WK 2 PEER RESPONSE
dsmwnewng
week_2_peer_response.docx· HMGT 335: Rules for discussion Comments on your peers: As Mentioned, unless stated otherwise - you need to make a contribution comment on two different peers. Saying " I found your comments interesting", or that is was very nice! isn't what the purpose is. Please feel free to support the thought with a reference, or disagree with or challenge the thinking. This is a "Critical Thinking" exercise! I have often found information to counter a statement that many take for granted. Feel free to challenge your classmates or enhance them. Doesn’t have to be a full response. But if you comment positively or negatively with some data, that is all that is needed (With a reference). This is what will lead to -------learning!!!!
Avoid using "I think" and "I feel" without any data..... That is just dinner table conversation! No title page needed. When addressing the person you are responding to don’t not write their name, use “ you, you’re”. You goal is to pretend like you are responding as if your me. ie. You forgot to mention how frogs cross the road. DO NOT SAY “ sally forgot to mention how frogs cross the road.”
Deaunte Printup posted Mar 24, 2016 9:56 PM
Health services should be exempt from the pressures of competition. The main focus of any health service facility should be to provide quality service and care to their patient. When it comes to highly specialized care, many services are already natural monopolies so their focus should not be on competition (Dash & Meredith, 2010). The focus of specialized care services should be on sharpening the skills and improving the quality of care that is already established. Introducing competition in a specialized care sector could cause for overcapacity. Less specialized and community care could enter into some competition if needed but they should not have to surrender if they do not choose. This sector should only enter competition when the goal is for the greatest improvements in quality and productivity (Dash & Meredith, 2010).
Healthcare Administrators should determine whether or not competition will help improve their quality of care or if increased competition will take the focus off of providing great care and more on winning over new patients. The administrator should be looking for new ways to improve their care which will then lead to an increase in patients.
Dash, P. & Meredith, D. (2010). When and how provider care can improve health care delivery. McKinsey & Company. Retrieved from http://www.mckinsey.com/industries/healthcare-systems-and-services/our-insights/when-and-how-provider-competition-can-improve-health-care-delivery
Respond to DeAunte here:
· Competition in health care services
Actions for Competition in health care services
Tchissem Koumande posted Mar 27, 2016 7:45 AM
Competition can potentially be useful in improving the efficiency and reducing the cost for some healthcare services where consumers can more easily choose among competing providers. However, there are important parts of the health care system where it is very difficult to ensure a competitive market. One example is emergency or urgent care services. When people are ill, they usually do not shop around for the most competitive service providers. Instead, they go to the closest facility or they choose their regular health care provider if the situation is less urgent. In general, the existing health care market in the U.S. is not very competitive. People select a regular provider based on their place residence, insurance listings of available providers and referrals following any initial consultation. It would be difficult to develop a more competitive system. So the scope for competition may be more limited than in other sectors, there may be certain areas of non-urgent care where competition could play a positive role. Some researchers analyzing competition in the healthcare industry have suggested that competition may be more feasible for less specialized services that can be provided outside of a hospital setting. (Dash and Meredith, 2010)
Dash, Penelope and David Meredith, "When and how provider competition can improve health care delivery", November 2010, Retrieved from http://www.mckinsey.com/
Respond to Tchissem here
HMGT 372 General Rules for Discussions
· Comply with customary rules of online etiquette
· Do not repeat thoughts already posted by a classmate or your faculty member. Repetitive comments may be deleted and not count toward your participation grade.
· Do not get off topic
· Relate your posts to the course content
· No word count maximum or minimum, brevity is appreciated
· Do not upload a document in a discussion thread
· If referring to a link, please embed it in your post, don’t expect your classmates or faculty to copy/paste the link to see it
· The response doesn’t have to be super lenthy.
Jamie Harris posted Mar 24, 2016 7:03 PM
The Rate Increase Disclosure and Review (CMS-9999-FC) requires health insurance providers to disclose unreasonable health insurance premium increases for review. This means that insurance providers are no longer allowed to increase insurance premiums above an established reasonable amount without first being reviewed for justification by the state or Medicare or Medicaid center.
This patient right affects all healthcare settings as patients rely on their health insurance to be seen in all settings such as: inpatient, outpatient, specialty care, etc.
The health care organization isn’t necessarily responsible for notifying patients of the increase or reporting the increase. The insurance providers are responsible to the government agency and the patients in regards to notifying of insurance premium increases and justification.
Case 1: Since I couldn’t find actual cases where this was done and found to be unreasonable. I looked up cases in which depict how our nation feels about this regulation. For this case, I found an article that said that Donald Trump is bashing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and that health insurance premiums are rising at rates close to and above 50 percent. If this were true, these rate increases would have to be reviewed and justified in order to be approved. Other source claim that health insurance premiums are rising by only seven percent.
Case 2: This article was very interesting as one would read the regulation and feel as if the rate increase, if deemed to be over a reasonable amount, would be denied but this article states that this wasn’t always the case. Prior to this regulation, the commissioner only reviewed the rates but didn’t have the authority to deny the increases. Could one imagine the idea that insurance providers were allowed to hike up premiums and have those increases reviewed without ever being at risk to have them rejected?
-Jamie
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obamacare-premiums-open-enrollment_us_562e8c3fe4b0c66bae59088d
Respoond to Jamie here:
· JAshu Week 2-End-of-life; do not resuscitate (DNR)
Jennifer Ashu posted Mar 23, 2016 1:19 AM
Just like everywhere else, hospitals have rules they have to follow and the patients who visit theses hospitals, us, have rights. Some rights are basic like choosing to not to see a certain health care provider and things of that sort. One patient’s right that caught my attention was end-of-life; do not resuscitate (DNR). From reading a little about from last week and then I saw it again this week, I was a little surprised by who would not want to be resuscitated. But come to think about it, I guess it’s the same as when people decide to not be or to be organ donors.
Most cases that I read was about older people in nursing homes who think it cost more to keep them alive which it is actually sad to hear. And also some people who are terminally ill would choose DNR. Some people choose it because if they go into cardiac arrest, they might damage ribs and more in the process of trying to resuscitate. I do not know if I would ever have a DNR in my chart no matter how old I get. This law can be seen as both ethical and legal. The doctor has to put it in the folder of the patient if the patient asks for it.
Case one.
I read a brief story about a lady whose mother had a DNR in her folder. She had fallen down on day at the nursing home she was in and her child had to argue with the nurses that she had a DNR in her folder. I’m not sure which is harder to help the patient live a painful life for a couple more months or watch them but not being able to help because they have DNR in their folder.
Case two.
A daughter is suing a nursing home. When her mother was admitted, the lady told them that her mother has a DNR because she did not want to prolong her 90 year old. About a month after being there, her mother was in an ambulance with feeding tubes after the crew had tried to resuscitate her while on her way to the hospital. I feel bad for both sides because I know the crew was just trying to do their job but at the same time with how common DNR is, they show have checked her folder/chart of even ask before they put the lady in the car. And I feel for the daughter and her mother because they crew did not follow their orders. It is what they wanted and they fell like it was ignored.
http://newoldage.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/24/when-advance-directives-are-ignored/
http://www.theledger.com/article/20130411/NEWS/304115037?p=2&tc=pg
Respond to Jennifer here.
