The current alternative to the fee-for-services is the capitation arrangement. The physicians believe that the pay-for-performance is controlling how that he or she conducts the practice, but it will eliminate many expensive and unnecessary procedures (Shi & Singh, 2012).The pay-for-performance in the United States healthcare industry comes after the capitation and managed care and if managed correctly will become an asset and if not it will become a major blunder. The goal of pay-for-performance is to change patient behavior and doctors and hospitals with a rewards systems or punishment. A pay-for-performance bonus for doctors can be an increase for the general fee-for-service hospitals can receive an extra in the form of the diagnosis group-based payment (Shi & Singh,
It would make insurance more affordable and making tax cuts for the middle class. It would reduce the premiums for millions of people that can’t afford coverage. It sets up a competitive health care markets system to Americans. They would start greater accountability on the health care to keep the premiums down and prevent insurance industry abuses and denial of care. They would end the discrimination of Americans with pre-existing conditions.
So the return to the company will be lower as well. This is the better chose of the two plans with the health condition of the employees. The health plan is going to cost more but you pay for better services. It is like the saying “you pay for what you get”, such as if you pay a lower premium than you will have certain network of hospitals, physicians, and treatment centers that may not have the same results of paying more money and receiving better service. The Castor Enhanced plan can be overhaul to fit the need of the employees.
It states that because the costs of healthcare continue to increase so does the number of uninsured which in return increases the costs even more. “Primary care coverage for the uninsured is the first necessary step to reform and can be more cost effective and tolerable than a major system.” (Stephens, J. H., & Ledlow, G. R., 2010). Hospitals and physicians would spend much less on uncompensated care and patient’s health care debts would be much less. The idea of providing basic care as a right for all citizens would not only help the healthcare systems cost issues it would also increase the quality of healthcare. Everyone would then have the availability to preventative services and treatments meaning that less people would be likely to wait to seek medical care for an acute illness and the number of people attending emergency care departments would decrease.
The upper class would not want to have the same healthcare as someone in the lower class or working class. Those in higher social classes believe that if they worked hard to achieve a certain level in society then they should be rewarded for it in all areas of their life (e.g., higher income, better neighborhood, better healthcare, better education for children, etc.). This point leads me to think that China’s healthcare system may have been corrupted because those in a higher class were more likely to have faster and better assistance. Doctors in china are known to be bribed by the upper class. In my opinion this could be another reason why there are politicians who believe this law is unconstitutional.
With the recent increase of overweight and obese Americans, a debate has surfaced over whether the government should tax sugary drinks. Taxing sugary drinks is the right step because it could change people’s choices behavior, it reduces the number of people who purchase these drinks, it could pay for health education and medical expenses, and it helps prevent obesity. Taxing sugary drinks could change people’s choices behavior. People need to change their life style and learn to live more healthily. Healthy choices are always more expensive than bad choices.
I believe that this is a great way to help reduce healthcare cost, however, I do believe that there should be verbiage that allowed for higher pay outs dependent on the situation. Should a patient be able to sue for millions of dollars for a mistake that did not lead to a significant event or death? I do not believe that this should be allowed and should be capped. If the negligence leads to death or significant injury (i.e. laterality issue much like amputation of the incorrect limb); I believe that this does deserve to be compensated accordingly and not be capped.
The theory is that jobs are lost when we are tempted by cheap foreign goods. The true effect of protectionism is it reduces consumer choice, raises prices of protected foreign products and domestic goods. This lowers worldwide production and may save some jobs in a specific industry within America but this comes at an expense of the total welfare of the country. Free trade would provide lower prices, higher-quality goods, economic growth, and competition. This policy eliminates competition and competition is needed for a balanced economy.
Patients who were admitted came to the hospitals much sicker, and you had more folks to care for at the same time, with less help. This was not fair to you or those in your care. Conclusion Managed care was born out of a good idea, basically to help curb the rising cost of health care. In essence it should have been the answer. But because of the greediness of some just as in other models what started out as good ended up not being able to provide the quality care at an affordable price like was promised.
I also think it should be made affordable so people can get it. It is not fair to the ones that cannot afford it. In certain countries it works in different ways. Later on in my paper I will talk about the different benefits of healthcare coverage of the United States. I will also talk about how Universal coverage is working in other nations.