Search

The objectives of any healthcare system are multifaceted and complex in today's everchanging world. This paper will focus on healthcare delivery as it relates to the concepts of funding, patient-centered care and physician shortages within the systems of Canada, the United Kingdom (UK) and France. Of great concern in the United States is the fact that healthcare is not universal. There are currently more than 43 million Americans who are uninsured. Poor funding affects patient access to care and the patient-centered focus of the U.S. healthcare delivery system. Collaborative patient-centered practice is a method that facilitates health care professionals working together and with their patients. Suggestions for reform in the United States will be discussed as they relate to the most successful aspects of each of the healthcare delivery systems in Canada, France, and the United Kingdom. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper uses the controversy over the denial of care on futility grounds as a window into the broader issue of the role of cost in decisions about treatment near the end of life. The focus is on a topic that has not received the attention it deserves: the difference between refusing medical treatment and demanding it. The author discusses health care reform and the ethics of cost control, arguing that we cannot achieve universal access to quality care at affordable care without better public understanding of the moral legitimacy of taking cost into account in health care decisions, even decisions at the end of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United States faces tremendous challenges with its healthcare system. By any standard, it is expensive and performs poorly in most measures of health and thus, is in great need of reform. But how do we reform things without making the situation worse? Some of the more fundamental problems arise from the combination of a fee-for-service payment system for physicians with insurance-based financing care. This combination results in conflicts among the interests of patients, physicians and payers. This paper examines this issue from a decision analytic perspective, starting with a definition of the patient-centered view, and an assessment of the practicality of controlling costs by making healthcare more patient-centric. It then illustrates how fee-for-service models corrupt decision-making and other solutions designed to reign in the abuses of the fee-for-service model and also negatively impacts the quality of decision making for individual patients. Whatever the strategies for health reform, the degree of patient-centeredness of care is a benchmark that allows policy makers to understand how far they have had to deviate from optimal to achieve the desired ends of cost control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the feasibility of achieving U.S. health care reform and prognosis for success. In order to accomplish the task, this paper provides a check list of major problems which emerge continually in the field. In compiling a list of major problems, a tentative list of eight are presented. These problems include the following: unnecessary administrative costs; other major industrial countries can provide adequate health care at a lower rate of the national budget than does the U.S.; increase in malpractice insurance; shortage of primary care physicians in the rural and inner city areas; failure of health insurance; abundance of technology; distribution of care; and increase in health care costs. According to the author, these eight major problems give some indication to the complexity of the issues involved in the health care reform. These problems should be viewed in the context of the five major participant groups in health care: consumers, politicians, physicians and other health care providers, employers, and insurance companies. This paper briefly discusses the affected participants. It also provides a brief review of the proposed solutions to the problem of health care reform.

Policy Points: Policymakers seek to transform the US health care system along two dimensions simultaneously: alternative payment models and new models of provider organization. This transformation is supposed to transfer risk to providers and make them more accountable for health care costs and quality. The transformation in payment and provider organization is neither happening quickly nor shifting risk to providers. The impact on health care cost and quality is also weak or nonexistent. In the longer run, decision makers should be prepared to accept the limits on transformation and carefully consider whether to advocate solutions not yet supported by evidence. Context: There is a widespread belief that the US health care system needs to move “from volume to value.” This transformation to value (eg, quality divided by cost) is conceptualized as a two‐fold movement: (1) from fee‐for‐service to alternative payment models; and (2) from solo practice and freestanding hospitals to medical homes, accountable care organizations, large hospital systems, and organized clinics like Kaiser Permanente. Methods: We evaluate whether this transformation is happening quickly, shifting risk to providers, lowering costs, and improving quality. We draw on recent evidence on provider payment and organization and their effects on cost and quality. Findings: Data suggest a low prevalence of provider risk payment models and slow movement toward new payment and organizational models. Evidence suggests the impact of both on cost and quality is weak. Conclusions: We need to be patient in expecting system improvements from ongoing changes in provider payment and organization. We also may need to look for improvements in other areas of the economy or to accept and accommodate prospects of modest improvements over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The shortage of primary care providers and the provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) have spurred discussion about expanding the number, scope of practice (SOP), and independence of primary care nurse practitioners (NPs). Such discussions in the media and among professional organizations may insinuate that changes to the laws governing NP practice will engender acrimony between practicing physicians and NPs. However, we lack empirical, descriptive data on how practicing professionals view NP independence in primary care.Objective: The aim of the present study was to explore and describe the attitudes about NP independence among physicians and NPs working in primary care.Design: A qualitative study based on the principles of grounded theory.Participants: Thirty primary care professionals in Missouri, USA, including 15 primary care physicians and 15 primary care NPs.Approach: Semi-structured, in-depth interviews, with data analysis guided by grounded theory.Key Results: Participants had perspectives that were not well represented by professional organizations or the media. Physicians were supportive of a wide variety of NP roles and comfortable with high levels of NP independence and autonomy. Physicians and NPs described prerequisites to NP independence that were complementary. Physicians generally believed that NPs needed some association with physicians for patient safety, and NPs preferred having a physician readily accessible as needed. The theme "knowing your limits" was important to both NPs and physicians regarding NP independence, and has not been described previously in the literature.Conclusions: NP and physician views about NP practice in primary care are not as divergent as their representative professional organizations and the news media would suggest. The significant agreement among NPs and physicians, and some of the nuances of their perspectives, supports recommendations that may reduce the perceived acrimony surrounding discussions of NP independent practice in primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses what the authors refer to as patient transparency and an organizational framework for America's informed consent law as of 2017, and it mentions physician-patient relationships, accountable care organizations, and healthcare industry growth in the post-U.S. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act era. Patients' rights and the ethical obligations of physicians in America are examined, along with population health, health disparities, and health outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how U.S. physicians' political affiliations, specialties, or sense of social responsibility relate to their reactions to health care reform legislation. OBJECTIVE: To assess U.S. physicians' impressions about the direction of U.S. health care under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), whether that legislation will make reimbursement more or less fair, and examine how those judgments relate to political affiliation and perceived social responsibility. DESIGN: A cross-sectional, mailed, self-reported survey. PARTICIPANTS: Simple random sample of 3,897 U.S. physicians. MAIN MEASURES: Views on the ACA in general, reimbursement under the ACA in particular, and perceived social responsibility. KEY RESULTS: Among 2,556 physicians who responded (RR2: 65 %), approximately two out of five (41 %) believed that the ACA will turn U.S. health care in the right direction and make physician reimbursement less fair (44 %). Seventy-two percent of physicians endorsed a general professional obligation to address societal health policy issues, 65 % agreed that every physician is professionally obligated to care for the uninsured or underinsured, and half (55 %) were willing to accept limits on coverage for expensive drugs and procedures for the sake of expanding access to basic health care. In multivariable analyses, liberals and independents were both substantially more likely to endorse the ACA (OR 33.0 [95 % CI, 23.6-46.2]; OR 5.0 [95 % CI, 3.7-6.8], respectively), as were physicians reporting a salary (OR 1.7 [95 % CI, 1.2-2.5]) or salary plus bonus (OR 1.4 [95 % CI, 1.1-1.9) compensation type. In the same multivariate models, those who agreed that addressing societal health policy issues are within the scope of their professional obligations (OR 1.5 [95 % CI, 1.0-2.0]), who believe physicians are professionally obligated to care for the uninsured / under-insured (OR 1.7 [95 % CI, 1.3-2.4]), and who agreed with limiting coverage for expensive drugs and procedures to expand insurance coverage (OR 2.3 [95 % CI, 1.8-3.0]), were all significantly more likely to endorse the ACA. Surgeons and procedural specialists were less likely to endorse it (OR 0.5 [95 % CI, 0.4-0.7], OR 0.6 [95 % CI, 0.5-0.9], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Significant subsets of U.S. physicians express concerns about the direction of U.S. health care under recent health care reform legislation. Those opinions appear intertwined with political affiliation, type of medical specialty, as well as perceived social responsibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When it was introduced in the Affordable Care Act of 2010 as the new 2012 payment model for Medicare, an accountable care organization (ACO) was a new and untested concept in healthcare delivery and payment. The authors estimated the likelihood of engagement in ACOs by small group and solo healthcare practitioners. An evaluation of five case studies showed that significant organizational, financial, and technological challenges had to be met in order to launch an ACO. Sufficient resources to meet those challenges were best supplied by large organizations. Small or solo practices participated only through varying levels of integration as salaried physicians or in independent practice associations or physician hospital organizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Health care reform is bottled up. Socially responsible physicians, forced to curtail care to uninsured patients, should respond with organized, open defiance, by billing the costs of the care to the accounts of patients covered under Medicaid or Medicare. Reverse cost‐shifting: maybe it could work, certainly it would be justified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The changing distribution of physicians in Regionville, a rural community in upstate New York, is described in relation to the Rochester region in which it is located. Such changes are also related to changes in the economic and social structure as well as the organization of the medical community in Regionville. Among the issues that are addressed in this article are the following; (1) the consequences of medical reform, (2) the myth of the family doctor, (3) the importance of foreign medical graduates in providing medical care, (4) the importance of facilities and innovative practice settings for the attraction of physicians, and (5) the significance of suburbanization in influencing the growth of the local service sector of the economy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. The aim of this study was to examine the US and Canadian systems from the unique perspective of physicians who have practiced in both Canada and the United States. Methods. Questionnaires were sent to 355 Canadian physicians who graduated from US medical schools and 347 US physicians who graduated from Canadian medical schools. Results. The overall response rate was 59% (65% of US-graduated Canadian physicians and 54% of Canadian-graduated US physicians). Thirty-six percent of the respondents were "dual experience" physicians; that is, they had practiced medicine in both countries after completing their medical training. Physicians who left Canada were more likely than those who left the United States to indicate dissatisfaction with the health care system as a reason for leaving. Respondents expressed greater professional satisfaction with their current country of practice, but overall, dual-experience physicians in the United States favored that system only slightly more than the Canadian system, whereas those in Canada rated the Canadian system significantly better than the US system. Conclusions. The comparatively weak rating of the US system by dual-experience physicians underlines the need for health care reform. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]