Speaker notes
Introduction (slide 1)
Hello, today we shall be tackling a major health issue facing non-natives of Alaska State. Non-Natives in Alaska continually experience higher mortality rates as compared with the deaths amongst the non-native Alaskans. Is there anything that can be done to curb this unwanted trend situation? This implies that non-native Alaskans face extinction in the near future as long as no appropriate action would be taken. All stakeholders need to spring into action as early as now to save the human race from this menace.
(Slide 2)
The graphs presented are a diagrammatic view of current health situation in Alaska especially in the coastal urban areas.
(Slide 3)
There is an alarming increase of cancer casualties among the Alaskans who are natives with rates of 35% higher, injury rates of 99% higher and 136% higher suicidal rates as compared with the natives as expounded by Sequist, (2017). Native Alaskans are unable to access to quality Indian health Care hence they are susceptible to early and increased deaths. Again, among the native Alaskans life expectancy is gauged at 71.2 which is lower as compared to a life expectancy of 79.0 among the non-native Alaskans.
Native Alaskans at coastal urban centres experience a higher life expectancy than those of from the rural areas (Sequist, 2017).
(Slide 4)
Factors Fueling Mortality Rate
Alaskan Natives
Social Factors: There are tribal health regions amongst the natives that is a non-access area for the non-natives. This health regions must be convinced against all odds that higher mortality rates are current issues that can be dealt with appropriately.
Economic factors: Health facilities dubbed as “tribal health regions” are in dare poor state that need proper funding in order to improve quality of their services.
Political factors: For more than a decade now, the native Alaskans have always voted Democrats in a country of Republicans who are the majority (Payne et.al, 2018).
(Slide 5)
Non-Native Alaskans
Social factors: Most non-native Alaskans spend much of their time in the urban coastal areas unaware of poor health care services at the tribal health regions.
Economic factors: Obviously the non-natives would oppose any government policy imposing tax on them as a way to improve the services within the tribal health care regions. This is because they are ruled by the minority Democrats and therefore unwilling to accept any economic burden.
(Slide 6)
Non-native Alaskans
Social factors: Most non-native Alaskans spend much of their time in the urban coastal areas unaware of poor health care services at the tribal health regions.
Economic factors: Obviously the non-natives would oppose any government policy imposing tax on them as a way to improve the services within the tribal health care regions. This is because they are ruled by the minority Democrats and therefore unwilling to accept any economic burden.
(Slide 7)
Indian Health Services
Economic factors: Native Alaskans have taken advantage of their minority rule and refurbished tribal health facilities specifically to serve them. This of course reduces state funding while improving the local tribes.
Political factor: IHS exists specifically to serve the Americans and native Alaskans at the expense of the non-natives. In fact, their presence is rarely noticeable outside the two state where natives are the majority.
(Slide 8)
Alaskan Officials
Social factor: Most elected Alaskan officials practice segregation where they specifically serve the interest of their own constituents painfully neglecting the interest of the non-natives. Any legislation involved must serve to promote the wellbeing of the natives while the non-natives receives least considerations.
Political factors: Politically, non-native Alaskans openly disagree with any legislation that would impart more economic burden on them. Elected officials on the other hand in the fear of not being reelected always hesitate to enact laws for tax increase.
(Slide 9)
Available Options
Option 1: Use of nay available resource to improve health care services at low access areas.
Option 2: Explore long distance, individual health care cycled even to remote areas on regular basis.
Option 3: Unanimously accept an increase in tax sales for the states as a way to fund tribal health regions and increase access to better health care among the non-natives.
(Slide 10)
Cons and Pros
Option 1
Cons: Improved infrastructure must be part and parcel of the initiative
Inability to offer proper blood tests due to lack of medical equipment and poor doctor-Individual attachments.
Pros: New tax must not be introduced
Telehealth again can be utilized on the basis of preventive actions.
Option 2
Cons: Individual health care for each and every person is quite expensive and my not be feasible any time soon as it requires very experienced professionals.
Pros: In-person health care can be used to curb those preventable diseases.
(Slide 11)
Option 3
Cons: Most of the state are not in agreement with an increase with economic burden. The official who may happen to foster such legislations of more tax may be reelected.
Pros: Adequate funds will be available to fund state activities including health facilities among the non-natives as well.
(Slide 12)
Recommendations
· Firstly, option 1 must be explored to its full potential. In-person health care services in tandem with telehealth care are economically achievable and most effective in health care service delivery.
· When telehealth care is adequately explored, consequentially there will be an improvement on the infrastructure that would serve for the good of both natives and non-natives (Kruse et.al, 2016).
· Another viable option would be to discard IHS options as this will be readily acceptable by both natives and non-natives.
combs
Wk4NotesHCA415.docx
0
