Recent orders

Healthcare Disparities

Name

Professor’s Name

Course

Date

Healthcare Disparities

The provision of healthcare is no doubt one that has proven a challenge for most countries to provide. The model employed by different countries usually differs from time to time, with the different variations in the approaches to healthcare leading to a variety of results. In most cases however, a number of citizens usually end up complaining over the disparities that may arise as a result of the approaches adopted by the government of the particular country. One country that is of interest, is no doubt The Peoples Republic of China, which utilizes an interesting approach to the provision of healthcare, and as a result, has experienced a number of challenges in ensuring universal healthcare for all. The problem is however, not unique to China, as disparities are also experienced in other countries such as the United States, despite the differences in approach.

Irene Su, in the article “A Dream Yet to Come True: Disparity of Healthcare Access in China,” describes the approach to healthcare adopted in China, as well as the numerous disparities that still exist in the country. Su begins by describing the shift in China, from a closed door society to a market economy. A change she argues has had a positive effect on the country’s economy, as it has essentially led to economic success, although the healthcare system remains “seriously deficient (Su, 2007). According to Su, prior to reforms to a market economy, the country’s healthcare system was primarily funded by the government, and took a shape similar to a socialized medicine system, which was free or came at very little cost to the general public. This led to a highly efficient system characterized by an increased life span and decreased mortality rates, as well as a highly successful preventive program. However, following privatization and increased liberalization, government funding for healthcare reduced drastically, to a point that a WHO report as cited by Su (2007) indicated that the cost f healthcare in 2005 had rocketed to 40 times what it was in 1978. A recent survey reported by Su, showed that 44.8% of urban residents essentially lacked insurance coverage, while 79.1% of the population in rural areas found themselves having to pay for medical expenses from their pockets. Overall, a staggering three quarters of the population did not have access to any form of government funding, leading to poor health seeking behaviors. The available health insurance schemes have led to significant disparities, as most of them seemingly favor the urban population, while significantly putting the rural population at a huge disadvantage. Out of the four available insurance schemes (labor health insurance, government employee health insurance, private insurance, and rural cooperative medical system) only one targets the rural population, and is hugely underfunded as it depends on the decentralized fiscal system. This lack of insurance is further exacerbated by the lack of quality healthcare institutions, partly due to the significant bureaucratic barriers to operating private hospitals, as well as the discriminatory nature with which government funding is distributed. The net result, according to Su (2007) has been a system that is incapable of satisfying neither the rich, nor the poor, as the former essentially complains about poor services, while the latter uis hardly able to afford the most basic of services.

The main cause behind the healthcare disparities and poor services, is the decreased government funding, as well as the decentralized approach to funding. By leaving healthcare funding to local authorities, the government is essentially creating room for massive disparities in healthcare provision, as the local authorities located in rural areas definitely cannot compete with their counterparts in the urban centers. Considering the income disparities between the rural and the urban population, this re3presents a major handicap, as most of the rural population is already unable to support its own medical expenditure. Further, the insurance schemes available, favor the urban areas, including the one provided by the government, as they mostly target the population in formal employment, essentially locking out casual laborers and farmers. This therefore means that a majority of the rural population are left to their own devices, while rural to urban migration remains on the rise, hence raising the number of members of the urban population without proper medical cover. In addition to the poor approach to provision of healthcare, the differences in socioeconomic status also contribute significantly to the disparities in healthcare access. Obviously the ability of members of the high class of society is not similar to that of individuals in the lower class, and the fact that disparities in the earnings of the citizens continue to widen is an indicator that inequalities continue to exist in China despite economic reforms. Measures such as the banning of rural to urban migration only served to deepen the crisis and widen the gap between the rich and the poor. On the other hand massive rural to urban migration continues to deprive the rural areas of much needed skilled manpower, leading to imbalanced development.

The problem is however not unique to the Peoples Republic of China, as a number of countries struggle to find the right balance between supporting a free market in the provision of healthcare, and subsidizing healthcare to ensure access for all. For instance, in the United States, healthcare disparities still exist, despite the existence of some of the best facilities and freely available medical technology. In addition, the United States healthcare expenditure ranks as the highest in the world, which leads to questions over why the system still remains skewed in favor of a select few. Unlike in China, public medical insurance schemes such as Medicaid and Medicare do not discriminate based on mode of employment, although the latter mainly covers individuals aged 65 and over. Instead, it attempts to provide medical insurance to all. Although a majority of the population is usually covered by employer sponsored medical insurance, about 5 percent are covered by private insurers. Despite these advances in technology and significant government funding, racial minorities still experience higher morbidity and mortality rates compared to their white counterparts. These disparities reflect a pattern of racial inequality, as the minority groups make up the majority of the uninsured members of society. This is a manifestation of a deeper lying problem, that dates back over 200 years: that of racial discrimination and historical injustices committed against the minorities.

There is no denying that the white population is significantly more empowered economically compared to their Latino, Asian, and African American counterparts. These disparities are also observable in the education sector, where African Americans rank as the worst performing race. Similar to China, this has led to a continued perpetuation of historical disparities, in the sense that the rich continue to get richer, while the poor continue to wallow in a vicious cycle of poverty. Access to healthcare, despite the government’s best efforts, continues to remain linked to economic status. Although various not for profit organizations are rising to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor when it comes to healthcare provision, the underlying problem is much bigger than just healthcare provision. In order to effectively eradicate the healthcare disparities, the government must put in significant effort to first eradicate the racial inequality that still exists. Although affirmative action continues to be implemented, more effort needs to be put in. The affirmative action should be extended to other areas such as employment and career advancement. Through empowering the minorities financially, the government will be able to eradicate the healthcare disparities that exist in the United States.

For the Peoples Republic of China, government funding must improve, in order for the numerous disparities to be eradicated, more so funding for the rural areas. The government needs to assist local authorities in those areas fund their medical programmes, in order to help bridge the gap between them and their urban counterparts. Further, development and employment opportunities need to be provided in the rural areas, in order to aid in their development and strengthen them financially, hence eradicate chances of rural to urban migration occurring. This would serve to improve the ability of the local populations to afford medical care, hence improve healthcare access.

Works Cited

Su, Irene. A Dream Yet to Come True: Disparity of Healthcare Access in China. Topics inAdvanced Practice Nursing eJournal, 7.3, 2007. Web.

Common Core Essay Assignment (Midterm

Common Core Essay Assignment (Midterm)

Your task: Using five of the following primary Virginia statutes relating to colonial slavery, write a 500-1000-word essay that fully answers the following prompt:

Discuss the conditions and treatment of Africans and their descendants in colonial Virginia between 1629 and 1705. Utilize at least five different Acts (statutes) to show how race determined the relationship between English and Africans during seventeenth century Virginia. You will need to read the short statutes and then explain the historical context in which these laws were written. No secondary sources, other than the textbook should be integrated into this paper’s analysis. You will need to click on the hyperlink to access the Acts.

Virginia Statutes Relating to Colonial Slavery

October 1629-ACT IX: An act distinguishing between the work of English and African women

January 1639/40-ACT X: An act creating a legal distinction between white and black men.

December 1662-ACT XII: An act applying the status of the mother on children.

September 1667-ACT III: An act declaring that baptism did not alter the status of slaves.

October 1669-ACT I: An act legalizing the punishment and killing of slaves.

October 1670-ACT IV: An act prohibiting free blacks and Native Americans from owning white servants.

September 1672-ACT VIII: An act to suppress the rebellious activities of slaves.

April 1691-ACT XVI: An act attempting to suppress runaway slave communities.

October 1705-CHAP. IV: An act that contains the first definition of a mulatto in Virginia’s laws.

October 1705-CHAP. XXII: An act declaring the Negro, Mulatto, and Indian slaves real estate.

October 1705-CHAP. XLIX: An act that provides a definition of who would become a slave upon entering Virginia.

Goals of this essay: The purpose of this assignment is to advance your ability to reason through a specific historical question and to communicate through written text your ideas. Thus: Your paper should critically consider the issue/problem and deliver all relevant information. You should also provide a clear thesis statement. In a paper this size, your introduction and thesis should appear in the first paragraph. Make sure to paraphrase your sources accurately. In other words, state what the source says, not what you wished it said or thought it said. You need to state the evidence fairly, even if you think it wrong or offensive. Your paper should use evidence to answer the historical question. Your paper should develop and organize your thoughts clearly and logically. Outlining is necessary, but not required, step in writing a well-organized paper. Your paper should draw a conclusion that addresses the paper’s chief topic or question and that states your answer to the question or your contribution to the topic.

Formatting: Your paper needs to be typed, double spaced, 12 pt. Times New Roman font. You will need to cite your sources using the Chicago Manual of Style. Here is a link to an online resource for those unfamiliar with this style: https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org. You will need to use footnotes for in text citations and your paper needs to have a works cited page (bibliography) with the sources (the texts/prompts from Cengage and possibly your textbook) you used in your paper.

Due date: This assignment is October 24th by 11:59PM.

Submitting assignment: To turn the paper in, click on assignments in your blackboard course. There you will see a Safe Assign icon titled Core Essay Midterm Assignment. Click on that icon and it will lead you through a process to upload your paper. Safe Assign will automatically check your paper for plagiarism. See the following link for the Universities policy on academic dishonesty, as well as your professor’s syllabus. www.tsu.edu/ssp/2015-TSU-Student-Code-of-Conduct.pdfNote: By submitting your common core essay assignment, you accept that it will be checked by SafeAssign for plagiarism. The punishment for Academic Honesty Policy violations are listed in the TSU Student Code of Conduct and your Professor’s syllabus. You will need to submit your paper in either a pdf or a .doc format. This is a multi-step process. Failure on YOUR part to complete the submission process means the paper will not be submitted and you will not be given credit for the assignment. After the submission is complete blackboard will send you a SUBMISSION RECEIPT. KEEP THIS!!! If there is any confusion about submitting the assignment, this receipt will provide documentation to your submission. If you DO NOT receive a submission receipt something is wrong. IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to make sure the submission went through. When the submission has been processed correctly there should be a round yellow circle with an exclamation point in it on blackboard under your grades for this assignment. If there are only dashes for your grade it means nothing has been submitted. You will upload the assignment like attaching a document to an email. After you have submitted it will ask you to wait while it checks your document. Blackboard will tell you when your submission has been accepted and has been uploaded. If you have any further questions about the submission process email or speak to your professor.

Healthcare delivery in the United States

Healthcare delivery in the United States

Author

Institution

Introduction

The importance of exercising caution and ethics cannot be gainsaid as far as the delivery of healthcare services is concerned. On quite a number of occasions, patients have suffered irredeemably, thanks to the carelessness of healthcare practitioners. In instances where the patients suffer because of the negligence of a healthcare practitioner, he can file a suit for damages. However, there have been numerous questions as to whether there should be a limit to the amount that a patient would be entitled to in case the healthcare practitioner is found to have been negligent in discharging his duties. There have been proposals that the maximum amount of damages that the negligent healthcare practitioner should pay for his negligence should be limited to $250, 000 (Jonas & Kovner’s, 2011).

The question on the appropriateness of such caps is determined by the effects of the action. Putting a cap on the medical malpractices damages is inappropriate. First, it is noteworthy that there are variations in the aspects pertaining to each malpractice case. In essence, the jury and the judge should be able to make a judgment on the appropriate damages to which a certain case is entitled. Medical malpractice cases are not of the same magnitude in which case they should be treated differently. In addition, such caps leave little room for settlement negotiation. These caps also maintain pressure on hospitals so that they can incorporate strong safety procedures. However, there are some advantages that abide with the decision to cap medical malpractice damages. Research has shown that the judges and jury often make their verdicts based on their sympathy for the plaintiffs (Jonas & Kovner’s, 2011). This often leads to excessive and unfair verdicts. On the same note, there are instances where qualified and competent doctors are penalized for mistakes done by others. It is only unfair that a competent physician will pay enormous amounts for malpractice insurance premiums throughout their careers without making a significant mistake. It is illogical to make all practitioners pay disproportional amounts simply because of the mistakes of a few practitioners. In addition, doctors have always been under pressure to practice defensive medicine where they concentrate on escaping suits rather than treating patients (Jonas & Kovner’s, 2011). This is because of the devastating effects that a single lawsuit would have on the career of a doctor.

What are the unintended consequences (if any) when states cap malpractice awards?

Capping of malpractice awards is seen to have a considerable impact in the number of claims that are lodged against physicians. There is a significant or considerable decline in the severity and the frequency of claims, as well as malpractice premiums. Studies have shown that most people opt for out-of-court settlements. This is because most people find it illogical to pursue a case in court using enormous amounts of money only to have a maximum of $250,000 as damages. It is worth noting that filing a lawsuit is both time-consuming and expensive. Most lawyers would be wary of taking contingency fees based lawsuit in cases that are devoid of a possibility for substantial verdict (Shi & Singh, 2009). This, therefore, means that a doctor or health practitioner who has made a destructive mistake due to his negligence would be likely to get away with it. Obviously, this weighs down on the quality of healthcare that patients are likely to get in a healthcare center or facility.

In addition, there are variations in the demographics of physicians between states that have adopted caps and those that have not adopted them. In 1970, prior to the adoption of medical malpractice awards caps by any state, all states had a relatively similar level of physicians per every 100000 people. However, studies showed that this is not the same again. In 2000, a study showed that states that had implemented the caps had 135 physicians for every 100,000 citizens, which was higher than the 120 per 100,000 for states that had not implemented them. This could also be a signal that such laws make doctors quit their professions or retire early (Shi & Singh, 2009).

Are malpractice awards a significant factor in the rising cost of health care? Why or why not?

Malpractice awards are not a significant factor as far as the rising cost of healthcare is concerned. Research has shown that the medical liability has remained considerably constant even as the cost of healthcare has risen. This underlines the fact that as much as medical liability is a component of the medical price inflation system, it does not drive it. It is noteworthy that the numbers of claims is extremely small in comparison to the actual cases pertaining to medical malpractice. In 2007, the medical malpractice tort costs amounted to $30.7 billion (Shi & Singh, 2009). This is an extremely low amount considering that the entire healthcare system is worth over $2 trillion. In essence, malpractice insurance and litigation costs makes up about 1.5% of the total medical costs. This is an extremely insignificant percentage to influence any changes in the medical costs (Shi & Singh, 2009). This underlines the fact that malpractice awards would be immaterial in influencing the cost of healthcare, in which case its rise cannot be blamed on the malpractice awards.

Does the health care profession do a good job in dealing with substandard practices? Explain.

The healthcare profession does an exemplary job in dealing with substandard practices. It is worth noting that, healthcare professionals are bound by code of ethics and even oaths as to exactly how physicians should conduct themselves in the course of discharging their services. It is worth noting that stiff measures are spelt out in cases where a healthcare professional is seen as discharging substandard services. Penalties may be in the form of monetary compensation or even complete deregistration (Shi & Singh, 2009).

References

Jonas & Kovner’s, (2011). Health Care Delivery in the United States. New York: Springer Publishing Company

Shi, L & Singh, D (2009). Delivering Health Care in America. New York: Jones & Bartlett Learning