents, which is more than twice the national average of 1 in 11 people, according to RIHCA.

Job vacancy rates at Rhode Island's community health centers are 21% for physicians, 18% for physician assistants and nurse practitioners, and 10% for registered nurses, according to six of the state's eight health centers that responded to a survey conducted by RIHCA for The Public's Radio, NPR, and KFF Health News.

Pediatricians are also in short supply. Last year, 15 pediatricians left staff positions at the Rhode Island health centers, and seven of them have yet to be replaced.

Research shows that some of the biggest drivers of burnout are workload and job demands.

Community health centers tend to attract clinicians who are mission-driven, said Nelly Burdette, who spent years working in health centers before becoming a senior leader of the nonprofit Care Transformation Collaborative of Rhode Island.

These clinicians often want to give back to the community, she said, and are motivated to practice "a kind of medicine that is maybe less corporate," and through which they can they develop close relationships with patients and within multigenerational families.

So when workplace pressures make it harder for these clinicians to meet their patients' needs, they are more likely to burn out, Burdette said.

When a doctor quits or retires, Carla Martin, a pediatrician and an internist, often gets asked to help. The week before Thanksgiving, she was filling in at two urgent care clinics in Providence.

"We're seeing a lot of people coming in for things that are really primary care issues, not urgent care issues, just because it's really hard to get appointments," Martin said.

One patient recently visited urgent care asking for a refill of her asthma medication. "She said, 'I ran out of my asthma medicine, I can't get a hold of my PCP for refill, I keep calling, I can't get through,'" Martin said.

Stories like that worry Christopher Koller, president of the Milbank Memorial Fund, a nonprofit philanthropy focused on health policy. "When people say, 'I can't get an appointment with my doctor,' that means they don't have a usual source of care anymore," Koller said.

Koller points to research showing that having a consistent relationship with a doctor or other primary care clinician is associated with improvements in overall health and fewer emergency room visits.

When that relationship is broken, patients can lose trust in their health care providers.

That's how it felt to Piedad Fred, the Colombian immigrant who stopped getting vaccinated. Fred used to go to a community health center in Rhode Island, but then accessing care there began to frustrate her.

She described making repeated phone calls for a same-day appointment, only to be told that none were available and that she should try again tomorrow. After one visit, she said, one of her prescriptions never made it to the pharmacy.

And there was another time when she waited 40 minutes in the exam room to consult with a physician assistant—who then said she couldn't give her a cortisone shot for her knee, as her doctor used to do.

Fred said that she won't be going back.

So what will she do the next time she gets sick or injured and needs medical care?

"Well, I'll be going to a hospital," she said in Spanish.

But experts warn that more people crowding into hospital emergency rooms will only further strain the health system, and the people who work there.

2024 KFF Health News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Study leverages artificial intelligence to predict risk of bedsores in hospitalized patients

32 minutes ago

Popular diabetes drugs do not increase thyroid cancer risk, study suggests

9 hours ago

Job insecurity in early adulthood linked to heightened risk of serious alcohol-related illness in later life

10 hours ago

Cognitive decline may be detected using network analysis, according to researchers

11 hours ago

Morphine tolerance found to result from Tiam1-mediated maladaptive plasticity in spinal neurons

12 hours ago

Study finds that efforts to help low-income Americans by buying up their medical debt aren't going as planned

Mouse study uncovers how altered gene expression can induce autism

Clinical trial finds nasal spray safely treats recurrent abnormal heart rhythms

Dubin-Johnson Syndrome in twins linked to novel genetic mutations

13 hours ago

Novel mechanism supports antitumor response and T-cell survival

Related stories.

Low pay is driving primary-care doctors from New Jersey, endangering state residents

Feb 9, 2024

Community health centers serve 1 in 11 Americans. They're a safety net under stress

Jan 28, 2024

The nursing burnout crisis is also happening in primary care

Sep 12, 2023

Oral health workers are burned out too, says report

Oct 12, 2023

'Lifelines' to the vulnerable: Community health clinics to get $1B from Biden administration

Sep 28, 2021

Health officials let COVID-infected staff stay on the job

Jan 10, 2022

Recommended for you

Nurses cite employer failures as their top reason for leaving

17 hours ago

Research shows pregnancy accelerates biological aging in a healthy, young adult population

Apr 8, 2024

Research finds pretzel size affects intake by governing how quickly a person eats and how big their bites are

Researchers discuss the unseen community effects of COVID-19 stay-at-home orders

Apr 5, 2024

Let us know if there is a problem with our content

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Medical Xpress in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Medicina (Kaunas)

Universal Healthcare in the United States of America: A Healthy Debate

Gabriel zieff.

1 Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA; ude.cnu.liame@rrekz (Z.Y.K.); [email protected] (L.S.)

Zachary Y. Kerr

Justin b. moore.

2 Department of Implementation Science, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC 27157, USA; ude.htlaehekaw@eroomsuj

This commentary offers discussion on the pros and cons of universal healthcare in the United States. Disadvantages of universal healthcare include significant upfront costs and logistical challenges. On the other hand, universal healthcare may lead to a healthier populace, and thus, in the long-term, help to mitigate the economic costs of an unhealthy nation. In particular, substantial health disparities exist in the United States, with low socio–economic status segments of the population subject to decreased access to quality healthcare and increased risk of non-communicable chronic conditions such as obesity and type II diabetes, among other determinants of poor health. While the implementation of universal healthcare would be complicated and challenging, we argue that shifting from a market-based system to a universal healthcare system is necessary. Universal healthcare will better facilitate and encourage sustainable, preventive health practices and be more advantageous for the long-term public health and economy of the United States.

1. Introduction

Healthcare is one of the most significant socio–political topics in the United States (U.S.), and citizens currently rank “healthcare” as the most important issue when it comes to voting [ 1 ]. The U.S. has historically utilized a mixed public/private approach to healthcare. In this approach, citizens or businesses can obtain health insurance from private (e.g., Blue Cross Blue Shield, Kaiser Permanente) insurance companies, while individuals may also qualify for public (e.g., Medicaid, Medicare, Veteran’s Affairs), government-subsidized health insurance. In contrast, the vast majority of post-industrial, Westernized nations have used various approaches to provide entirely or largely governmentally subsidized, universal healthcare to all citizens regardless of socio–economic status (SES), employment status, or ability to pay. The World Health Organization defines universal healthcare as “ensuring that all people have access to needed health services (including prevention, promotion, treatment, rehabilitation and palliation) of sufficient quality to be effective while also ensuring that the use of these services does not expose the user the financial hardship” [ 2 ]. Importantly, the Obama-era passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) sought to move the U.S. closer to universal healthcare by expanding health coverage for millions of Americans (e.g., via Medicaid expansion, launch of health insurance marketplaces for private coverage) including for citizens across income levels, age, race, and ethnicity.

Differing versions of universal healthcare are possible. The United Kingdom’s National Health Services can be considered a fairly traditional version of universal healthcare with few options for, and minimal use of, privatized care [ 3 ]. On the other hand, European countries like Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Germany have utilized a blended system with substantial government and market-based components [ 4 , 5 ]. For example, Germany uses a multi-payer healthcare system in which subsidized health care is widely available for low-income citizens, yet private options—which provide the same quality and level of care as the subsidized option—are also available to higher income individuals. Thus, universal healthcare does not necessarily preclude the role of private providers within the healthcare system, but rather ensures that equity and effectiveness of care at population and individual levels are a reference and expectation for the system as a whole. In line with this, versions of universal healthcare have been implemented by countries with diverse political backgrounds (e.g., not limited to traditionally “socialist/liberal” countries), including some with very high degrees of economic freedom [ 6 , 7 ].

Determining the degree to which a nation’s healthcare is “universal” is complex and is not a “black and white” issue. For example, government backing, public will, and basic financing structure, among many other factors must be extensively considered. While an in-depth analysis of each of these factors is beyond the scope of this commentary, there are clear advantages and disadvantages to purely private, market-based, and governmental, universal approaches to healthcare, as well as for policies that lie somewhere in-between. This opinion piece will highlight arguments for and against universal healthcare in the U.S., followed by the authors’ stance on this issue and concluding remarks.

2. Argument against Universal Healthcare

Though the majority of post-industrial Westernized nations employ a universal healthcare model, few—if any—of these nations are as geographically large, populous, or ethnically/racially diverse as the U.S. Different regions in the U.S. are defined by distinct cultural identities, citizens have unique religious and political values, and the populace spans the socio–economic spectrum. Moreover, heterogenous climates and population densities confer different health needs and challenges across the U.S. [ 8 ]. Thus, critics of universal healthcare in the U.S. argue that implementation would not be as feasible—organizationally or financially—as other developed nations [ 9 ]. There is indeed agreement that realization of universal healthcare in the U.S. would necessitate significant upfront costs [ 10 ]. These costs would include those related to: (i) physical and technological infrastructural changes to the healthcare system, including at the government level (i.e., federal, state, local) as well as the level of the provider (e.g., hospital, out-patient clinic, pharmacy, etc.); (ii) insuring/treating a significant, previously uninsured, and largely unhealthy segment of the population; and (iii) expansion of the range of services provided (e.g., dental, vision, hearing) [ 10 ].

The cost of a universal healthcare system would depend on its structure, benefit levels, and extent of coverage. However, most proposals would entail increased federal taxes, at least for higher earners [ 4 , 11 , 12 ]. One proposal for universal healthcare recently pushed included options such as a 7.5% payroll tax plus a 4% income tax on all Americans, with higher-income citizens subjected to higher taxes [ 13 ]. However, outside projections suggest that these tax proposals would not be sufficient to fund this plan. In terms of the national economic toll, cost estimations of this proposal range from USD 32 to 44 trillion across 10 years, while deficit estimations range from USD 1.1 to 2.1 trillion per year [ 14 ].

Beyond individual and federal costs, other common arguments against universal healthcare include the potential for general system inefficiency, including lengthy wait-times for patients and a hampering of medical entrepreneurship and innovation [ 3 , 12 , 15 , 16 ]. Such critiques are not new, as exemplified by rhetoric surrounding the Clinton Administration’s Health Security Act which was labeled as “government meddling” in medical care that would result in “big government inefficiency” [ 12 , 15 ]. The ACA has been met with similar resistance and bombast (e.g., the “repeal and replace” right-leaning rallying cry) as a result of perceived inefficiency and unwanted government involvement. As an example of lengthy wait times associated with universal coverage, in 2017 Canadians were on waiting lists for an estimated 1,040,791 procedures, and the median wait time for arthroplastic surgery was 20–52 weeks [ 17 ]. Similarly, average waiting time for elective hospital-based care in the United Kingdom is 46 days, while some patients wait over a year (3). Increased wait times in the U.S. would likely occur—at least in the short term—as a result of a steep rise in the number of primary and emergency care visits (due to eliminating the financial barrier to seek care), as well as general wastefulness, inefficiency, and disorganization that is often associated with bureaucratic, government-run agencies.

3. Argument for Universal Healthcare

Universal healthcare in the U.S., which may or may not include private market-based options, offer several noteworthy advantages compared to exclusive systems with inequitable access to quality care including: (i) addressing the growing chronic disease crisis; (ii) mitigating the economic costs associated with said crisis; (iii) reducing the vast health disparities that exist between differing SES segments of the population; and (iv) increasing opportunities for preventive health initiatives [ 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 ]. Perhaps the most striking advantage of a universal healthcare system in the U.S. is the potential to address the epidemic level of non-communicable chronic diseases such as cardiovascular diseases, type II diabetes, and obesity, all of which strain the national economy [ 22 , 23 ]. The economic strain associated with an unhealthy population is particularly evident among low SES individuals. Having a low SES is associated with many unfavorable health determinants, including decreased access to, and quality of health insurance which impact health outcomes and life expectancies [ 24 ]. Thus, the low SES segments of the population are in most need of accessible, quality health insurance, and economic strain results from an unhealthy and uninsured low SES [ 25 , 26 ]. For example, diabetics with low SES have a greater mortality risk than diabetics with higher SES, and the uninsured diabetic population is responsible for 55% more emergency room visits each year than their insured diabetic counterparts [ 27 , 28 ]. Like diabetes, hypertension—the leading risk factor for death worldwide [ 29 ], has a much higher prevalence among low SES populations [ 30 ]. It is estimated that individuals with uncontrolled hypertension have more than USD 2000 greater annual healthcare costs than their normotensive counterparts [ 31 ]. Lastly, the incidence of obesity is also much greater among low SES populations [ 32 ]. The costs of obesity in the U.S., when limited to lost productivity alone, have been projected to equate to USD 66 billion annually [ 33 ]. Accessible, affordable healthcare may enable earlier intervention to prevent—or limit risk associated with—non-communicable chronic diseases, improve the overall public health of the U.S., and decrease the economic strain associated with an unhealthy low-SES.

Preventive Initiatives within A Universal Healthcare Model

Beyond providing insurance coverage for a substantial, uninsured, and largely unhealthy segment of society—and thereby reducing disparities and unequal access to care among all segments of the population—there is great potential for universal healthcare models to embrace value-based care [ 4 , 20 , 34 ]. Value-based care can be thought of as appropriate and affordable care (tackling wastes), and integration of services and systems of care (i.e., hospital, primary, public health), including preventive care that considers the long-term health and economy of a nation [ 34 , 35 ]. In line with this, the ACA has worked in parallel with population-level health programs such as the Healthy People Initiative by targeting modifiable determinants of health including physical activity, obesity, and environmental quality, among others [ 36 ]. Given that a universal healthcare plan would force the government to pay for costly care and treatments related to complications resulting from preventable, non-communicable chronic diseases, the government may be more incentivized to (i) offer primary prevention of chronic disease risk prior to the onset of irreversible complications, and (ii) promote wide-spread preventive efforts across multiple societal domains. It is also worth acknowledging here that the national public health response to the novel Coronavirus-19 virus is a salient and striking contemporary example of a situation in which there continues to be a need to expeditiously coordinate multiple levels of policy, care, and prevention.

Preventive measures lessen costs associated with an uninsured and/or unhealthy population [ 37 ]. For example, investing USD 10 per person annually in community-based programs aimed at combatting physical inactivity, poor nutrition, and smoking in the U.S. could save more than USD 16 billion annually within five years, equating to a return of USD 5.60 for every dollar spent [ 38 ]. Another recent analysis suggests that if 18% more U.S. elementary-school children participated in 25 min of physical activity three times per week, savings attributed to medical costs and productivity would amount to USD 21.9 billion over their lifetime [ 39 ]. Additionally, simple behavioral changes can have major clinical implications. For example, simply brisk walking for 30 min per day (≥15 MET-hours/week) has been associated with a 50% reduction in type II diabetes [ 40 ]. While universal healthcare does not necessarily mean that health policies supporting prevention will be enacted, it may be more likely to promote healthy (i) lifestyle behaviors (e.g., physical activity), (ii) environmental factors (e.g., safe, green spaces in low and middle-income communities), and (iii.) policies (e.g., banning sweetened beverages in public schools) compared to a non-inclusive system [ 34 , 35 , 36 ].

Nordic nations provide an example of inclusive healthcare coupled with multi-layered preventive efforts [ 41 ]. In this model, all citizens are given the same comprehensive healthcare while social determinants of health are targeted. This includes “mobilizing and coordinating a large number of players in society,” which encourages cooperation among “players” including municipal political bodies, voluntary organizations, and educational institutions [ 41 ]. Developmental and infrastructural contributions from multiple segments of society to a healthcare system may also better encourage government accountability compared to a system in which a select group of private insurers and citizens are the only “stakeholders.” Coordinated efforts on various non-insurance-related fronts have focused on obesity, mental health, and physical activity [ 41 ]. Such coordinated efforts within the Nordic model have translated to positive health outcomes. For example, the Healthcare Access and Quality (HAQ) Index provides an overall score of 0–100 (0 being the worst) for healthcare access and quality across 195 countries and reflects rates of 32 preventable causes of death. Nordic nations had an average HAQ score of 95.4, with four of the five nations achieving scores within the top 10 worldwide [ 42 ]. Though far more heterogenous compared to Nordic nations, (e.g., culturally, geographically, racially, etc.), the U.S. had a score of 89 (29th overall) [ 42 ]. To provide further context, other industrialized nations, which are more comparable to the U.S. than Nordic nations, also ranked higher than the U.S. including Germany (92, 19th overall), Canada (94, 14th overall), Switzerland (96, 7th overall), and the Netherlands (96, 3rd overall) [ 42 ].

4. Conclusions

Non-inclusive, inequitable systems limit quality healthcare access to those who can afford it or have employer-sponsored insurance. These policies exacerbate health disparities by failing to prioritize preventive measures at the environmental, policy, and individual level. Low SES segments of the population are particularly vulnerable within a healthcare system that does not prioritize affordable care for all or address important determinants of health. Failing to prioritize comprehensive, affordable health insurance for all members of society and straying further from prevention will harm the health and economy of the U.S. While there are undoubtedly great economic costs associated with universal healthcare in the U.S., we argue that in the long-run, these costs will be worthwhile, and will eventually be offset by a healthier populace whose health is less economically burdensome. Passing of the Obama-era ACA was a positive step forward as evident by the decline in uninsured U.S. citizens (estimated 7–16.4 million) and Medicare’s lower rate of spending following the legislation [ 43 ]. The U.S. must resist the current political efforts to dislodge the inclusive tenets of the Affordable Care Act. Again, this is not to suggest that universal healthcare will be a cure-all, as social determinants of health must also be addressed. However, addressing these determinants will take time and universal healthcare for all U.S. citizens is needed now. Only through universal and inclusive healthcare will we be able to pave an economically sustainable path towards true public health.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.Z., Z.Y.K., J.B.M., and L.S.; writing-original draft preparation, G.Z.; writing-review and editing, Z.Y.K., J.B.M., and L.S.; supervision, L.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Personalize Your Experience

Log in or create an account for a personalized experience based on your selected interests.

Already have an account? Log In

Free standard shipping is valid on orders of $45 or more (after promotions and discounts are applied, regular shipping rates do not qualify as part of the $45 or more) shipped to US addresses only. Not valid on previous purchases or when combined with any other promotional offers.

Register for an enhanced, personalized experience.

Receive free access to exclusive content, a personalized homepage based on your interests, and a weekly newsletter with topics of your choice.

Home / Healthy Aging / AI in healthcare: The future of patient care and health management

AI in healthcare: The future of patient care and health management

Curious about artificial intelligence? Whether you're cautious or can't wait, there is a lot to consider when AI is used in a healthcare setting.

Please login to bookmark

With the widespread media coverage in recent months, it’s likely that you’ve heard about artificial intelligence (AI) — technology that enables computers to do things that would otherwise require a human’s brain. In other words, machines can be given access to large amounts of information, and trained to solve problems, spot patterns and make recommendations. Common examples of AI in everyday life are virtual assistants like Alexa and Siri.

What you might not know is that AI has been and is being used for a variety of healthcare applications. Here’s a look at how AI can be helpful in healthcare, and what to watch for as it evolves.

What can AI technology in healthcare do for me?

A report from the National Academy of Medicine identified three potential benefits of AI in healthcare: improving outcomes for both patients and clinical teams, lowering healthcare costs, and benefitting population health.

From preventive screenings to diagnosis and treatment, AI is being used throughout the continuum of care today. Here are two examples:

Preventive care

Cancer screenings that use radiology , like a mammogram or lung cancer screening, can leverage AI to help produce results faster.

For example, in polycystic kidney disease (PKD), researchers discovered that the size of the kidneys — specifically, an attribute known as total kidney volume — correlated with how rapidly kidney function was going to decline in the future.

But assessing total kidney volume, though incredibly informative, involves analyzing dozens of kidney images, one slide after another — a laborious process that can take about 45 minutes per patient. With the innovations developed at the PKD Center at Mayo Clinic, researchers now use artificial intelligence (AI) to automate the process, generating results in a matter of seconds.

Bradley J. Erickson, M.D., Ph.D., director of Mayo Clinic’s Radiology Informatics Lab, says that AI can complete time-consuming or mundane work for radiology professionals , like tracing tumors and structures, or measuring amounts of fat and muscle. “If a computer can do that first pass, that can help us a lot,” says Dr. Erickson.

Risk assessment

In a Mayo Clinic cardiolog y study , AI successfully identified people at risk of left ventricular dysfunction, which is the medical name for a weak heart pump , even though the individuals had no noticeable symptoms. And that’s far from the only intersection of cardiology and AI.

“We have an AI model now that can incidentally say , ‘Hey, you’ve got a lot of coronary artery calcium, and you’re at high risk for a heart attack or a stroke in five or 10 years,’ ” says Bhavik Patel, M.D., M.B.A., the chief artificial intelligence officer at Mayo Clinic in Arizona.

How can AI technology advance medicine and public health?

When it comes to supporting the overall health of a population, AI can help people manage chronic illnesses themselves — think asthma, diabetes and high blood pressure — by connecting certain people with relevant screening and therapy, and reminding them to take steps in their care, such as take medication.

AI also can help promote information on disease prevention online, reaching large numbers of people quickly, and even analyze text on social media to predict outbreaks. Considering the example of a widespread public health crisis, think of how these examples might have supported people during the early stages of COVID-19. For example, a study found that internet searches for terms related to COVID-19 were correlated with actual COVID-19 cases. Here, AI could have been used to predict where an outbreak would happen, and then help officials know how to best communicate and make decisions to help stop the spread.

How can AI solutions assist in providing superior patient care?

You might think that healthcare from a computer isn’t equal to what a human can provide. That’s true in many situations, but it isn’t always the case.

Studies have shown that in some situations, AI can do a more accurate job than humans. For example, AI has done a more accurate job than current pathology methods in predicting who will survive malignant mesothelioma , which is a type of cancer that impacts the internal organs. AI is used to identify colon polyps and has been shown to improve colonoscopy accuracy and diagnose colorectal cancer as accurately as skilled endoscopists can.

In a study of a social media forum, most people asking healthcare questions preferred responses from an AI-powered chatbot over those from physicians, ranking the chatbot’s answers higher in quality and empathy. However, the researchers conducting this study emphasize that their results only suggest the value of such chatbots in answering patients’ questions, and recommend it be followed up with a more convincing study.

How can physicians use AI and machine learning in healthcare?

One of the key things that AI may be able to do to help healthcare professionals is save them time . For example:

• Keeping up with current advances. When physicians are actively participating in caring for people and other clinical duties, it can be challenging for them to keep pace with evolving technological advances that support care. AI can work with huge volumes of information — from medical journals to healthcare records — and highlight the most relevant pieces.
• Taking care of tedious work. When a healthcare professional must complete tasks like writing clinical notes or filling out forms , AI could potentially complete the task faster than traditional methods, even if revision was needed to refine the first pass AI makes.

Despite the potential for AI to save time for healthcare professionals, AI isn’t intended to replace humans . The American Medical Association commonly refers to “augmented intelligence,” which stresses the importance of AI assisting, rather than replacing, healthcare professionals. In the case of current AI applications and technology, healthcare professionals are still needed to provide:

• Clinical context for the algorithms that train AI.
• Accurate and relevant information for AI to analyze.
• Translation of AI findings to be meaningful for patients.

A helpful comparison to reiterate the collaborative nature needed between AI and humans for healthcare is that in most cases, a human pilot is still needed to fly a plane. Although technology has enabled quite a bit of automation in flying today, people are needed to make adjustments, interpret the equipment’s data, and take over in cases of emergency.

What are the drawbacks of AI in healthcare?

Despite the many exciting possibilities for AI in healthcare, there are some risks to weigh:

• If not properly trained, AI can lead to bias and discrimination. For example, if AI is trained on electronic health records, it is building only on people that can access healthcare and is perpetuating any human bias captured within the records.
• AI chatbots can generate medical advice that is misleading or false, which is why there’s a need for effectively regulating their use.

Where can AI solutions take the healthcare industry next?

As AI continues to evolve and play a more prominent role in healthcare, the need for effective regulation and use becomes more critical. That’s why Mayo Clinic is a member of Health AI Partnership, which is focused on helping healthcare organizations evaluate and implement AI effectively, equitably and safely.

In terms of the possibilities for healthcare professionals to further integrate AI, Mark D. Stegall, M.D., a transplant surgeon and researcher at Mayo Clinic in Minnesota says, “I predict AI also will become an important decision-making tool for physicians.”

Mayo Clinic hopes that AI could help create new ways to diagnose, treat, predict, prevent and cure disease. This might be achieved by:

• Selecting and matching patients with the most promising clinical trials.
• Developing and setting up remote health-monitoring devices.
• Detecting currently imperceptible conditions.
• Anticipating disease-risk years in advance.

Relevant reading

Mayo Clinic on Healthy Aging

An easy-to-understand yet comprehensive guide to help people live longer and more purposeful lives. 

Man Overboard!

For every man – regardless of hair pattern, shoe size or IPA preference – Man Overboard! by Mayo Clinic Press helps you understand your health and live your best life with this humorous but authoritative manual for the aging male.  

Discover more Healthy Aging content from articles, podcasts, to videos.

You May Also Enjoy

Privacy Policy

We've made some updates to our Privacy Policy. Please take a moment to review.

Adam Dobrinich

• Our Services
• Additional Services
• Free Essays

Customer Reviews

Finished Papers

offers a great selection of professional essay writing services. Take advantage of original, plagiarism-free essay writing. Also, separate editing and proofreading services are available, designed for those students who did an essay and seek professional help with polishing it to perfection. In addition, a number of additional essay writing services are available to boost your customer experience to the maximum!

Advanced writer

Add more quality to your essay or be able to obtain a new paper within a day by requesting a top or premium writer to work on your order. The option will increase the price of your order but the final result will be totally worth it.

Top order status

Every day, we receive dozens of orders. To process every order, we need time. If you’re in a great hurry or seek premium service, then choose this additional service. As a result, we’ll process your order and assign a great writer as soon as it’s placed. Maximize your time by giving your order a top status!

SMS updates

Have you already started to write my essay? When it will be finished? If you have occasional questions like that, then opt-in for SMS order status updates to be informed regarding every stage of the writing process. If you’re pressed for time, then we recommend adding this extra to your order.

Plagiarism report

Is my essay original? How do I know it’s Turnitin-ready? Very simple – order us to attach a detailed plagiarism report when work is done so you could rest assured the paper is authentic and can be uploaded to Turnitin without hesitating.

1-page summary

World’s peace isn’t riding on essay writing. If you don’t have any intent on reading the entire 2000-word essay that we did for you, add a 1-page summary to your order, which will be a short overview of your essay one paragraph long, just to be in the loop.

Hire experienced tutors to satisfy your "write essay for me" requests.

Enjoy free originality reports, 24/7 support, and unlimited edits for 30 days after completion.

Disclaimer » Advertising

• HealthyChildren.org
• Facebook Icon
• Twitter Icon
• LinkedIn Icon

What Parents Say About Access to Open Notes in a Pediatric Intensive Care Unit

Editor’s Note: Beth Dworetzky's son was born with a complex heart condition. She and her son navigated a fragmented health care system for 31 years until his death in October 2021. -Cara L. Coleman, JD, MPH, Associate Editor, Pediatrics

Family Connections with Pediatrics

The 21 st Century Cures Act makes it easy for patients and families to read their health providers’ clinical notes (also called open notes) that summarize visits.

This month’s Pediatrics includes an article titled "Open Notes Experiences of Parents in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit" ( 10.1542/peds.2023-064919 ) to learn if parents found access to open notes during their child’s intensive care unit (ICU) stay helpful.

How did the authors study this?

The authors did phone interviews with 20 parents whose children had been in the ICU, at a single hospital, for at least two days. The parents’ responses were grouped into themes.

What did the authors find?

Access to open notes:

• Helped families understand of their child’s condition and progress
• Increased family satisfaction with care
• Improved family emotional well-being
• Helped families share information with their children’s primary care and other providers, as well as family and friends
• Helped families feel like part of the care team

Other findings included:

• Parents were upset that some notes were not the same as what providers told them
• Many notes were not written using terms parents could understand
• Some notes included language that parents found critical of their parenting, such as not spending enough time at their child’s bedside
• Parents’ requests to correct errors in the open notes were not made and carried forward

What can you do with this article?

• Share the article with your child’s primary care provider.
• Ask the doctor, nurse, and other health providers to explain terms, test results, conditions, or procedures using words you can understand.
• Depending on your child’s age, let them know you are reading open notes about their care and ask them if they have questions for their providers.
• As your child is able, encourage them to read their open notes so they can talk with their providers, ask questions, and help make decisions about their own care.
• If you have ideas to improve access to and use of open notes in your hospital system, find out who to speak to. A patient and family advisory council or patient relations department can be a good first point of contact.

Copyright © 2024 American Academy of Pediatrics

Advertising Disclaimer »

Affiliations

• Pediatrics On Call
• Pediatrics Open Science
• Hospital Pediatrics
• Pediatrics in Review
• AAP Grand Rounds
• Latest News
• Pediatric Care Online
• Red Book Online
• Pediatric Patient Education
• AAP Toolkits
• AAP Pediatric Coding Newsletter

First 1,000 Days Knowledge Center

Institutions/librarians, group practices, licensing/permissions, integrations, advertising.

• Privacy Statement | Accessibility Statement | Terms of Use | Support Center | Contact Us
• © Copyright American Academy of Pediatrics

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Finished Papers

Customer Reviews