Issue Facing the Public Sector

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Problem definition
Alternatives
Solution
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

Despite the fact that the US is considered the most prosperous nation on earth, it is ironical that its public health care sector system is very costly. The country is renowned for its finest medical schools, medical institutions, and hospitals all over the world.

However, it is worrying to note that the country spends over 20% of its annual budget on health care (Harrington & Carroll 23).

Similarly, up to 50 million individuals in the US are uninsured and millions of others are under insured. These situations have been aggravated by the ever-increasing cost of public health care. This article focuses on the increased cost of health care as an issue facing the public sector in the US.

Problem definition

Between the early 1980s and the early 2000s, the cost of public health care in the US significantly increased. By the time the government stopped its heavy-handed managed care in the 1990s, the cost of health care services has risen sharply as the number of uninsured individuals increased.

Before The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was passed into law in the year 2010, the number of uninsured individuals was estimated to be more than 46 million. Equally, during this period new medical technology, pharmaceuticals, and workforce were in great demand.

As the country’s life expectancy continues to increase, its population will continue to age leading to more chronic health issues. In the year 2006, the U.S. healthcare system was reported to be among the most costly system in the world.

According to these reports, the U.S. government spent over $2 trillion in health care expenditure during the same year. These figures are disturbing since the above expenditure represents 18% of the country’s gross domestic product.

Similarly, in the year 2011 the American health care spending was higher compared to the spending of other developed countries. That year, $2.7 trillion was spent on public health care (Parks 12). This implies that approximately $8, 680 were spent on every individual. In the same year, the physicians’ earnings in the US tripled that of physicians in France.

As compared to the spending used in the years 2009 and 2010, the amount spent in the year 2011 grew by 3.9% to $ 850 billion. In the same year, spending on hospital care rose by 4.3% unlike in the previous year, which had risen by 4.9%. In the same year, physician and clinical services expenditure rose by 4.3% to $541 billion.

In the previous year, 2010, the growth was registered at 3.1%. Dental services expenditure recorded an increase of 3% to $108 billion. Expenditure for residential and personal care services rose by 4% to $133 billion. Nursing care facilities’ expenditure rose by 4.4% to $149 billion.

Based on the above illustrations, it is apparent, that the ever-increasing cost of public healthcare in the US is a major issue that should be controlled. It the relevant authorities fail to control it, a major health crisis will be experienced in the near future.

Alternatives

Several alternatives can be adopted to end the above situations. These alternatives should be aimed at reducing the healthcare expenditure, and ensure that every American get access to quality and affordable health care services.

Adopting a single player plan

Unlike in other developed countries, health care services in the US have always been subject to individual purchasing power. Critics to this form of health care plan argue that the government should implement a national health service or a government-based single payer plan to enhance distributional efficiency.

They assert that if the country adopts this system, it would be able to lower the cost of health care and eradicate expensive and extravagant bureaucracy in the sector. According to the proponents of this approach, the US government can only be able to lower the challenges it currently faces with respect to increased cost of the healthcare if it implements a national health service or a government-based single payer plan.

In the last few years, a number of democrats’ supporters have always called for the implementation of a government-based payer plan. However, it is disappointing to note that the democrats did not propose this plan in the healthcare negotiations.

They have never done so probably because of the deep opposition they would have received from the republicans. Rather than proposing for a government-based payer plan, the democrats did propose for a public option in the past. In the recent past, the Democrats have dropped the public option for Obamacare plan.

Based on the past negotiations, it is apparent that the democrats could have proposed the government-based payer plan if it they were sure that they were not going to receive opposition from the republicans. Therefore, the democrats dropped their single-payer plan and adopted Obamacare with the aim of getting republicans’ approvals.

Implementing the individual mandate

In the Affordable Care Act, the individual mandate is so vital that a major impediment would doom the whole plan. Individual mandate necessitates Americans to obtain a health insurance cover by the start of the year 2014. Its supporters assert that the element will reduce the number of uninsured Americans significantly.

With increased number of insured individuals, the costs of funding the healthcare will be enhanced. The democrats believe that if this element would not be implemented, healthy individuals would not obtain coverage leaving the sick and the few insured individuals to meet the cost of increased health care.

Some experts also assert that although the failure to implement the individual mandate would not mean an end to Affordable Care Act, it would be a huge political embarrassment to the supporters and jeopardize the implementation process of this activity.

Currently, the government has not relented to critics who urge for the postponement of an individual mandate. Possibly, it would not relent because of the repercussions that would result from failing to implement this act.

Enhancing health savings account

Health savings accounts were launched in the US in the year 2003. This program enables people under high-deductible health programs to be given tax-preferred favour of funds saved for health care. Under these programs, when individuals re deposing their funds there are exempted from tax.

If not used, the money rolls over annually. These accounts are won by individuals and are usually used to meet medical expenses. Republicans prefer the use of these accounts contrary to democrats’ views. They assert that in the long term the programs would decrease the cost of healthcare services and improve on their quality.

The democrats are opposed to these programs because they believe that they would worsen the current US healthcare crisis. Healthy individuals would shun these programs leaving the sick and the registered few to meet the increased cost.

Solution

Based on the above discussion, it is apparent that the increased cost of health care can be fixed through a number of ways. Unlike the implementation of the individual mandate, enhancing the use of health saving accounts, adopting the use of the single player plan is the ideal alternative. Thus, the US government should adopt it as a solution to ending the looming health care crisis.

Through the single player plan, the government will oversee the collection and disbursement of health care fees. Currently, the US healthcare system is made up of thousands of groups each playing a role in managing the healthcare finances (Gapenski 45).

If the single player plan is implemented, the role played by these groups will be shifted to a government-based organization. Through this, the government will be able to save on administrative waste resulting from the current system.

A single player plan requires the health care organizations, its administrators, and the professionals to invoice a single entity for their services. Through this, managerial waste will be minimized. The money saved can be used in improving the quality of health care and ensuring that those who are not insured are insured

Conclusion

The single player plan is selected in favour of other alternatives because through it the cost of health care would not only be reduced but also ensure that every American gets access to health care services.

Under this plan, every American will be able to receive equal health care services regardless of their social class or racial background. Similarly, this alternative was chosen because it has more efficiency compared to other alternatives (Kudyba 89).

Works Cited

Gapenski, Louis C.. Fundamentals of healthcare finance. Chicago: Health Administration Press, 2009. Print.

Harrington, Charlene, and Carroll L. Estes. Health policy: crisis and reform in the U.S. health care delivery system. 5th ed. Sudbury, Mass.: Jones and Bartlett Pub., 2008. Print.

Kudyba, Stephan P.. Healthcare Informatics Improving Efficiency and Productivity.. Hoboken: CRC Press, 2010. Print.

Parks, David. Health Care Reform Simplified What Professionals in Medicine, Government, Insurance, and Business Need to Know.. 2nd ed. Dordrecht: Springer, 2012. Print.

Click Here To Order Now!