Free Market Medicine Discussion

Please provide two discussion replies( about 150 words each). You may use one reliable source for each of the replies. Please use discussion grading rubric criteria attached to reach the highest possible grade.No title page needed. here is the task for the original discussion board post:

Answer the following questions:

List at least three things you learned from “Free Market Medicine” that you were not aware of before?
What modifications in our system would you suggest to create the greatest changes in health outcomes and cost? (Support your position with sound and logical arguments and references from reliable public information. The references you use must be listed)
How could you advocate for these changes you suggest?

POST 1 provided by Faiza:
1: List at least three things you learned from “Free Market Medicine” that you were not aware of before?

Free Market Medicine

“Free Market Medicine” was an interesting video to watch. 1: It was interesting to know that people who adopt to pay for procedures in free market can shop around for the provider where as insurance companies restrict the clients to certain group of practitioners. 2: Providers are willing to negotiate the prices in free market for health care with clients who do not have an insurance. 3: Free market medicine is providing a competition to health institutes who provide care with insurances and due to that reason prices have decreased in certain areas such as surgeries .

2: What modifications in our system would you suggest to create the greatest changes in health outcomes and cost? (Support your position with sound and logical arguments and references from reliable public information. The references you use must be listed).

Some modifications which are present in our system but are not applied on greater level can be seen in pay per performance vs fee per service .Policy makers should improve coordination among the Medicare and Medicaid programs to increase access to needed services and reduce the burden on patients and caregivers, and should continue payment policy reforms that pay-for-performance instead of fee-for-service models.

Policy makers could mitigate the financial strain of caregiving, such as Medicaid’s Cash and Counseling—a national program in which the government gave people cash allowances to pay for the services and goods they felt would best meet their personal care needs and counseling about managing their services—and incentivize the adoption and use of interoperable electronic health records that include functional, behavioral health, and social factors.

Payers can develop financing models to provide social and behavioral health services that will both improve care and lower the total cost of care for high-need patients, recognizing that even cost-neutral programs are worth supporting if the outcome is positive for patients. Providers can learn to work collaboratively in teams and engage with patients, care partners, and their caregivers in the design and delivery of care (Long, 2017).

3: How could you advocate for these changes you suggest?

I will advocate the above suggestion based on pros on cons. Pay for Performance share several benefits. In healthcare stresses quality over quantity of care and allows healthcare payers to redirect funds to encourage best clinical practices and promote positive health outcomes. It focuses on transparency by using metrics that are publicly reported thus providing the added incentive for organizations to protect and strengthen their reputations and it encourages accountability as well as competition through consumer-informed choice.

Pay for Performance in healthcare is reducing costs. As like any other system there are pros and cons to pay for performance system some of the disadvantages can be overlooking the issues of quality, categorization of providers as “bad”. It will take a combination and step-by-step program implementation to improve the quality of care and reduce the costs to be sustainable for high quality health care providers. But the selection of these programs must be taken into account because misguided quality factors can affect the program (Catalyst, 2018).

References

Catalyst, N. E. J. M. (2018, March 1). NEJM Catalyst. Retrieved from https://catalyst.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/CAT.18.0245

Long, P. (2017, August 28). An Untapped Opportunity For Health Care Progress: Redesigning Care For High-Need Patients. Retrieved from https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20170828.061678/full/

POST 2 provided by Obi:

List at least three things you learned from “Free Market Medicine” that you were not aware of before?

Healthcare is very important to the US economy. A lot was discussed in the topic ranging from the 7 feet Obamacare regulation stacks to complain about almost everything done by the government is bad. My three major takeaways:

First, free health care is cheaper with elective care but expensive during major catastrophic situations like heart diseases, transplants, ER visits for accidents, and emergencies. In situations that need a significant amount of spending on medical procedures, the free market falls flat. This is because those expensive cares are not profitable for the free market system and a patient may not be able to pay for the services rendered. One of the surgeons in the video buttressed this point when he indicated that if the employer of the patient wasn’t able to pay for the surgery, the patient’s bill would have been higher than expected.

Secondly, the cost of medications from multi-national companies is lesser in other developed world compared with the US. It is puzzling why we can not bring down the cost of drugs in our country while the same multi-national companies reap us off of our hard-earned incomes. Shockingly, the cost of the same medication is a quarter of the price in New Zealand, half in Canada and even much lower in some countries.

Lastly, I thought government regulations were good. Without regulations people will not account for mistakes, standard processes will be compromised to save cost, practices will not be adhered to, and a host of other accountability issues will be affected. I was surprised to hear that regulation is the driven force for healthcare demise because it is expensive to maintain and that hospitals do want to be fined or not be reimbursed if they failed to follow the stipulated guidelines. I agree that some of the ICD 10 codes were ridiculous, but making an effort to be precise diagnosis should be a welcomed idea, not a government takeover.

What modifications in our system would you suggest to create the greatest changes in health outcomes and cost?

It is obvious that the free market works for some elective procedure but fails woefully in catastrophic situations. The free market is very good for the wealthy and the rich but cannot help the poor and the unemployed. The poor and unemployed have no money and cannot even bargain for services. The free market has its limitations, there is a need for universal healthcare or a single-payer system.

I prefer Single-Payer health insurance which is a model that seeks to provide health care coverage so that all people have access to essential care throughout their lives, regardless of their ability to pay. It is a system financed by taxes that are managed and run by one entity, such as a government; for example UK, Canada, New Zealand; and providing essential health care to all citizens. With a single-payer system, the costs of administration are likely to be less. According to Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) we spend $500 billion in administrative waste.

These funds can be shifted to providing health care to the population, instead of being wasted in bureaucracy. Single-Pay allows access to all to get essential health care and will create a healthier population. It will prevent illness by providing access to more preventative care, allow people to choose their medical provider and people can stop worrying about medical bills (Araujo,2019)

How could you advocate for these changes you suggest?

It will be a difficult challenge, especially due to our capitalism and free-market belief, but trying will not hurt either. First, we have to establish a common ground that we all want quality affordable health care for everyone. Second, the status quo is unacceptable; insurers have done many unacceptable things, such as charging people more or refusing to cover them because they are sick. These types of practices must not be allowed so the need for reform. Third, the citizens want a system that is less bureaucratic, more efficient than the one we have today, and reform must address administrative issues.

To achieve these laudable objectives; we have to mobilize the community through the dissemination of information, teaching on healthcare, and holding elected government representatives accountable for their promises during campaigns. Also, we can create a social network for mass communication and support advocates of single-payer, universal health system to the congress for enacting legislatures for the single-payer system.

References:

1.Araujo, M. (2019, June 25).Understanding Single-Payer Health Insurance or “Medicare for All”. Retrieved from https://www.thebalance.com/is-single-payer-health-insurance-a-good-deal-how-does-it-work-4175823 (Links to an external site.)

Community Catalyst. Retrieved from https://communitycatalyst.org/…/working-with-single-payer-advocates.