In considering the major tensions in US Health care identified in Table 17-1 of your text, where do you fall with regard to prioritizing the health of the individual patient or the health of the population? Does your position vary depending on the issue of focus? How would you defend your position?
Please respond to two classmate posts as well as posting your own. I will put the two classmates to respond to in this box.
I will put an attachment of the chapter and chapter 17, has the Table in it. Respond to these classmates:
Classmate # 1, Jen Rock:
When looking at table 17-1 I see my fall into the category as the individual, but as someone who uses Medicaid for health insurance for myself and my children, I also identify with a whole population which is people using Medicaid. While I have to live below a certain income level to remain eligible for my benefits, I also know that my kid and I receive really excellent healthcare. I know it is partially because we life in a major city with really strong healthcare organizations (Jefferson and Penn) but it’s also because Medicaid is great insurance, and I wish it was something everyone could access.
When looking at the table- there was something about the categories that really stood out to me. Three of the categories are Purchasers, Providers, Suppliers which are all essential parts of the system. I think of it like patients, doctors, and the tools doctors use do to their jobs. But for Insurers and Investors/Shareholders those seem like extra intermediaries that have nothing to do with actual healthcare. Obviously we don’t exist in a vacuum and without cost control regulations (which exists in every other healthcare model we have studies) no medical system can be effective. But I wonder how much would change if we just eliminated the insurance and investor parts of the system. One insurance Medicaid- and no investors because healthcare should never under any circumstances be driven by a profit model. If we eliminate the administrative overhead of managing all the different insurance plans, and remove the profit model, regulate costs of medical supplies and doctor salaries, then could we see strong individual outcomes AND improved health for our whole community/society? Classmate #2, Samantha Updegraff:
After reading the chapter and examining Table 17-1 in the text, I identify with the provider category. I feel that prioritizing the health of an individual is dependent upon the service that is given to an individual through a provider. I feel that my position mainly stands firm in the idea that getting the correct mental/physical care from an agency or organization that providers adequate outcomes is the top priority in the healthcare system. I believe that the hardest part about this position is that the type of care that is covered is determined by one’s insurance. With that being said, I also feel that it is important to start from the highest possible standpoint in healthcare that holds the most power to make changes that can be more equitable, effective, and affordable for all. The investor shareholders category in Table 17-1 of the text explains that shareholders of non-profit corporations and private equity firms are actors in this role which ultimately can greatly effect other pieces of the puzzle. I would defend this position of creating more priority for affordable and equitable health care by creating more reasonable requirements/expectations for providers to enact services to others that would then force shareholders (or vice versa) to shift viewpoints.