EconomicPolicies for Health Promotions, Wellness, and Prevention.
EconomicPolicies for Health Promotion, Wellness, and Prevention
UnitedStates vs. Canada
The UnitedStates of America views a healthy and fit nation as a vital elementof its strength and as a bedrock of the innovation, entrepreneurship,and innovation which are critical for life. The United States came upwith a National Prevention Strategy which is their plan for betterHealth and Wellness.
The strategic directions that were generated the National PreventionStrategy Commission include Health and safe community environments.Health and wellness are determined by the places people live, work,play and learn. Healthy and safe community environments include thosewith affordable and secure housing, clean air and water, supportivestructures and sustainable and safe community settings. Suchconditions can detect and respond to both emergency and chronicthreats to health. The strategy is to create, sustain and identifycommunities that promote health and wellness through prevention.
The other policy is about the clinical and community preventiveservices. The goal is to ensure availability, integration and mutualreinforcement of prevention-focused health care and communityprevention efforts. The third policy focuses on empowering people.The country is to support its population in making healthy choices.Emphasis is to be put on young people who should be provided withskills, knowledge, and opportunities that permit them to grow intohealthy adults.
Canada views thehealth care system as an important contributor to the country’seconomic wellbeing (Hutchison, Levesque, Strumpf, & Coyle,2011). Canada developed policies meant to provide health beyondhealth care. The policy includes Health and wellness promotion. Thevarious activities are designed to motivate Canadians to be moreactive in improving their health by embracing healthy lifestylechoices.
Secondly, the country has introduced the public health and healthprotection policy. It is intended to uphold the health of Canadiansfrom current and emerging threats. The policy allows forenvironmental health assessments, surveillance, and control ofdiseases outbreaks and trends and monitoring of safety andeffectiveness of a variety of products. The country has introducedthe population health policy. The plan includes government programsthat can influence major determinants of health in a community. Thefocus is on workplace safety, housing, water quality, and incomeredistribution. Furthermore, Canada has a policy on illness andinjury prevention. It consists of activities that can decrease thechances of Canadians contracting specific injuries and diseases(Marchildon, 2013). Notable activities under this policy includeimmunization and early disease detection through screening programsand reduction of exposure time to potentially injurious activities.
Implicationsof the Economic Policies and Disparities and Relation to Volume-basedversus Value-based health care
Economic policies have a crucial impact on the individual countrieshealthcare provision. It is imperative to consider that the policiesimplemented by a particular country dictate the overall manner inwhich health care is provided. A country that has sound economicpolicies regarding health care benefits from effective serviceprovision that boosts value-based rather than volume-basedhealthcare.
It is fundamental that an individual country adopts the mostefficient and relevant economic policies as pertains to healthpromotion, wellness, and prevention. The benefit of such soundpolicies is likely to trickle to down to the public who are therecipients of such services. For example, the economic policies inthe United States could be doing more harm than good to the people byimproving the patient outcomes (O’Brien, Kumar, & Metersky,2013). The rankings are based on effective care, safe care,coordinated care, and patient-centered care (Davis, Stremikis,Squires, & Shoen, 2014). Weak economic policies adversely affectthe overall provision of care to the patients. It is essential thatthe government, working in close coordination with stakeholders inthe health care sector coordinate efforts in the development of soundeconomic policies that seek to promote efficiencies in health careprovision.
The economic policies evidently focus on the realization ofvolume-based care at the expense of value-based health care. It isessential that the individual countries emphasize the need to providecare that is focused on improving the patient outcomes rather thanthe amount that has been paid for the services (Starfield, Gérvas,& Mangin, 2012). Patients who seek services from healthcareinstitutions must get value for their money. It should be guided bythe prevailing economic policies of the individual countries. TheUnited States and Canada must strive to modify their economicpolicies to ensure that they meet the individual patient needs whileimproving their outcome.
Implementation of the Policies
Implementation of the policies should be preceded by communication ofdisparities in health care provision among all the stakeholders inthe sector. It is crucial that they get to understand the severity ofthe problem and the need to come up with a working solution towardthe issue. Through the same, it would be possible to achieve theobjectives of the identified policies. Further, it is essential tostructure the implementation process in such a way that thoseassigned the task to comply with the provisions of the policy.Additionally, it is fundamental to establish a time frame and theavailable resources that would be crucial in ensuring that thepolicies introduced are achieved. Finally, implementation of thepolicies will be accomplished by adoption of coordination between thepolicy makers and the implementers. Through the same, it would bepossible to achieve success in policy implementation.
Influence of U.S. market conditions on the provision of healthcare
The United States market is designed in such a way that healthcareservices are provided to those who have the financial capabilities topay for the same. Despite efforts by the government to regulate thesector, health care rationing remains to be a common occurrence.Services are provided for those in a position to afford the same.Further, the quality of service a particular patient gets depends onhow much they can pay. It is evident that the market conditions haveaffected the provision of health care with accessibility to qualityservices being determined by one’s financial capabilities (Diggs,2012). It is critical that the government focuses on equity when itcomes to health care access and eliminate barriers to getting suchservices (Carrillo et al., 2011).
Carrillo, J. E., Carrillo, V. A., Perez, H. R., Salas-Lopez, D.,Natale-Pereira, A., & Byron, A. T. (2011). Defining and targetinghealth care access barriers. Journal of Health Care for the Poorand Underserved, 22(2), 562–75.http://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2011.0037
Davis, K., Stremikis, K., Squires, D., & Shoen, C. (2014). 2014update: Mirror, mirror on the wall: How the performance of the U.S.health care system compares internationally. Washington, D.C.: TheCommonwealth Fund. Retrieved fromhttp://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/files/publications/fund-report/2014/jun/1755_davis_mirror_mirror_2014.pdf
Diggs, S. N. (2012). Health disparities and health care financing:restructuring the American health care system. Journal of HealthCare Finance, 38(4), 76–90. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22894023
Hutchison, B., Levesque, J.-F., Strumpf, E., & Coyle, N. (2011).Primary health care in Canada: systems in motion. The MilbankQuarterly, 89(2), 256–288.http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2011.00628.x
Marchildon, G. (2013). Canada: Health system review. HealthSystems in Transition, 15(1), 1–179.http://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012373960-5.00302-6
O’Brien, J. M., Kumar, A., & Metersky, M. L. (2013). DoesValue-Based Purchasing Enhance Quality of Care and Patient Outcomesin the ICU? Critical Care Clinics.http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccc.2012.10.002
Starfield, B., Gérvas, J., & Mangin, D. (2012). Clinical careand health disparities. Annual Review of Public Health,33(February), 89–106.http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031811-124528