English 215, Week 10 paper - revision and additional orignal content. -

English 215: Research and Writing

FACTORS INFLUENCING QUALITY OF HEALTHCARE SERVICES

Part 2

Charles H. Smith

Dr. Saraswathi

30 May2015

Health care delivery to patients should be the best and of high quality. Health centers should ensure they work to ensure their clients gets maximum benefits from the services they are offering. Health services in the country have however been not to the best of their game with several factors affecting their efficiency. Most clients always complain of poor outcomes once they visit government health care facilities. The core of the establishment is poor and not able to help offer the best services the client expects. This is due to small amounts of funds allocated to health care sector by the government comparing to the needs of the citizens of the country (World Health Organization, 2003). This research paper will in deep length explain the problems that health care establishments faces in an effort to provide the best health care services to their clients. The stakeholders of healthcare sector, who are my audience, should ensure they serve their part effectively to ensure a smooth service delivery to their clients under all aspects. The technological, political and socioeconomic factors that pose these problems needs to be addressed and solutions provided to improve the health of the clients.

Healthcare sectors has faced all of these problems for over several centuries now. Technological advancement is continuous and the government is ought to keep up with the current advancement as it affects patient delivery. Infrastructure in hospitals should be well in cooperated with technology (Kaplan, Damuk, Lynch, Cohen, 1996). Government policies and regulations on healthcare sector affect service delivery. It has not been able to provide the best solution in this sector thus affecting its development. Socioeconomic factors are present in every society and have always been affecting delivery of healthcare services to members of the society will the poor individuals been the most affected by this aspect. These problems and how they affect the delivery of healthcare services in hospitals are explained in this research paper in depth.

Differences in socioeconomic status among the clients affect their service delivery in a health care establishment. This affects every society since there is always a difference in social and economic status among the members of a particular society (Cassel .J, 1974). The effects of this factor are very severe in an overpopulated community which is multicultural and facing unequal economic growth. The factors that pose the problems in health care delivery under this aspect and their effects are very harming and it’s crucial for the government to take precautionary measures to prevent such problems. Low-income earners will not be able to access the best health care services as these services require the client to pay a huge sum of money which this individual lacks. Emergency services for this person will be affected as most hospitals require a guarantee of the individual’s ability to pay for hospital bills. This person won’t be able to access health care services to the establishment of his/her choice rather that which his/her income can allow them to. In cases of chronic diseases such as cancer and heart disease, this low income earning individual will not survive for a long time (Cassel .J, 1974). After the capital he/she has gets exhausted from continuous treatments, he/she will no longer be able to get such services which mean they will just have to wait to see their lives end. It’s so unfortunate that the government is not doing enough to prevent such incidences. On the other hand, the high economic class individuals will enjoy the best health care services they want, from the establishments of their choice and practitioners they wish to have. This is a problem that needs to be addressed as soon as possible to help the low-income earners not get the health services they need to have (Donabedian, 1980).

Another solution to healthcare challenges would be to improve the access to the preventive care. The access to preventive care as well as necessary treatment enhances the outcome of the health care system. Additionally, it reduces the costs of treatments. According to research, the majority of the medical finances are spent on treatment other than prevention (Kolstad & Kowalski, 2012). The government should add resources that will be used in the fight against chronic diseases that are preventable. Therefore, the healthcare system should partially involve the government by providing financial support to fight preventable diseases.

There are healthcare service approaches or solutions that are beneficial economically. The government provides financial support to the health sector. The largest part of the finance goes to treatment especially in purchasing the necessary equipment. However, that cash could be used in other developmental services that would result in the growth of the economy. Moreover, an unhealthy community equates a less productive human resource (Payne, et. al., 2013). Therefore, the economy lowers or goes through a crisis. On the other hand, the health insurance will also be affordable to the poor people in the community. For this reason, the intervention will cater for the less economically able to afford higher health insurance covers. To sum, healthcare solutions will also benefit the economy because a healthy human resource has increased output.

There is an advantage to ensuring that people have access to portable insurance services in the healthcare system. Further, the measure will maintain and improve the lives of the people. Moreover, the insurance cover helps the individual prepare for the unexpected health incidences. Usually, a person does not anticipate or know when an incident or ailment will happen. For this reason, the person is covered and assured of medical services when they experience an illness in the midst of other financial commitments (Payne, et. al., 2013). The individual also finds the treatment of ailments at their early stages when they are treatable. Therefore, the insurance cover reduces the costs a person can incur during an unexpected outbreak. Additionally, it caters for the yearly screening and standard services recommended by the health practitioners (Payne, et. al., 2013). The portable insurance also ensures that an individual is covered even after losing their job or moving to self-employment. In summary, the portable insurance services are beneficial because they are accessible regardless of the social or economic changes in an individual’s life.

Health insurance covers are also based on economic classes which too affects the low-income earners while favoring the high-income earners. In cases of high costing procedures in hospitals, these poor individuals will not be favored as the company will say that the individual’s income cannot guarantee the amount to be used for the procedure (Cassel .J, 1974). The high-class individuals will not be affected. Therefore, socioeconomic status in the society has a great influence on patient’s health care delivery. Necessary standardizations policies and regulations ought to be put into place to help save health care delivery by ensuring equality despite economic disparities. Socially unprivileged individuals in the society will not be able to access healthcare. It’s so unfortunate that the gap created between the rich and poor regarding healthcare delivery is due to the unregulated mushrooming private healthcare sector (Kaplan, Damuk, Lynch, Cohen, 1996).

Political factors are also responsible for poor services delivery. The government is mandated to ensure that all its citizens get quality healthcare services in the hospitals. The government has failed in doing so with most individuals from the rural areas being unable to access health care due to poor infrastructure. Most of these people have to travel for several miles before they get a health center which is not well equipped to offer quality services. The practitioners in such areas are limited as most of them move to the urban areas where pay is good and lifestyle is modern. This has made it difficult for these members of such a community to survive in cases of epidemics. The government is supposed to ensure that resources are equally distributed across the country for all the citizens to enjoy similar services as there is no superior citizen to another. This unequal distribution of government resources has significantly affected health care sector.

The amount of capital to be allocated for healthcare is determined by the government budget (World Health Organization, 2003). The normally allocated value is not enough to cater for this sector as it’s growing technologically every day and the equipment required has to be installed to improve the quality of service delivery. Effective and efficient healthcare systems need to be installed to speed up and improve the patient outcome in every establishment despite its geographical location in the country. Necessary policies and regulations need to be set by the government to ensure the above issues are well handled and the citizens of this country do not suffer from ill-health anymore (Alexander, Weiner, Griffith, 2006).

Finally, technological factors possess similar effects to health care sector. Assimilation of technology in the health field is very slow in the country. The advances in medicine need to be put into practice very fast to help the clients get these services as they might be the solution to their problems. Integration of new computer systems in healthcare establishments is important as it not only increases the speed of processing patient information but improves the health services being offered. Poor systems are responsible for slow speed in hospitals and lack of communication which ultimately lowers the outcome of the patient. Poor infrastructure will not allow the practitioners to perform particular procedures to their patients. Heart disease, cancers and kidney conditions cannot be treated in centers where the infrastructure is not well developed and technology is poor. Patients in such an area will not benefit but will have to go to urban areas where the hospitals are well equipped to perform these procedures. This action will cost them a lot and it’s not fair since every individual pays tax to the government for it to offer quality healthcare services to them in areas of their choice (Kaplan, Damuk, Lynch, Cohen, 1996).

In conclusion, the effects of socioeconomic, political and technology on health are profound. The effects of these factors are significantly felt by a community that is diverse and multicultural with unequal distribution of resources. The effect is usually one sided with the under-privileged individuals been affected. These problems can be solved to improve healthcare delivery. The solutions can be effective and will involve all stakeholders in healthcare sector being responsible for their sections and ensuring development under all aspects. In summary, the healthcare services should provide solutions to their challenges that are advantageous to the people; economically, morally, socially, and equitably.

References

Cassel. J, (1974). The contribution of the social environment to host resistance: the Fourth Wade Hampton Frost Lecture. Am J Epidemiology, 104, 107

Kaplan G Damuk E Lynch JW Cohen RD (1996). Inequality in income and mortality in the United States: Analysis of mortality and potential pathways. BMJ, 312,996-1103.

World Health Organization. (2003). The World Health Report.

Alexander JA, Weiner BJ, Griffith J. (2006). Quality improvement and hospital financial performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 27:1003–29.

Donabedian A. (1980). The definition of quality and approaches to its assessment. Ann Arbor: Michigan Health Administration Press;

Kolstad, J. T., & Kowalski, A. E. (2012). The impact of health care reform on hospital and

preventive care: evidence from Massachusetts. Journal of Public Economics, 96(11),

909-929.

Payne, K., McAllister, M., & Davies, L. M. (2013). Valuing the economic benefits of complex

interventions: when maximizing health is not sufficient. Health economics, 22(3), 258-271.