benefits of health care essay

Should Healthcare Be Free? Essay on Medical System in America

Introduction, problem statement, why healthcare should be free, why healthcare should be paid, works cited.

The US government has historically taken a keen interest in the health of its citizens. As far back as the beginning of the 1900s, President Theodore Roosevelt declared that “nothing can be more important to a state than its public health: the state’s paramount concern should be the health of its people” (Gallup and Newport 135). Despite these, the United States is classified as the nation with the most expensive, and yet inefficient, health care system among developed nations.

An expensive health care system translates to an increasing proportion of the population being unable to access the much needed medical care. The New York Times reports that according to census survey carried out in the year 2007, an estimated 45.6 million people in the USA were uninsured and hence unlikely to receive comprehensive medical care from hospitals (1). Due to the perceived inefficiencies, there has been agreement that the current health care system is faulty and therefore in need of radical changes to make it better.

Majority of American’s are greatly dissatisfied with the current health care system which is extremely expensive and highly inefficient. While an effective system can be deemed to be one which is efficient, acceptable and at the same time equitable, the current system is lacking in this attributes.

The aim of this paper will be to analyze the effects that free health care system in America would have. This paper will argue that a health care system which guarantees free health care for all Americans is the most effective system and the government should therefore adopt such a system.

Free health care would result in a healthier nation since people would visit the doctors when necessary and follow prescriptions. Research by Wisk et al. indicated that both middle and lower class families were suffering from the high cost of health care (1). Some families opted to avoid going to the doctor when a member of the family is sick due to the high cost of visiting the doctor and the insurance premiums associated with health care.

In the event that they go to the doctor, they do not follow prescriptions strictly so as to reduce cost. Brown reveals that “60 percent of uninsured people skipped taking dosages of their medication or went without it because it cost too much” (6). Such practices are detrimental to a person’s health and they cost more in the long run.

The last few years have been characterized by financial crises and recessions which have negatively affected the financial well being of many Americans. In these economic realities, the cost of health care has continued to rise to levels that are unaffordable to many Americans. This loss of access to health care has led to people being troubled and generally frustrated. A report by Brown indicates that the price for prescription drugs in the US has escalated therefore becoming a financial burden for the citizens (6).

The productivity of this people is thereby greatly decreased as they live in uncertainty as to the assurance of their health and thereby spend more time worrying instead of being engaged in meaningful activities that can lead the country into even greater heights of prosperity. Free health care would lead to a peace of mind and therefore enable people to be more productive.

Since medical care is not free, many people have to make do with curative care since they cannot afford to visit medical facilities for checkups or any other form of preventive medical care. This assertion is corroborated by Colliver who reveals that many people are opting to go without preventative care or screening tests that might prevent more serious health problems due to the expenses (1).

Research shows that approximately 18,000 adults die annually due to lack of timely medical intervention (The New York Times 1). This is mostly as a result of lack of a comprehensive insurance cover which means that the people cannot receive medical attention until the disease has progressed into advanced stages. This is what has made medical care so expensive since “sick patients need more care than relatively healthy ones” (Sutherland, Fisher, and Skinner 1227).

This is an opinion shared by Sebelius who reveals that 85% of medical costs incurred in the country arise from people ailing from chronic conditions (1). She further notes that if screened early, these diseases such as diabetes and obesity can be prevented thus saving the medical cost to be incurred in their treatment. It therefore makes sense to have a health care system that makes it possible for everyone to access preventive care thus curbing these conditions before they are fully blown.

While most people assume that free health care will result in better services as more people will be able to access health care, this is not the case. The increase in people who are eligible for health care will lead to an increase in the patients’ level meaning that one may have to wait for long before receiving care due to shortage of medical personnel or the rationing of care.

A European doctor, Crespo Alphonse, reveals that when health care is free, people start overusing it with negative implications for the entire system (AP). In addition to this, free health care would invariably lead to cost cutting strategies by hospitals.

This would lead to scenario where finding specialized care is hard and the rate of medical mistakes would increase significantly. As a matter of fact, a survey on Switzerland hospitals found that medical errors had jumped by 40% owing to the introduction of mandatory health insurance (AP). While it is true that free health care will increase the number of people visiting the doctor, this may be a positive thing since it will encourage preventive care as opposed to the current emphasis on curative care.

Free health care is a move towards a socialistic system. As it is, the US is a nation that is built on strong capitalistic grounds. This is against the strong capitalistic grounds on which the United States society is build on. While detractors of the private insurance firms are always quick to point out that the firms make billions of dollars from the public, they fail to consider the tax that these firms give back to the federal government (Singer 1).

Free health care would render players in the health industry such as private insurance companies unprofitable. Free health care will bring about a shift from a profit oriented system to a more people oriented system. Without money as a motivation, research efforts will plummet thereby leading to a decrease in the medical advancement as investment in research will not be as extensive (Singer 1).

The Associate Press reveals that doctors may also lack to be as motivated if they are no incentives and thereby the quality of their work may weaken (1). As such, a free health care system would have far reaching consequences for the economy of the nation since the health care industry is a profitable industry for many.

The Healthcare system is one of the most important components of the U.S. social system since full productivity cannot be achieved without good health. This paper has argued that a free health care system would be the most effective system for America. To reinforce this assertion, the paper has articulated the benefits that the country would accrue from free health care.

With free health care, all Americans would be able to access health services when they need it leading to increased quality of life. In addition, many people would make use of preventive healthcare services, therefore reducing the financial burden that the expensive curative services result in.

The paper has taken care to point out that free health care has some demerits, most notably of which is overloading the health services with a high number of patients. Even so, the observably advantages to be reaped from the system far outweigh the perceived risks. As it is, decades of reform on the US health care system have failed to provide any lasting solution to the problem.

Making health care free for all may be the strategy that will provide a solution for the ideal health care system that has thus far remained elusive. From the arguments presented in this paper, it can irrefutably be stated that free health care will result in a better health care system for the country.

Associate Press. (AP). Europe’s free health care has a hefty price tag . 2009. Web.

Brown, Paul. Paying the Price: The High Cost of Prescription Drugs for Uninsured Americans. U.S. PIRG Education Fund, 2006.

Colliver, Victoria. “Jump in middle-income Americans who go without health insurance,” San Francisco Chronicle (SFGate), 2006.

Gallup, Andrew, and Newport Francis. The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion . Gallup Press, 2005. Print.

Sebelius, Kathleen. Health Insurance Reform Will Benefit All Americans . 2009. Web.

Singer, Peter. Why We Must Ration Health Care . 2009. Web.

Sutherland, Jason., Fisher Elliott, and Skinner Jonathan. “Getting Past Denial – The High Cost of Health Care in the United States” . New England Journal of Medicine 361;13, 2009).

The New York Times. The Uninsured . 2009. Web.

Wisk, Lauren. High Cost a Key Factor in Deciding to Forgo Health Care . 2011. Web.

• The US Healthcare Financing Concerns
• Hospice – Dying with Comfort and Dignity
• Assessing the Role of Conflict in the Health Care Environment
• Africa Regional Conference: Should Democracy Be Promoted in Africa?
• Why did Tunisia and Egypt’s governments fall? Will they become democracies?
• The Spread of Democracy
• Trustee vs. Delegate Models of Representation
• The United States Constitution
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, October 12). Should Healthcare Be Free? Essay on Medical System in America. https://ivypanda.com/essays/free-health-care-in-america/

"Should Healthcare Be Free? Essay on Medical System in America." IvyPanda , 12 Oct. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/free-health-care-in-america/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Should Healthcare Be Free? Essay on Medical System in America'. 12 October.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Should Healthcare Be Free? Essay on Medical System in America." October 12, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/free-health-care-in-america/.

1. IvyPanda . "Should Healthcare Be Free? Essay on Medical System in America." October 12, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/free-health-care-in-america/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Should Healthcare Be Free? Essay on Medical System in America." October 12, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/free-health-care-in-america/.

• Read the Journal
• Submit an Article

Free Healthcare in the United States: A Possible Solution to Public Health Disparities

Nov 23, 2020 | Author Hala Atassi , Public Health Policy

Access to healthcare is one of the remarkable indicators that defines the quality of people’s lives. Despite the thousands of advanced technologies and countless healthcare clinics and hospitals, many people still cannot afford healthcare or health insurance. This has been a global concern for years, which many countries have resolved. However, the United States has yet to significantly progress towards making healthcare more accessible to low-income communities. There are many solutions to this problem that can be implemented today, upon which millions of suffering Americans depend.

Some studies have shown over the years that expensive health care is due to the high cost of defensive medicine, or in other words, physicians ordering expensive tests that may be unnecessary, as a way to deflect legal responsibility from themselves. Deviating from defensive medicine in the healthcare industry might impact physicians economically, but more importantly, it will help achieve affordable healthcare. 

Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act of 2010) is one program that focuses on extending healthcare to Americans and reducing public health disparities. This program lays down a foundation that people under the age of 26 will receive accessible care from their parent or guardian’s health care plans. Afterward, they must pay for their health care plan. Also, the program stipulates that the government provides free healthcare to retired adults from age 55 to 64, to avoid any insurance plan complications. Essentially, Obamacare seeks to expand access to healthcare care, regardless of the scale of one’s medical diagnosis, to ultimately save lives that would have been lost due to the inability to pay expensive medical bills.

Easier access to healthcare will result in a healthier nation. The healthcare system is one of the most important components in life, as the United States’ economy cannot be fully efficient and benefit all people until everyone can access quality, affordable healthcare. Free healthcare (or at least cheaper healthcare) would be the most effective system for America, which other countries like Switzerland and Singapore have demonstrated. The money spent by citizens on their healthcare could be redirected to other social support systems in America, like expanding access to nutritious foods as well. Although free healthcare has many perks, it also has disadvantages. Most notably, overloading health services with a large number of patients would overwhelm already busy healthcare systems. Patients may overuse the perk of free healthcare, leaving not taxpayers to suffer, but rather medical professionals and healthcare systems. Even so, the perceptible advantages of affordable healthcare outweigh the disadvantages. As it is, years of attempts to ameliorate the United States healthcare system have failed the American people, and the situation remains devastating and life-threatening for low-income communities. There should be no debate though as to whether America needs to redesign the public health system, as healthcare is a human right, and nobody should be dying because they cannot afford to live, especially when the government has the economic means to take care of them.

Bibliography:

Gerisch, Mary. “Health Care As a Human Right.” American Bar Association , www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-state-of-healthcare-in-the-united-states/health-care-as-a-human-right/. 

“Free Health Care Policies.” World Health Organization , World Health Organization, 2020, www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/free-health-care-policies. 

Gologorsky, Beverly. “Health Care in the US Should Be Affordable and Accessible.” The Nation , 9 May 2019, www.thenation.com/article/archive/tom-dispatch-health-care-should-be-affordable-and-accessible/. 

Luhby, Tami. “Here’s How Obamacare Has Changed America.” CNN , Cable News Network, 8 July 2019, www.cnn.com/2019/07/08/politics/obamacare-how-it-has-changed-america/index.html.

Recent Posts

• Zero-Covid: A Crisis in Shanghai
• Treatments for Fetal Rh Anemia
• Health Inequity and Racial Disparities in Covid-19, Gun Violence, and HIV/AIDS Cases
• Abortion Rights Are up in the Air Again: It’s All on the Line in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization
• The History of Racial Disparities and Discrimination in the U.S. Healthcare System

How to build a better health system: 8 expert essays

We need to focus on keeping people healthy, not just treating them when they're sick Image:  REUTERS/Rupak De Chowdhuri

.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} Global Future Council on Health and Healthcare

Introduction

By Francesca Colombo , Head, Health Division, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and Helen E. Clark , Prime Minister of New Zealand (1999-2008), The Helen Clark Foundation

Our healthy future cannot be achieved without putting the health and wellbeing of populations at the centre of public policy.

Ill health worsens an individual’s economic prospects throughout the lifecycle. For young infants and children, ill health affects their capacity to acumulate human capital; for adults, ill health lowers quality of life and labour market outcomes, and disadvantage compounds over the course of a lifetime.

And, yet, with all the robust evidence available that good health is beneficial to economies and societies, it is striking to see how health systems across the globe struggled to maximise the health of populations even before the COVID-19 pandemic – a crisis that has further exposed the stresses and weaknesses of our health systems. These must be addressed to make populations healthier and more resilient to future shocks.

Each one of us, at least once in our lives, is likely to have been frustrated with care that was inflexible, impersonal and bureaucratic. At the system level, these individual experiences add up to poor safety, poor care coordination and inefficiencies – costing millions of lives and enormous expense to societies.

This state of affairs contributes to slowing down the progress towards achieving the sustainable development goals to which all societies, regardless of their level of economic development, have committed.

Many of the conditions that can make change possible are in place. For example, ample evidence exists that investing in public health and primary prevention delivers significant health and economic dividends. Likewise, digital technology has made many services and products across different sectors safe, fast and seamless. There is no reason why, with the right policies, this should not happen in health systems as well. Think, for example, of the opportunities to bring high quality and specialised care to previously underserved populations. COVID-19 has accelerated the development and use of digital health technologies. There are opportunities to further nurture their use to improve public health and disease surveillance, clinical care, research and innovation.

To encourage reform towards health systems that are more resilient, better centred around what people need and sustainable over time, the Global Future Council on Health and Health Care has developed a series of stories illustrating why change must happen, and why this is eminently possible today. While the COVID-19 crisis is severally challenging health systems today, our healthy future is – with the right investments – within reach.

1. Five changes for sustainable health systems that put people first

The COVID-19 crisis has affected more than 188 countries and regions worldwide, causing large-scale loss of life and severe human suffering. The crisis poses a major threat to the global economy, with drops in activity, employment, and consumption worse than those seen during the 2008 financial crisis . COVID-19 has also exposed weaknesses in our health systems that must be addressed. How?

For a start, greater investment in population health would make people, particularly vulnerable population groups, more resilient to health risks. The health and socio-economic consequences of the virus are felt more acutely among disadvantaged populations, stretching a social fabric already challenged by high levels of inequalities. The crisis demonstrates the consequences of poor investment in addressing wider social determinants of health, including poverty, low education and unhealthy lifestyles. Despite much talk of the importance of health promotion, even across the richer OECD countries barely 3% of total health spending is devoted to prevention . Building resilience for populations also requires a greater focus on solidarity and redistribution in social protection systems to address underlying structural inequalities and poverty.

Beyond creating greater resilience in populations, health systems must be strengthened.

High-quality universal health coverage (UHC) is paramount. High levels of household out-of-pocket payments for health goods and services deter people from seeking early diagnosis and treatment at the very moment they need it most. Facing the COVID-19 crisis, many countries have strengthened access to health care, including coverage for diagnostic testing. Yet others do not have strong UHC arrangements. The pandemic reinforced the importance of commitments made in international fora, such as the 2019 High-Level Meeting on Universal Health Coverage , that well-functioning health systems require a deliberate focus on high-quality UHC. Such systems protect people from health threats, impoverishing health spending, and unexpected surges in demand for care.

Second, primary and elder care must be reinforced. COVID-19 presents a double threat for people with chronic conditions. Not only are they at greater risk of severe complications and death due to COVID-19; but also the crisis creates unintended health harm if they forgo usual care, whether because of disruption in services, fear of infections, or worries about burdening the health system. Strong primary health care maintains care continuity for these groups. With some 94% of deaths caused by COVID-19 among people aged over 60 in high-income countries, the elder care sector is also particularly vulnerable, calling for efforts to enhance control of infections, support and protect care workers and better coordinate medical and social care for frail elderly.

Third, the crisis demonstrates the importance of equipping health systems with both reserve capacity and agility. There is an historic underinvestment in the health workforce, with estimated global shortages of 18 million health professionals worldwide , mostly in low- and middle-income countries. Beyond sheer numbers, rigid health labour markets make it difficult to respond rapidly to demand and supply shocks. One way to address this is by creating a “reserve army” of health professionals that can be quickly mobilised. Some countries have allowed medical students in their last year of training to start working immediately, fast-tracked licenses and provided exceptional training. Others have mobilised pharmacists and care assistants. Storing a reserve capacity of supplies such as personal protection equipment, and maintaining care beds that can be quickly transformed into critical care beds, is similarly important.

Fourth, stronger health data systems are needed. The crisis has accelerated innovative digital solutions and uses of digital data, smartphone applications to monitor quarantine, robotic devices, and artificial intelligence to track the virus and predict where it may appear next. Access to telemedicine has been made easier. Yet more can be done to leverage standardised national electronic health records to extract routine data for real-time disease surveillance, clinical trials, and health system management. Barriers to full deployment of telemedicine, the lack of real-time data, of interoperable clinical record data, of data linkage capability and sharing within health and with other sectors remain to be addressed.

Fifth, an effective vaccine and successful vaccination of populations around the globe will provide the only real exit strategy. Success is not guaranteed and there are many policy issues yet to be resolved. International cooperation is vital. Multilateral commitments to pay for successful candidates would give manufacturers certainty so that they can scale production and have vaccine doses ready as quickly as possible following marketing authorisation, but could also help ensure that vaccines go first to where they are most effective in ending the pandemic. Whilst leaders face political pressure to put the health of their citizens first, it is more effective to allocate vaccines based on need. More support is needed for multilateral access mechanisms that contain licensing commitments and ensure that intellectual property is no barrier to access, commitments to technology transfer for local production, and allocation of scarce doses based on need.

The pandemic offers huge opportunities to learn lessons for health system preparedness and resilience. Greater focus on anticipating responses, solidarity within and across countries, agility in managing responses, and renewed efforts for collaborative actions will be a better normal for the future.

OECD Economic Outlook 2020 , Volume 2020 Issue 1, No. 107, OECD Publishing, Paris

OECD Employment Outlook 2020 : Worker Security and the COVID-19 Crisis, OECD Publishing, Paris

OECD Health at a Glance 2019, OECD Publishing, Paris

https://www.un.org/pga/73/wp-content/uploads/sites/53/2019/07/FINAL-draft-UHC-Political-Declaration.pdf

OECD (2020), Who Cares? Attracting and Retaining Care Workers for the Elderly, OECD Health Policy Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris

Working for Health and Growth: investing in the health workforce . Report of the High-Level Commission on Health Employment and Economic Growth, Geneva.

Colombo F., Oderkirk J., Slawomirski L. (2020) Health Information Systems, Electronic Medical Records, and Big Data in Global Healthcare: Progress and Challenges in OECD Countries . In: Haring R., Kickbusch I., Ganten D., Moeti M. (eds) Handbook of Global Health. Springer, Cham.

2. Improving population health and building healthy societies in times of COVID-19

By Helena Legido-Quigley , Associate Professor, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a stark reminder of the fragility of population health worldwide; at time of writing, more than 1 million people have died from the disease. The pandemic has already made evident that those suffering most from COVID-19 belong to disadvantaged populations and marginalised communities. Deep-rooted inequalities have contributed adversely to the health status of different populations within and between countries. Besides the direct and indirect health impacts of COVID-19 and the decimation of health systems, restrictions on population movement and lockdowns introduced to combat the pandemic are expected to have economic and social consequences on an unprecedented scale .

Population health – and addressing the consequences of COVID-19 – is about improving the physical and mental health outcomes and wellbeing of populations locally, regionally and nationally, while reducing health inequalities.¹ Moreover, there is an increasing recognition that societal and environmental factors, such as climate change and food insecurity, can also influence population health outcomes.

The experiences of Maria, David, and Ruben – as told by Spanish public broadcaster RTVE – exemplify the real challenges that people living in densely populated urban areas have faced when being exposed to COVID-19.¹

Maria is a Mexican migrant who has just returned from Connecticut to the Bronx. Her partner Jorge died in Connecticut from COVID-19. She now has no income and is looking for an apartment for herself and her three children. When Jorge became ill, she took him to the hospital, but they would not admit him and he was sent away to be cared for by Maria at home with their children. When an ambulance eventually took him to hospital, it was too late. He died that same night, alone in hospital. She thinks he had diabetes, but he was never diagnosed. They only had enough income to pay the basic bills. Maria is depressed, she is alone, but she knows she must carry on for her children. Her 10-year old child says that if he could help her, he would work. After three months, she finds an apartment.

David works as a hairdresser and takes an overcrowded train every day from Leganés to Chamberi in the centre of Madrid. He lives in a small flat in San Nicasio, one of the poorest working-class areas of Madrid with one of the largest ageing populations in Spain. The apartments are very small, making it difficult to be in confinement, and all of David’s neighbours know somebody who has been a victim of COVID-19. His father was also a hairdresser. David's father was not feeling well; he was taken to hospital by ambulance, and he died three days later. David was not able to say goodbye to his father. Unemployment has increased in that area; small local shops are losing their customers, and many more people are expecting to lose their jobs.

Ruben lives in Iztapalapa in Mexico City with three children, a daughter-in-law and five grandchildren. Their small apartment has few amenities, and no running water during the evening. At three o’clock every morning, he walks 45 minutes with his mobile stall to sell fruit juices near the hospital. His daily earnings keep the family. He goes to the central market to buy fruit, taking a packed dirty bus. He thinks the city's central market was contaminated at the beginning of the pandemic, but it could not be closed as it is the main source of food in the country. He has no health insurance, and he knows that as a diabetic he is at risk, but medication for his condition is too expensive. He has no alternative but to go to work every day: "We die of hunger or we die of COVID."

These real stories highlight the issues that must be addressed to reduce persistent health inequalities and achieve health outcomes focusing on population health. The examples of Maria, David and Ruben show the terrible outcomes COVID-19 has had for people living in poverty and social deprivation, older people, and those with co-morbidities and/or pre-existing health conditions. All three live in densely populated urban areas with poor housing, and have to travel long distances in overcrowded transport. Maria’s loss of income has had consequences for her housing security and access to healthcare and health insurance, which will most likely lead to worse health conditions for her and her children. Furthermore, all three experienced high levels of stress, which is magnified in the cases of Maria and David who were unable to be present when their loved ones died.

The COVID-19 pandemic has made it evident that to improve the health of the population and build healthy societies, there is a need to shift the focus from illness to health and wellness in order to address the social, political and commercial determinants of health; to promote healthy behaviours and lifestyles; and to foster universal health coverage.² Citizens all over the world are demanding that health systems be strengthened and for governments to protect the most vulnerable. A better future could be possible with leadership that is able to carefully consider the long-term health, economic and social policies that are needed.

In order to design and implement population health-friendly policies, there are three prerequisites. First, there is a need to improve understanding of the factors that influence health inequalities and the interconnections between the economic, social and health impacts. Second, broader policies should be considered not only within the health sector, but also in other sectors such as education, employment, transport and infrastructure, agriculture, water and sanitation. Third, the proposed policies need to be designed through involving the community, addressing the health of vulnerable groups, and fostering inter-sectoral action and partnerships.

Finally, within the UN's Agenda 2030 , Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 3 sets out a forward-looking strategy for health whose main goal is to attain healthier lives and wellbeing. The 17 interdependent SDGs offer an opportunity to contribute to healthier, fairer and more equitable societies from which both communities and the environment can benefit.

The stories of Maria, David and Ruben are real stories featured in the Documentary: The impact of COVID19 in urban outskirts, Directed by Jose A Guardiola. Available here. Permission has been granted to narrate these stories.

Buck, D., Baylis, A., Dougall, D. and Robertson, R. (2018). A vision for population health: Towards a healthier future . [online] London: The King's Fund. [Accessed 20 Sept. 2020]

Wilton Park. (2020). Healthy societies, healthy populations (WP1734). Wiston House, Steyning. Retrieved from https://www.wiltonpark.org.uk/event/wp1734/ Cohen B. E. (2006). Population health as a framework for public health practice: a Canadian perspective. American journal of public health , 96 (9), 1574–1576.

3. Imagine a 'well-care' system that invests in keeping people healthy

By Maliha Hashmi , Executive Director, Health and Well-Being and Biotech, NEOM, and Jan Kimpen , Global Chief Medical Officer, Philips

Imagine a patient named Emily. Emily is aged 32 and I’m her doctor.

Emily was 65lb (29kg) above her ideal body weight, pre-diabetic and had high cholesterol. My initial visit with Emily was taken up with counselling on lifestyle changes, mainly diet and exercise; typical advice from one’s doctor in a time-pressured 15-minute visit. I had no other additional resources, incentives or systems to support me or Emily to help her turn her lifestyle around.

I saw Emily eight months later, not in my office, but in the hospital emergency room. Her husband accompanied her – she was vomiting, very weak and confused. She was admitted to the intensive care unit, connected to an insulin drip to lower her blood sugar, and diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. I talked to Emily then, emphasizing that the new medications for diabetes would only control the sugars, but she still had time to reverse things if she changed her lifestyle. She received further counselling from a nutritionist.

Over the years, Emily continued to gain weight, necessitating higher doses of her diabetes medication. More emergency room visits for high blood sugars ensued, she developed infections of her skin and feet, and ultimately, she developed kidney disease because of the uncontrolled diabetes. Ten years after I met Emily, she is 78lb (35kg) above her ideal body weight; she is blind and cannot feel her feet due to nerve damage from the high blood sugars; and she will soon need dialysis for her failing kidneys. Emily’s deteriorating health has carried a high financial cost both for herself and the healthcare system. We have prevented her from dying and extended her life with our interventions, but each interaction with the medical system has come at significant cost – and those costs will only rise. But we have also failed Emily by allowing her diabetes to progress. We know how to prevent this, but neither the right investments nor incentives are in place.

Emily could have been a real patient of mine. Her sad story will be familiar to all doctors caring for chronically ill patients. Unfortunately, patients like Emily are neglected by health systems across the world today. The burden of chronic disease is increasing at alarming rates. Across the OECD nearly 33% of those over 15 years live with one or more chronic condition, rising to 60% for over-65s. Approximately 50% of chronic disease deaths are attributed to cardiovascular disease (CVD). In the coming decades, obesity, will claim 92 million lives in the OECD while obesity-related diseases will cut life expectancy by three years by 2050.

These diseases can be largely prevented by primary prevention, an approach that emphasizes vaccinations, lifestyle behaviour modification and the regulation of unhealthy substances. Preventative interventions have been efficacious. For obesity, countries have effectively employed public awareness campaigns, health professionals training, and encouragement of dietary change (for example, limits on unhealthy foods, taxes and nutrition labelling).⁴,⁵ Other interventions, such as workplace health-promotion programmes, while showing some promise, still need to demonstrate their efficacy.

The COVID-19 crisis provides the ultimate incentive to double down on the prevention of chronic disease. Most people dying from COVID-19 have one or more chronic disease, including obesity, CVD, diabetes or respiratory problems – diseases that are preventable with a healthy lifestyle. COVID-19 has highlighted structural weaknesses in our health systems such as the neglect of prevention and primary care.

While the utility of primary prevention is understood and supported by a growing evidence base, its implementation has been thwarted by chronic underinvestment, indicating a lack of societal and governmental prioritization. On average, OECD countries only invest 2.8% of health spending on public health and prevention. The underlying drivers include decreased allocation to prevention research, lack of awareness in populations, the belief that long-run prevention may be more costly than treatment, and a lack of commitment by and incentives for healthcare professionals. Furthermore, public health is often viewed in a silo separate from the overall health system rather than a foundational component.

Health benefits aside, increasing investment in primary prevention presents a strong economic imperative. For example, obesity contributes to the treatment costs of many other diseases: 70% of diabetes costs, 23% for CVD and 9% for cancers. Economic losses further extend to absenteeism and decreased productivity.

Fee-for-service models that remunerate physicians based on the number of sick patients they see, regardless the quality and outcome, dominate healthcare systems worldwide. Primary prevention mandates a payment system that reimburses healthcare professionals and patients for preventive actions. Ministries of health and governmental leaders need to challenge skepticism around preventive interventions, realign incentives towards preventive actions and those that promote healthy choices by people. Primary prevention will eventually reduce the burden of chronic diseases on the healthcare system.

As I reflect back on Emily and her life, I wonder what our healthcare system could have done differently. What if our healthcare system was a well-care system instead of a sick-care system? Imagine a different scenario: Emily, a 32 year old pre-diabetic, had access to a nutritionist, an exercise coach or health coach and nurse who followed her closely at the time of her first visit with me. Imagine if Emily joined group exercise classes, learned where to find healthy foods and how to cook them, and had access to spaces in which to exercise and be active. Imagine Emily being better educated about her diabetes and empowered in her healthcare and staying healthy. In reality, it is much more complicated than this, but if our healthcare systems began to incentivize and invest in prevention and even rewarded Emily for weight loss and healthy behavioural changes, the outcome might have been different. Imagine Emily losing weight and continuing to be an active and contributing member of society. Imagine if we invested in keeping people healthy rather than waiting for people to get sick, and then treating them. Imagine a well-care system.

Anderson, G. (2011). Responding to the growing cost and prevalence of people with multiple chronic conditions . Retrieved from OECD.

Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. GBD Data Visualizations. Retrieved here.

OECD (2019), The Heavy Burden of Obesity: The Economics of Prevention, OECD Health Policy Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris.

OECD. (2017). Obesity Update . Retrieved here.

Malik, V. S., Willett, W. C., & Hu, F. B. (2013). Global obesity: trends, risk factors and policy implications. Nature Reviews Endocrinology , 9 (1), 13-27.

Lang, J., Cluff, L., Payne, J., Matson-Koffman, D., & Hampton, J. (2017). The centers for disease control and prevention: findings from the national healthy worksite program. Journal of occupational and environmental medicine , 59 (7), 631.

Gmeinder, M., Morgan, D., & Mueller, M. (2017). How much do OECD countries spend on prevention? Retrieved from OECD.

Jordan RE, Adab P, Cheng KK. Covid-19: risk factors for severe disease and death. BMJ. 2020;368:m1198.

Richardson, A. K. (2012). Investing in public health: barriers and possible solutions. Journal of Public Health , 34 (3), 322-327.

Yong, P. L., Saunders, R. S., & Olsen, L. (2010). Missed Prevention Opportunities The healthcare imperative: lowering costs and improving outcomes: workshop series summary (Vol. 852): National Academies Press Washington, DC.

OECD. (2019). The Heavy Burden of Obesity: The Economics of Prevention. Retrieved here .

McDaid, D., F. Sassi and S. Merkur (Eds.) (2015a), “Promoting Health, Preventing Disease: The Economic Case ”, Open University Press, New York.

OECD. (2019). The Heavy Burden of Obesity: The Economics of Prevention. Retrieved from OECD.

4. Why e arly detection and diagnosis is critical

By Paul Murray , Head of Life and Health Products, Swiss Re, and André Goy , Chairman and Executive Director & Chief of Lymphoma, John Theurer Cancer Center, Hackensack University Medical Center

Although healthcare systems around the world follow a common and simple principle and goal – that is, access to affordable high-quality healthcare – they vary significantly, and it is becoming increasingly costly to provide this access, due to ageing populations, the increasing burden of chronic diseases and the price of new innovations.

Governments are challenged by how best to provide care to their populations and make their systems sustainable. Neither universal health, single payer systems, hybrid systems, nor the variety of systems used throughout the US have yet provided a solution. However, systems that are ranked higher in numerous studies, such as a 2017 report by the Commonwealth Fund , typically include strong prevention care and early-detection programmes. This alone does not guarantee a good outcome as measured by either high or healthy life expectancy. But there should be no doubt that prevention and early detection can contribute to a more sustainable system by reducing the risk of serious diseases or disorders, and that investing in and operationalizing earlier detection and diagnosis of key conditions can lead to better patient outcomes and lower long-term costs.

To discuss early detection in a constructive manner it makes sense to describe its activities and scope. Early detection includes pre-symptomatic screening and treatment immediately or shortly after first symptoms are diagnosed. Programmes may include searching for a specific disease (for example, HIV/AIDS or breast cancer), or be more ubiquitous. Prevention, which is not the focus of this blog, can be interpreted as any activities undertaken to avoid diseases, such as information programmes, education, immunization or health monitoring.

Expenditures for prevention and early detection vary by country and typically range between 1-5% of total health expenditures.¹ During the 2008 global financial crisis, many countries reduced preventive spending. In the past few years, however, a number of countries have introduced reforms to strengthen and promote prevention and early detection. Possibly the most prominent example in recent years was the introduction of the Affordable Care Act in the US, which placed a special focus on providing a wide range of preventive and screening services. It lists 63 distinct services that must be covered without any copayment, co-insurance or having to pay a deductible.

Whilst logic dictates that investment in early detection should be encouraged, there are a few hurdles and challenges that need to be overcome and considered. We set out a few key criteria and requirements for an efficient early detection program:

1. Accessibility The healthcare system needs to provide access to a balanced distribution of physicians, both geographically (such as accessibility in rural areas), and by specialty. Patients should be able to access the system promptly without excessive waiting times for diagnoses or elective treatments. This helps mitigate conditions or diseases that are already quite advanced or have been incubating for months or even years before a clinical diagnosis. Access to physicians varies significantly across the globe from below one to more than 60 physicians per 10,000 people.² One important innovation for mitigating access deficiencies is telehealth. This should give individuals easier access to health-related services, not only in cases of sickness but also to supplement primary care.

2. Early symptoms and initial diagnosis Inaccurate or delayed initial diagnoses present a risk to the health of patients, can lead to inappropriate or unnecessary testing and treatment, and represents a significant share of total health expenditures. A medical second opinion service, especially for serious medical diagnoses, which can occur remotely, can help improve healthcare outcomes. Moreover, studies show that early and correct diagnosis opens up a greater range of curative treatment options and can reduce costs (e.g. for colon cancer, stage-four treatment costs are a multiple of stage-one treatment costs).³

3. New technology New early detection technologies can improve the ability to identify symptoms and diseases early: i. Advances in medical monitoring devices and wearable health technology, such as ECG and blood pressure monitors and biosensors, enable patients to take control of their own health and physical condition. This is an important trend that is expected to positively contribute to early detection, for example in atrial fibrillation and Alzheimers’ disease. ii. Diagnostic tools, using new biomarkers such as liquid biopsies or volatile organic compounds, together with the implementation of machine learning, can play an increasing role in areas such as oncology or infectious diseases.⁴

4. Regulation and Intervention Government regulation and intervention will be necessary to set ranges of normality, to prohibit or discourage overdiagnosis and to reduce incentives for providers to overtreat patients or to follow patients' inappropriate requests. In some countries, such as the US, there has been some success through capitation models and value-based care. Governments might also need to intervene to de-risk the innovation paradigm, such that private providers of capital feel able to invest more in the development of new detection technologies, in addition to proven business models in novel therapeutics.

OECD Health Working Papers No. 101 "How much do OECD countries spend on prevention" , 2017

World Health Organization; Global Health Observatory (GHO) data; https://www.who.int/gho/health_workforce/physicians_density/en/

Saving lives, averting costs; A report for Cancer Research UK, by Incisive Health, September 2014

Liquid Biopsy: Market Drivers And Obstacles; by Divyaa Ravishankar, Frost & Sullivan, January 21, 2019

Liquid Biopsies Become Cheap and Easy with New Microfluidic Device; February 26, 2019

How America’s 5 Top Hospitals are Using Machine Learning Today; by Kumba Sennaar, February 19, 2019

5. The business case for private investment in healthcare for all

Pascal Fröhlicher, Primary Care Innovation Scholar, Harvard Medical School, and Ian Wijaya, Managing Director in Lazard’s Global Healthcare Group

Faith, a mother of two, has just lost another customer. Some households where she is employed to clean, in a small town in South Africa, have little understanding of her medical needs. As a type 2 diabetes patient, this Zimbabwean woman visits the public clinic regularly, sometimes on short notice. At her last visit, after spending hours in a queue, she was finally told that the doctor could not see her. To avoid losing another day of work, she went to the local general practitioner to get her script, paying more than three daily wages for consultation and medication. Sadly, this fictional person reflects a reality for many people in middle-income countries.

Achieving universal health coverage by 2030, a key UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG), is at risk. The World Bank has identified a $176 billion funding gap , increasing every year due to the growing needs of an ageing population, with the health burden shifting towards non-communicable diseases (NCDs), now the major cause of death in emerging markets . Traditional sources of healthcare funding struggle to increase budgets sufficiently to cover this gap and only about 4% of private health care investments focus on diseases that primarily affect low- and middle-income countries.

In middle-income countries, private investors often focus on extending established businesses, including developing private hospital capacity, targeting consumers already benefiting from quality healthcare. As a result, an insufficient amount of private capital is invested in strengthening healthcare systems for everyone.

Why is this the case? We discussed with senior health executives investing in Lower and Middle Income Countries (LMIC) and the following reasons emerged:

• Small market size . Scaling innovations in healthcare requires dealing with country-specific regulatory frameworks and competing interest groups, resulting in high market entry cost.
• Talent . Several LMICs are losing nurses and doctors but also business and finance professionals to European and North American markets due to the lack of local opportunities and a significant difference in salaries.
• Untested business models with relatively low gross margins. Providing healthcare requires innovative business models where consumers’ willingness to pay often needs to be demonstrated over a significant period of time. Additionally, relatively low gross margins drive the need for scale to leverage administrative costs, which increases risk.
• Government Relations. The main buyer of health-related products and services is government; yet the relationship between public and private sectors often lacks trust, creating barriers to successful collaboration. Add to that significant political risk, as contracts can be cancelled by incoming administrations after elections. Many countries also lack comprehensive technology strategies to successfully manage technological innovation.
• Complexity of donor funding. A significant portion of healthcare is funded by private donors, whose priorities might not always be congruent with the health priorities of the government.

Notwithstanding these barriers, healthcare, specifically in middle-income settings, could present an attractive value proposition for private investors:

• Economic growth rates . A growing middle class is expanding the potential market for healthcare products and services.
• Alignment of incentives . A high ratio of out-of-pocket payments for healthcare services is often associated with low quality. However, innovative business models can turn out of pocket payments into the basis for a customer-centric value proposition, as the provider is required to compete for a share of disposable income.
• Emergence of National Health Insurance Schemes . South Africa, Ghana, Nigeria and others are building national health insurance schemes, increasing a population’s ability to fund healthcare services and products .
• Increased prevalence of NCDs. Given the increasing incidence of chronic diseases and the potential of using technology to address these diseases, new business opportunities for private investment exist.

Based on the context above, several areas in healthcare delivery can present compelling opportunities for private companies.

• Aggregation of existing players.
• Leveraging primary care infrastructure. Retail companies can leverage their real estate, infrastructure and supply chains to deploy primary care services at greater scale than is currently the case.
• Telemedicine . Telecommunications providers can leverage their existing infrastructure and customer base to provide payment mechanisms and telehealth services at scale. As seen during the COVID-19 pandemic, investment in telemedicine can ensure that patients receive timely and continuous care in spite of restrictions and lockdowns.
• Cost effective diagnostics . Diagnostic tools operated by frontline workers and combined with the expertise of specialists can provide timely and efficient care.

To fully realize these opportunities, government must incentivise innovation, provide clear regulatory frameworks and, most importantly, ensure that health priorities are adequately addressed.

Venture capital and private equity firms as well as large international corporations can identify the most commercially viable solutions and scale them into new markets. The ubiquity of NCDs and the requirement to reduce costs globally provides innovators with the opportunity to scale their tested solutions from LMICs to higher income environments.

Successful investment exits in LMICs and other private sector success stories will attract more private capital. Governments that enable and support private investment in their healthcare systems would, with appropriate governance and guidance, generate benefits to their populations and economies. The economic value of healthy populations has been proven repeatedly , and in the face of COVID-19, private sector investment can promote innovation and the development of responsible, sustainable solutions.

Faith – the diabetic mother we introduced at the beginning of this article - could keep her client. As a stable patient, she could measure her glucose level at home and enter the results in an app on her phone, part of her monthly diabetes programme with the company that runs the health centre. She visits the nurse-led facility at the local taxi stand on her way to work when her app suggests it. The nurse in charge of the centre treats Faith efficiently, and, if necessary, communicates with a primary care physician or even a specialist through the telemedicine functionality of her electronic health system.

Improving LMIC health systems is not only a business opportunity, but a moral imperative for public and private leaders. With the appropriate technology and political will, this can become a reality.

6. How could COVID-19 change the way we pay for health services?

John E. Ataguba, Associate Professor and Director, University of Cape Town and Matthew Guilford, Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Common Health

The emergence of the new severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-Cov-2), causing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has challenged both developing and developed countries.

Countries have approached the management of infections differently. Many people are curious to understand their health system’s performance on COVID-19, both at the national level and compared to international peers. Alongside limited resources for health, many developing countries may have weak health systems that can make it challenging to respond adequately to the pandemic.

Even before COVID-19, high rates of out-of-pocket spending on health meant that every year, 800 million people faced catastrophic healthcare costs ,100 million families were pushed into poverty, and millions more simply avoided care for critical conditions because they could not afford to pay for it.

The pandemic and its economic fallout have caused household incomes to decline at the same time as healthcare risks are rising. In some countries with insurance schemes, and especially for private health insurance, the following questions have arisen: How large is the co-payment for a COVID-19 test? If my doctor’s office is closed, will the telemedicine consultation be covered by my insurance? Will my coronavirus care be paid for regardless of how I contracted the virus? These and other doubts can prevent people from seeking medical care in some countries.

In Nigeria, like many other countries in Africa, the government bears the costs associated with testing and treating COVID-19 irrespective of the individual’s insurance status. In the public health sector, where COVID-19 cases are treated, health workers are paid monthly salaries while budgets are allocated to health facilities for other services. Hospitals continue to receive budget allocations to finance all health services including the management and treatment of COVID-19. That implies that funds allocated to address other health needs are reduced and that in turn could affect the availability and quality of health services.

Although health workers providing care for COVID-19 patients in isolation and treatment centres in Nigeria are paid salaries that are augmented with a special incentive package, the degree of impact on the quality improvement of services remains unclear. The traditional and historical allocation of budgets does not always address the needs of the whole population and could result in poor health services and under-provision of health services for COVID-19 patients.

In some countries, the reliance on out-of-pocket funding is hardly better for private providers, who encounter brand risks, operational difficulties, and – in extreme cases – the risk of creating “debtor prisons” as they seek to collect payment from patients. Ironically, despite the huge demand for medical services to diagnose and treat COVID-19, large healthcare institutions and individual healthcare practitioners alike are facing financial distress.

Dependence on a steady stream of fee-for-service payments for outpatient consultations and elective procedures is leading to pay cuts for doctors in India , forfeited Eid bonuses for nurses in Indonesia , and hospital bankruptcies in the United States . In a recent McKinsey & Company survey, 77% of physicians reported that their business would suffer in 2020 , and 46% were concerned about their practice surviving the coronavirus pandemic.

COVID-19 is exposing how fee-for-service, historical budget allocation and out-of-pocket financing methods can hinder the performance of the health system. Some providers and health systems that deployed “value-based” models prior to the pandemic have reported that these approaches have improved financial resilience during COVID-19 and may support better results for patients. Nevertheless, these types of innovations do not represent the dominant payment model in any country.

How health service providers are paid has implications for whether service users can get needed health services in a timely fashion, and at an appropriate quality and an affordable cost. By shifting from fee-for-service reimbursements to fixed "capitation" and performance-based payments, these models incentivize providers to improve quality and coordination while also guaranteeing a baseline income level, even during times of disruption.

Health service providers could be paid either in the form of salaries, a fee for services they provide, by capitation (whether adjusted or straightforward), through global budgets, or by using a case-based payment system (for example, the diagnostics-related groups), among others. Because there are different incentives to consider when adopting any of the methods, they could be combined to achieve a specific goal. For example, in some countries, health workers are paid salaries , and some specific services are paid on a fee-for-service basis.

Ideally, health services could be purchased strategically , incorporating aspects of provider performance in transferring funds to providers and accounting for the health needs of the population they serve.

In this regard, strategic purchasing for health has been advocated and should be highlighted as crucial with the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic. There is a need to ensure value in the way health providers are paid, inter alia to increase efficiency, ensure equity, and improve access to needed health services. Value-based payment methods, although not new in many countries, provide an avenue to encourage long-term value for money, better quality, and strategic purchasing for health, helping to build a healthier, more resilient world.

7. L essons in integrated care from the COVID-19 pandemic

Sarah Ziegler, Postdoctoral Researcher, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Zurich, and Ninie Wang, Founder & CEO, Pinetree Care Group.

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, people suffering non-communicable diseases (NCDs) have been at higher risk of becoming severely ill or dying. In Italy, 96.2% of people who died of COVID-19 lived with two or more chronic conditions.

Beyond the pandemic, cardiovascular disease, cancer, respiratory disease and diabetes are the leading burden of disease, with 41 million annual deaths. People with multimorbidity - a number of different conditions - often experience difficulties in accessing timely and coordinated healthcare, made worse when health systems are busy fighting against the pandemic.

Here is what happened in China with Lee, aged 62, who has been living with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) for the past five years.

Before the pandemic, Lee’s care manager coordinated a multi-disciplinary team of physicians, nurses, pulmonary rehabilitation therapists, psychologists and social workers to put together a personalized care plan for her. Following the care plan, Lee stopped smoking and paid special attention to her diet, sleep and physical exercises, as well as sticking to her medication and follow-up visits. She participated in a weekly community-based physical activity program to meet other COPD patients, including short walks and exchange experiences. A mobile care team supported her with weekly cleaning and grocery shopping.

Together with her family, Lee had follow-up visits to ensure her care plan reflected her recovery and to modify the plan if needed. These integrated care services brought pieces of care together, centered around Lee’s needs, and provided a continuum of care that helped keep Lee in the community with a good quality of life for as long as possible.

Since the COVID-19 outbreak, such NCD services have been disrupted by lockdowns, the cancellation of elective care and the fear of visiting care service . These factors particularly affected people living with NCDs like Lee. As such, Lee was not able to follow her care plan anymore. The mobile care team was unable to visit her weekly as they were deployed to provide COVID-19 relief. Lee couldn’t participate in her community-based program, follow up on her daily activities, or see her family or psychologists. This negatively affected Lee’s COPD management and led to poor management of her physical activity and healthy diet.

The pandemic highlights the need for a flexible and reliable integrated care system to enable healthcare delivery to all people no matter where they live, uzilizing approaches such as telemedicine and effective triaging to overcome care disruptions.

Lee’s care manager created short videos to assist her family through each step of her care and called daily to check in on the implementation of the plan and answer questions. Lee received tele-consultations, and was invited to the weekly webcast series that supported COPD patient communities. When her uncle passed away because of pneumonia complications from COVID-19 in early April, Lee’s care manager arranged a palliative care provider to support the family through the difficult time of bereavement and provided food and supplies during quarantine. Lee could even continue with her physical activity program with an online training coach. There were a total of 38 exercise videos for strengthening and stretching arms, legs and trunk, which she could complete at different levels of difficulty and with different numbers of repetitions.

Lee’s case demonstrates that early detection, prevention, and management of NCDs play a crucial role in a global pandemic response. It shows how we need to shift away from health systems designed around single diseases towards health systems designed for the multidimensional needs of individuals. As part of the pandemic responses, addressing and managing risks related to NCDs and prevention of their complications are critical to improve outcomes for vulnerable people like Lee.

How to design and deliver successful integrated care

The challenge for the successful transformation of healthcare is to tailor care system-wide to population needs. A 2016 WHO Framework on integrated people-centered health services developed a set of five general strategies for countries to progress towards people-centered and sustainable health systems, calling for a fundamental transformation not only in the way health services are delivered, but also in the way they are financed and managed . These strategies call for countries to:

• Engage and empower people / communities: an integrated care system must mobilize everyone to work together using all available resources, especially when continuity of essential health and community services for NCDs are at risk of being undermined.
• Strengthen governance and accountability, so that integration emphasizes rather than weakens leadership in every part of the system, and ensure that NCDs are included in national COVID-19 plans and future essential health services.
• Reorient the model of care to put the needs and perspectives of each person / family at the center of care planning and outcome measurement, rather than institutions.
• Coordinate services within and across sectors, for example, integrate inter-disciplinary medical care with social care, addressing wider socio-economic, environmental and behavioral determinants of health.
• Create an enabling environment, with clear objectives, supportive financing, regulations and insurance coverage for integrated care, including the development and use of systemic digital health care solutions.

Whether due to an unexpected pandemic or a gradual increase in the burden of NCDs, each person could face many health threats across the life-course.

Only systems that dynamically assess each person’s complex health needs and address them through a timely, well-coordinated and tailored mix of health and social care services will be able to deliver desired health outcomes over the longer term, ensuring an uninterrupted good quality of life for Lee and many others like her.

• Wang B, Li R, Lu Z, Huang Y. Does comorbidity increase the risk of patients with COVID-19: evidence from meta-analysis. Aging (Albany NY) 2020;12: 6049–57.
• WHO. Noncommunicable diseases in emergencies. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2016.
• WHO. COVID-19 significantly impacts health services for noncommunicable diseases. June 2020.
• Kluge HHP, Wickramasinghe K, Rippin HL, et al. Prevention and control of non-communicalbe diseases in the COVID-19 response. The Lancet. 2020. 395:1678-1680
• WHO. Framework on integrated people-centred health services. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2016.

8 . Why access to healthcare alone will not save lives

Donald Berwick, President Emeritus and Senior Fellow, Institute for Healthcare Improvement; Nicola Bedlington, Special Adviser, European Patient Forum; and David Duong, Director, Program in Global Primary Care and Social Change, Harvard Medical School.

Joyce lies next to 10 other women in bare single beds in the post-partum recovery room at a rural hospital in Uganda. Just an hour ago, Joyce gave birth to a healthy baby boy. She is now struggling with abdominal pain. A nurse walks by, and Joyce tries to call out, but the nurse was too busy to attend to her; she was the only nurse looking after 20 patients.

Another hour passes, and Joyce is shaking and sweating profusely. Joyce’s husband runs into the corridor to find a nurse to come and evaluate her. The nurse notices Joyce’s critical condition - a high fever and a low blood pressure - and she quickly calls the doctor. The medical team rushes Joyce to the intensive care unit. Joyce has a very severe blood stream infection. It takes another hour before antibiotics are started - too late. Joyce dies, leaving behind a newborn son and a husband. Joyce, like many before her, falls victim to a pervasive global threat: poor quality of care.

Adopted by United Nations (UN) in 2015, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) are a universal call to action to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure that all enjoy peace and prosperity by 2030. SDG 3 aims to ensure healthy lives and promote wellbeing for all. The 2019 UN General Assembly High Level Meeting on Universal Health Coverage (UHC) reaffirmed the need for the highest level of political commitment to health care for all.

However, progress towards UHC, often measured in terms of access, not outcomes, does not guarantee better health, as we can see from Joyce’s tragedy. This is also evident with the COVID-19 response. The rapidly evolving nature of the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted long-term structural inefficiencies and inequities in health systems and societies trying to mitigate the contagion and loss of life.

Systems are straining under significant pressure to ensure standards of care for both COVID-19 patients and other patients that run the risk of not receiving timely and appropriate care. Although poor quality of care has been a long-standing issue, it is imperative now more than ever that systems implement high-quality services as part of their efforts toward UHC.

Poor quality healthcare remains a challenge for countries at all levels of economic development: 10% of hospitalized patients acquire an infection during their hospitalization in low-and-middle income countries (LMIC), whereas 7% do in high-income countries. Poor quality healthcare disproportionally affects the poor and those in LMICs. Of the approximately 8.6 million deaths per year in 137 LMICs, 3.6 million are people who did not access the health system, whereas 5 million are people who sought and had access to services but received poor-quality care.

Joyce’s story is all too familiar; poor quality of care results in deaths from treatable diseases and conditions. Although the causes of death are often multifactorial, deaths and increased morbidity from treatable conditions are often a reflection of defects in the quality of care.

The large number of deaths and avoidable complications are also accompanied by substantial economic costs. In 2015 alone, 130 LMICs faced US $6 trillion in economic losses. Although there is concern that implementing quality measures may be a costly endeavor, it is clear that the economic toll associated with a lack of quality of care is far more troublesome and further stunts the socio-economic development of LMICs, made apparent with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Poor-quality care not only leads to adverse outcomes in terms of high morbidity and mortality, but it also impacts patient experience and patient confidence in health systems. Less than one-quarter of people in LMICs and approximately half of people in high-income countries believe that their health systems work well.

A lack of application and availability of evidenced-based guidelines is one key driver of poor-quality care. The rapidly changing landscape of medical knowledge and guidelines requires healthcare workers to have immediate access to current clinical resources. Despite our "information age", health providers are not accessing clinical guidelines or do not have access to the latest practical, lifesaving information.

Getting information to health workers in the places where it is most needed is a delivery challenge. Indeed, adherence to clinical practice guidelines in eight LMICs was below 50%, and in OECD countries, despite being a part of national guidelines, 19-53% of women aged 50-69 years did not receive mammography screening.4 The evidence in LMICs and HICs suggest that application of evidence-based guidelines lead to reduction in mortality and improved health outcomes.

Equally, the failure to change and continually improve the processes in health systems that support the workforce takes a high toll on quality of care. During the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, countries such as Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore and Vietnam, which adapted and improved their health systems after the SARS and H1N1 outbreaks, were able to rapidly mobilize a large-scale quarantine and contact tracing strategy, supported with effective and coordinated mass communication.

These countries not only mitigated the economic and mortality damage, but also prevented their health systems and workforce from enduring extreme burden and inability to maintain critical medical supplies. In all nations, investing in healthcare organizations to enable them to become true “learning health care systems,” aiming at continual quality improvement, would yield major population health and health system gains.

The COVID-19 pandemic underscores the importance for health systems to be learning systems. Once the dust settles, we need to focus, collectively, on learning from this experience and adapting our health systems to be more resilient for the next one. This implies a need for commitment to and investment in global health cooperation, improvement in health care leadership, and change management.

With strong political and financial commitment to UHC, and its demonstrable effect in addressing crises such as COVID-19, for the first time, the world has a viable chance of UHC becoming a reality. However, without an equally strong political, managerial, and financial commitment to continually improving, high-quality health services, UHC will remain an empty promise.

1. United Nations General Assembly. Political declaration of the high-level meeting on universal health coverage. New York, NY2019.

2. Marmot M, Allen J, Boyce T, Goldblatt P, Morrison J. Health equity in England: the Marmot review 10 years on. Institute of Health Equity;2020.

3. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine: Committee on Improving the Quality of Health Care Globally. Crossing the global quality chasm: Improving health care worldwide. Washington, DC: National Academies Press;2018.

4. World Health Organization, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, World Bank Group. Delivering quality health services: a global imperative for universal health coverage. World Health Organization; 2018.

5. Kruk ME, Gage AD, Arsenault C, et al. High-quality health systems in the Sustainable Development Goals era: time for a revolution. The Lancet Global Health. 2018;6(11):e1196-e1252.

6. Ricci-Cabello I, Violán C, Foguet-Boreu Q, Mounce LT, Valderas JM. Impact of multi-morbidity on quality of healthcare and its implications for health policy, research and clinical practice. A scoping review. European Journal of General Practice. 2015;21(3):192-202.

7. Valtis YK, Rosenberg J, Bhandari S, et al. Evidence-based medicine for all: what we can learn from a programme providing free access to an online clinical resource to health workers in resource-limited settings. BMJ global health. 2016;1(1).

8. Institute of Medicine. Best Care at Lower Cost: The Path to Continuously Learning Health Care in America . Washington, DC: National Academies Press 2012.

The Case for Universal Healthcare: Ensuring Health as a Human Right

This essay is about the importance of universal healthcare and argues that healthcare should be accessible to everyone, regardless of financial status. It emphasizes that health is a basic human right and that universal healthcare promotes equality, economic benefits, and social cohesion. The essay highlights how universal healthcare can reduce overall healthcare costs through preventative care, alleviate medical debt, and address health disparities among different socio-economic groups. It also counters criticisms about increased government spending by pointing out the long-term economic gains and successful examples from countries with universal healthcare systems. The essay concludes that universal healthcare is essential for a just and prosperous society.

How it works

The domain of healthcare constitutes a quintessential facet of human existence, engendering a discourse spanning the global spectrum regarding its universal accessibility. The contention surrounding this issue remains fervent and pervasive. There exist compelling rationales advocating for the universality of healthcare, positing it as an entitlement irrespective of one’s pecuniary status. At the crux of this discourse lies the axiom that healthcare embodies an elemental human entitlement, indispensable for the sustenance and flourishing of individuals and collectives alike. This exposition shall delve into the imperative for the universal accessibility of healthcare, scrutinizing diverse vantages and ramifications.

Primarily and paramountly, the accessibility of healthcare epitomizes an inalienable human entitlement. The capacity to procure medical attention in times of exigency stands as a linchpin for leading a fruitful and gratifying existence. The deprivation of healthcare owing to fiscal constraints constitutes a transgression against this foundational entitlement. Across myriad societies, the chasms in healthcare access are glaring, with indigent individuals and households often precluded from availing themselves of indispensable medical amenities. This schism not only adversely impacts the individuals directly implicated but also begets broader societal repercussions. Robust individuals serve as societal assets, fostering positive contributions both economically and socially. Ensuring equitable access to healthcare stands as a stride toward actualizing parity and socio-judicial rectitude.

Moreover, the universality of healthcare holds the potential for substantial economic dividends. Prophylactic measures, which are more apt to be embraced in an environment where healthcare is universally accessible, harbor the potential to curtail the incidence of grave maladies necessitating exorbitant remediation. Preventative interventions, encompassing immunizations, routine check-ups, and timely interventions, epitomize cost-efficient modalities for nurturing public health. By preemptively addressing health maladies, individuals can forestall the onset of more severe health adversities, which are prodigiously dearer to rectify and manage. This not only mitigates aggregate healthcare expenditures but also alleviates the financial encumbrance borne by individuals and households. Additionally, a robust populace fosters heightened productivity, engendering augmented economic outputs and diminished absenteeism within occupational spheres. Nations espousing universal healthcare paradigms, such as Canada and the United Kingdom, frequently manifest superior health outcomes and reduced healthcare expenditures vis-à-vis nations bereft of analogous frameworks.

Another salient contention for universal healthcare pertains to its ameliorative impact on the specter of medical indebtedness. In nations devoid of universal healthcare, healthcare expenses can burgeon precipitously, precipitating fiscal destitution for myriad families. In the United States, for instance, medical indebtedness ranks among the preeminent triggers for insolvency. Families grappling with towering medical bills are frequently confronted with onerous choices, compelled to arbitrate between defraying healthcare expenses and attending to other imperative requisites, such as habitation, education, and sustenance. This fiscal exigency can engender enduring repercussions, perpetuating cycles of indigence and circumscribing prospects for economic ascension. By extending healthcare to all denizens, the onus of medical indebtedness is alleviated, endowing individuals with the latitude to concentrate on their health and well-being sans the augmented stressors borne of fiscal adversity.

Universal healthcare further assumes a pivotal mantle in mitigating health disparateness. Across sundry nations, yawning lacunae in health outcomes between disparate socio-economic cohorts are palpable. These disparages frequently stem from disparate access to healthcare amenities. Low-income denizens and marginalized communities are predisposed to deleterious health outcomes due to their incapacity to defray requisite medical expenses. By effectuating the universality of healthcare, these disparages can be attenuated, fostering more equanimous health outcomes. This assumes particular salience for susceptible demographics, such as the aged, juveniles, and those afflicted by chronic infirmities, who may be disproportionately impacted by the paucity of healthcare access. Ensuring equitable access to commensurate calibers of care fosters societal cohesion and undergirds the fortification of healthier communities.

Furthermore, universal healthcare engenders social equilibrium and engenders confidence in governance. When denizens perceive their cardinal exigencies to be met, they are more predisposed to vest their trust in and buttress their governance and societal apparatuses. This can usher in a milieu typified by stability and serenity, wherein individuals are predisposed to contribute to the commonweal. Conversely, when sizable cohorts of the populace are precluded from pivotal services like healthcare, it can foment societal tumult and schism. Universal healthcare can help efface these schisms, fostering a sense of solidarity and shared accountability.

Detractors of universal healthcare often propound that its instantiation augurs augmented governmental expenditures and amplified levies. While it holds veracity that endowing universal healthcare necessitates substantial investment, the concomitant longue durée boons frequently eclipse the outlays. By fostering a milieu of hale and hearty populace, abating medical indebtedness, and augmenting productivity, the economic dividends can offset the initial disbursements. Furthermore, myriad nations boasting universal healthcare frameworks manage to furnish superlative care sans extravagant outlays, attesting to the feasibility of striking an equilibrium between affordability and accessibility. Adroit management and apportionment of resources constitute cardinal tenets for rendering universal healthcare sustainable and efficacious.

Another focal point of contention pivots upon the caliber of care attendant upon universal healthcare paradigms. Certain quarters posit that the instantiation of universal healthcare might engender a debasement in the caliber of care, owing to the concomitant surge in demand and strain upon extant systems. Notwithstanding, empirical evidence gleaned from nations espousing entrenched universal healthcare systems proffers a contrarian narrative. Such nations oftentimes boast robust healthcare infrastructures, comprehensive training regimens for healthcare practitioners, and meticulously regulated benchmarks of care. By prioritizing preventative care and premature interventions, universal healthcare systems can sustain superlative care standards while efficaciously managing demand.

Universal healthcare, in addition, propounds a more holistic paradigm vis-à-vis health and well-being. When healthcare is rendered universally accessible, greater accentuation is accorded to preventative care, mental health services, and communal health initiatives. This comprehensive framework addresses the root causatives of health maladies and champions holistic well-being. By synthesizing corporeal, cerebral, and communal health amenities, universal healthcare can precipitate ameliorated health outcomes and a loftier quality of life for individuals and collectives.

The ethical rationale for universal healthcare is also compelling. In an equitable and just society, every denizen ought to be endowed with the opportunity to attain optimal health. The preclusion of healthcare predicated upon one’s fiscal prowess is fundamentally unjust, perpetuating inequity and undercutting the underpinnings of parity and human dignity. Universal healthcare constitutes a moral mandate, consonant with the tenets of benevolence, empathy, and societal responsibility.

The COVID-19 pandemic has additionally underscored the exigency for universal healthcare. The pandemic laid bare the vulnerabilities and lacunae entrenched within healthcare systems across the globe, particularly in jurisdictions bereft of universal healthcare frameworks. The accessibility of healthcare metamorphosed into a veritable matter of life and death, underscoring the import of having a system undergirding the capacity of all to receive medical care in epochs of crisis. Universal healthcare not only bolsters the resilience of healthcare infrastructures but also amplifies their responsiveness to exigent health crises. By provisioning comprehensive coverage, universal healthcare can better safeguard individuals and collectives from the repercussions of pandemics and sundry health exigencies.

In summation, the assertion for universal healthcare stands as robust and manifold. It constitutes a crucible of human rights, economic efficacy, societal equity, and societal stability. Guaranteeing universal access to healthcare is a sine qua non for cultivating healthier, more fecund, and more equitable societies. The long-range benefits of universal healthcare eclipse the tribulations thereof, rendering it an indispensable constituent of a fair and flourishing society. As we continue to broach the discourse apropos the future of healthcare, it behooves us to retain the fundamental dictum that health is an entitlement, not a privilege. By committing to universal healthcare, we can espouse a society that prizes the health and well-being of all its constituents, auguring a future wherein all are endowed with the opportunity to lead robust and gratifying lives.

Cite this page

The Case for Universal Healthcare: Ensuring Health as a Human Right. (2024, May 21). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/the-case-for-universal-healthcare-ensuring-health-as-a-human-right/

"The Case for Universal Healthcare: Ensuring Health as a Human Right." PapersOwl.com , 21 May 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/the-case-for-universal-healthcare-ensuring-health-as-a-human-right/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Case for Universal Healthcare: Ensuring Health as a Human Right . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-case-for-universal-healthcare-ensuring-health-as-a-human-right/ [Accessed: 23 May. 2024]

"The Case for Universal Healthcare: Ensuring Health as a Human Right." PapersOwl.com, May 21, 2024. Accessed May 23, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/the-case-for-universal-healthcare-ensuring-health-as-a-human-right/

"The Case for Universal Healthcare: Ensuring Health as a Human Right," PapersOwl.com , 21-May-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-case-for-universal-healthcare-ensuring-health-as-a-human-right/. [Accessed: 23-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Case for Universal Healthcare: Ensuring Health as a Human Right . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-case-for-universal-healthcare-ensuring-health-as-a-human-right/ [Accessed: 23-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Health Care Comes Home: The Human Factors (2011)

Chapter: 7 conclusions and recommendations.

7 Conclusions and Recommendations

Health care is moving into the home increasingly often and involving a mixture of people, a variety of tasks, and a broad diversity of devices and technologies; it is also occurring in a range of residential environments. The factors driving this migration include the rising costs of providing health care; the growing numbers of older adults; the increasing prevalence of chronic disease; improved survival rates of various diseases, injuries, and other conditions (including those of fragile newborns); large numbers of veterans returning from war with serious injuries; and a wide range of technological innovations. The health care that results varies considerably in its safety, effectiveness, and efficiency, as well as its quality and cost.

The committee was charged with examining this major trend in health care delivery and resulting challenges from only one of many perspectives: the study of human factors. From the outset it was clear that the dramatic and evolving change in health care practice and policies presents a broad array of opportunities and problems. Consequently the committee endeavored to maintain focus specifically on how using the human factors approach can provide solutions that support maximizing the safety and quality of health care delivered in the home while empowering both care recipients and caregivers in the effort.

The conclusions and recommendations presented below reflect the most critical steps that the committee thinks should be taken to improve the state of health care in the home, based on the literature reviewed in this report examined through a human factors lens. They are organized into four areas: (1) health care technologies, including medical devices and health information technologies involved in health care in the home; (2)

caregivers and care recipients; (3) residential environments for health care; and (4) knowledge gaps that require additional research and development. Although many issues related to home health care could not be addressed, applications of human factors principles, knowledge, and research methods in these areas could make home health care safer and more effective and also contribute to reducing costs. The committee chose not to prioritize the recommendations, as they focus on various aspects of health care in the home and are of comparable importance to the different constituencies affected.

HEALTH CARE TECHNOLOGIES

Health care technologies include medical devices that are used in the home as well as information technologies related to home-based health care. The four recommendations in this area concern (1) regulating technologies for health care consumers, (2) developing guidance on the structure and usability of health information technologies, (3) developing guidance and standards for medical device labeling, and (4) improving adverse event reporting systems for medical devices. The adoption of these recommendations would improve the usability and effectiveness of technology systems and devices, support users in understanding and learning to use them, and improve feedback to government and industry that could be used to further improve technology for home care.

Ensuring the safety of emerging technologies is a challenge, in part because it is not always clear which federal agency has regulatory authority and what regulations must be met. Currently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has responsibility for devices, and the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) has similar authority with respect to health information technology. However, the dividing line between medical devices and health information technology is blurring, and many new systems and applications are being developed that are a combination of the two, although regulatory oversight has remained divided. Because regulatory responsibility for them is unclear, these products may fall into the gap.

The committee did not find a preponderance of evidence that knowledge is lacking for the design of safe and effective devices and technologies for use in the home. Rather than discovering an inadequate evidence base, we were troubled by the insufficient attention directed at the development of devices that account, necessarily and properly, for users who are inadequately trained or not trained at all. Yet these new users often must

rely on equipment without ready knowledge about limitations, maintenance requirements, and problems with adaptation to their particular home settings.

The increased prominence of the use of technology in the health care arena poses predictable challenges for many lay users, especially people with low health literacy, cognitive impairment, or limited technology experience. For example, remote health care management may be more effective when it is supported by technology, and various electronic health care (“e-health”) applications have been developed for this purpose. With the spectrum of caregivers ranging from individuals caring for themselves or other family members to highly experienced professional caregivers, computer-based care management systems could offer varying levels of guidance, reminding, and alerting, depending on the sophistication of the operator and the criticality of the message. However, if these technologies or applications are difficult to understand or use, they may be ignored or misused, with potentially deleterious effects on care recipient health and safety. Applying existing accessibility and usability guidelines and employing user-centered design and validation methods in the development of health technology products designed for use in the home would help ensure that they are safe and effective for their targeted user populations. In this effort, it is important to recognize how the line between medical devices and health information technologies has become blurred while regulatory oversight has remained distinct, and it is not always clear into which domain a product falls.

Recommendation 1. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology should collaborate to regulate, certify, and monitor health care applications and systems that integrate medical devices and health information technologies. As part of the certification process, the agencies should require evidence that manufacturers have followed existing accessibility and usability guidelines and have applied user-centered design and validation methods during development of the product.

Guidance and Standards

Developers of information technologies related to home-based health care, as yet, have inadequate or incomplete guidance regarding product content, structure, accessibility, and usability to inform innovation or evolution of personal health records or of care recipient access to information in electronic health records.

The ONC, in the initial announcement of its health information technology certification program, stated that requirements would be forthcom-

ing with respect both to personal health records and to care recipient access to information in electronic health records (e.g., patient portals). Despite the importance of these requirements, there is still no guidance on the content of information that should be provided to patients or minimum standards for accessibility, functionality, and usability of that information in electronic or nonelectronic formats.

Consequently, some portals have been constructed based on the continuity of care record. However, recent research has shown that records and portals based on this model are neither understandable nor interpretable by laypersons, even by those with a college education. The lack of guidance in this area makes it difficult for developers of personal health records and patient portals to design systems that fully address the needs of consumers.

Recommendation 2. The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, in collaboration with the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, should establish design guidelines and standards, based on existing accessibility and usability guidelines, for content, accessibility, functionality, and usability of consumer health information technologies related to home-based health care.

The committee found a serious lack of adequate standards and guidance for the labeling of medical devices. Furthermore, we found that the approval processes of the FDA for changing these materials are burdensome and inflexible.

Just as many medical devices currently in use by laypersons in the home were originally designed and approved for use only by professionals in formal health care facilities, the instructions for use and training materials were not designed for lay users, either. The committee recognizes that lack of instructional materials for lay users adds to the level of risk involved when devices are used by populations for whom they were not intended.

Ironically, the FDA’s current premarket review and approval processes inadvertently discourage manufacturers from selectively revising or developing supplemental instructional and training materials, when they become aware that instructional and training materials need to be developed or revised for lay users of devices already approved and marketed. Changing the instructions for use (which were approved with the device) requires manufacturers to submit the device along with revised instructions to the FDA for another 510(k) premarket notification review. Since manufacturers can find these reviews complicated, time-consuming, and expensive, this requirement serves as a disincentive to appropriate revisions of instructional or training materials.

Furthermore, little guidance is currently available on design of user

training methods and materials for medical devices. Even the recently released human factors standard on medical device design (Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation, 2009), while reasonably comprehensive, does not cover the topic of training or training materials. Both FDA guidance and existing standards that do specifically address the design of labeling and ensuing instructions for use fail to account for up-to-date findings from research on instructional systems design. In addition, despite recognition that requirements for user training, training materials, and instructions for use are different for lay and professional users of medical equipment, these differences are not reflected in current standards.

Recommendation 3. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should promote development (by standards development organizations, such as the International Electrotechnical Commission, the International Organization for Standardization, the American National Standards Institute, and the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation) of new standards based on the most recent human factors research for the labeling of and ensuing instructional materials for medical devices designed for home use by lay users. The FDA should also tailor and streamline its approval processes to facilitate and encourage regular improvements of these materials by manufacturers.

Adverse Event Reporting Systems

The committee notes that the FDA’s adverse event reporting systems, used to report problems with medical devices, are not user-friendly, especially for lay users, who generally are not aware of the systems, unaware that they can use them to report problems, and uneducated about how to do so. In order to promote safe use of medical devices in the home and rectify design problems that put care recipients at risk, it is necessary that the FDA conduct more effective postmarket surveillance of medical devices to complement its premarket approval process. The most important elements of their primarily passive surveillance system are the current adverse event reporting mechanisms, including Maude and MedSun. Entry of incident data by health care providers and consumers is not straightforward, and the system does not elicit data that could be useful to designers as they develop updated versions of products or new ones that are similar to existing devices. The reporting systems and their importance need to be widely promoted to a broad range of users, especially lay users.

Recommendation 4. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration should improve its adverse event reporting systems to be easier to use, to collect data that are more useful for identifying the root causes of events

related to interactions with the device operator, and to develop and promote a more convenient way for lay users as well as professionals to report problems with medical devices.

CAREGIVERS IN THE HOME

Health care is provided in the home by formal caregivers (health care professionals), informal caregivers (family and friends), and individuals who self-administer care; each type of caregiver faces unique issues. Properly preparing individuals to provide care at home depends on targeting efforts appropriately to the background, experience, and knowledge of the caregivers. To date, however, home health care services suffer from being organized primarily around regulations and payments designed for inpatient or outpatient acute care settings. Little attention has been given to how different the roles are for formal caregivers when delivering services in the home or to the specific types of training necessary for appropriate, high-quality practice in this environment.

Health care administration in the home commonly involves interaction among formal caregivers and informal caregivers who share daily responsibility for a person receiving care. But few formal caregivers are given adequate training on how to work with informal caregivers and involve them effectively in health decision making, use of medical or adaptive technologies, or best practices to be used for evaluating and supporting the needs of caregivers.

It is also important to recognize that the majority of long-term care provided to older adults and individuals with disabilities relies on family members, friends, or the individual alone. Many informal caregivers take on these responsibilities without necessary education or support. These individuals may be poorly prepared and emotionally overwhelmed and, as a result, experience stress and burden that can lead to their own morbidity. The committee is aware that informational and training materials and tested programs already exist to assist informal caregivers in understanding the many details of providing health care in the home and to ease their burden and enhance the quality of life of both caregiver and care recipient. However, tested materials and education, support, and skill enhancement programs have not been adequately disseminated or integrated into standard care practices.

Recommendation 5. Relevant professional practice and advocacy groups should develop appropriate certification, credentialing, and/or training standards that will prepare formal caregivers to provide care in the home, develop appropriate informational and training materials

for informal caregivers, and provide guidance for all caregivers to work effectively with other people involved.

RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTS FOR HEALTH CARE

Health care is administered in a variety of nonclinical environments, but the most common one, particularly for individuals who need the greatest level and intensity of health care services, is the home. The two recommendations in this area encourage (1) modifications to existing housing and (2) accessible and universal design of new housing. The implementation of these recommendations would be a good start on an effort to improve the safety and ease of practicing health care in the home. It could improve the health and safety of many care recipients and their caregivers and could facilitate adherence to good health maintenance and treatment practices. Ideally, improvements to housing design would take place in the context of communities that provide transportation, social networking and exercise opportunities, and access to health care and other services.

Safety and Modification of Existing Housing

The committee found poor appreciation of the importance of modifying homes to remove health hazards and barriers to self-management and health care practice and, furthermore, that financial support from federal assistance agencies for home modifications is very limited. The general connection between housing characteristics and health is well established. For example, improving housing conditions to enhance basic sanitation has long been part of a public health response to acute illness. But the characteristics of the home can present significant barriers to autonomy or self-care management and present risk factors for poor health, injury, compromised well-being, and greater dependence on others. Conversely, physical characteristics of homes can enhance resident safety and ability to participate in daily self-care and to utilize effectively health care technologies that are designed to enhance health and well-being.

Home modifications based on professional home assessments can increase functioning, contribute to reducing accidents such as falls, assist caregivers, and enable chronically ill persons and people with disabilities to stay in the community. Such changes are also associated with facilitating hospital discharges, decreasing readmissions, reducing hazards in the home, and improving care coordination. Familiar modifications include installation of such items as grab bars, handrails, stair lifts, increased lighting, and health monitoring equipment as well as reduction of such hazards as broken fixtures and others caused by insufficient home maintenance.

Deciding on which home modifications have highest priority in a given

setting depends on an appropriate assessment of circumstances and the environment. A number of home assessment instruments and programs have been validated and proven to be effective to meet this need. But even if needed modifications are properly identified and prioritized, inadequate funding, gaps in services, and lack of coordination between the health and housing service sectors have resulted in a poorly integrated system that is difficult to access. Even when accessed, progress in making home modifications available has been hampered by this lack of coordination and inadequate reimbursement or financial mechanisms, especially for those who cannot afford them.

Recommendation 6. Federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, along with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Department of Energy, should collaborate to facilitate adequate and appropriate access to health- and safety-related home modifications, especially for those who cannot afford them. The goal should be to enable persons whose homes contain obstacles, hazards, or features that pose a home safety concern, limit self-care management, or hinder the delivery of needed services to obtain home assessments, home modifications, and training in their use.

Accessibility and Universal Design of New Housing

Almost all existing housing in the United States presents problems for conducting health-related activities because physical features limit independent functioning, impede caregiving, and contribute to such accidents as falls. In spite of the fact that a large and growing number of persons, including children, adults, veterans, and older adults, have disabilities and chronic conditions, new housing continues to be built that does not account for their needs (current or future). Although existing homes can be modified to some extent to address some of the limitations, a proactive, preventive, and effective approach would be to plan to address potential problems in the design phase of new and renovated housing, before construction.

Some housing is already required to be built with basic accessibility features that facilitate practice of health care in the home as a result of the Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1998. And 17 states and 30 cities have passed what are called “visitability” codes, which currently apply to 30,000 homes. Some localities offer tax credits, such as Pittsburgh through an ordinance, to encourage installing visitability features in new and renovated housing. The policy in Pittsburgh was impetus for the Pennsylvania Residential VisitAbility Design Tax Credit Act signed into law on October 28, 2006, which offers property owners a tax credit for new construction

and rehabilitation. The Act paves the way for municipalities to provide tax credits to citizens by requiring that such governing bodies administer the tax credit (Self-Determination Housing Project of Pennsylvania, Inc., n.d.).

Visitability, rather than full accessibility, is characterized by such limited features as an accessible entry into the home, appropriately wide doorways and one accessible bathroom. Both the International Code Council, which focuses on building codes, and the American National Standards Institute, which establishes technical standards, including ones associated with accessibility, have endorsed voluntary accessibility standards. These standards facilitate more jurisdictions to pass such visitability codes and encourage legislative consistency throughout the country. To date, however, the federal government has not taken leadership to promote compliance with such standards in housing construction, even for housing for which it provides financial support.

Universal design, a broader and more comprehensive approach than visitability, is intended to suit the needs of persons of all ages, sizes, and abilities, including individuals with a wide range of health conditions and activity limitations. Steps toward universal design in renovation could include such features as anti-scald faucet valve devices, nonslip flooring, lever handles on doors, and a bedroom on the main floor. Such features can help persons and their caregivers carry out everyday tasks and reduce the incidence of serious and costly accidents (e.g., falls, burns). In the long run, implementing universal design in more homes will result in housing that suits the long-term needs of more residents, provides more housing choices for persons with chronic conditions and disabilities, and causes less forced relocation of residents to more costly settings, such as nursing homes.

Issues related to housing accessibility have been acknowledged at the federal level. For example, visitability and universal design are in accord with the objectives of the Safety of Seniors Act (Public Law No. 110-202, passed in 2008). In addition, implementation of the Olmstead decision (in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Americans with Disabilities Act may require states to provide community-based services rather than institutional placements for individuals with disabilities) requires affordable and accessible housing in the community.

Visitability, accessibility, and universal design of housing all are important to support the practice of health care in the home, but they are not broadly implemented and incentives for doing so are few.

Recommendation 7. Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Federal Housing Administration, should take a lead role, along with states and local municipalities, to develop strategies that promote and facilitate increased housing visitability, accessibil-

ity, and universal design in all segments of the market. This might include tax and other financial incentives, local zoning ordinances, model building codes, new products and designs, and related policies that are developed as appropriate with standards-setting organizations (e.g., the International Code Council, the International Electrotechnical Commission, the International Organization for Standardization, and the American National Standards Institute).

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

In our review of the research literature, the committee learned that there is ample foundational knowledge to apply a human factors lens to home health care, particularly as improvements are considered to make health care safe and effective in the home. However, much of what is known is not being translated effectively into practice, neither in design of equipment and information technology or in the effective targeting and provision of services to all those in need. Consequently, the four recommendations that follow support research and development to address knowledge and communication gaps and facilitate provision of high-quality health care in the home. Specifically, the committee recommends (1) research to enhance coordination among all the people who play a role in health care practice in the home, (2) development of a database of medical devices in order to facilitate device prescription, (3) improved surveys of the people involved in health care in the home and their residential environments, and (4) development of tools for assessing the tasks associated with home-based health care.

Health Care Teamwork and Coordination

Frail elders, adults with disabilities, disabled veterans, and children with special health care needs all require coordination of the care services that they receive in the home. Home-based health care often involves a large number of elements, including multiple care providers, support services, agencies, and complex and dynamic benefit regulations, which are rarely coordinated. However, coordinating those elements has a positive effect on care recipient outcomes and costs of care. When successful, care coordination connects caregivers, improves communication among caregivers and care recipients and ensures that receivers of care obtain appropriate services and resources.

To ensure safe, effective, and efficient care, everyone involved must collaborate as a team with shared objectives. Well-trained primary health care teams that execute customized plans of care are a key element of coordinated care; teamwork and communication among all actors are also

essential to successful care coordination and the delivery of high-quality care. Key factors that influence the smooth functioning of a team include a shared understanding of goals, common information (such as a shared medication list), knowledge of available resources, and allocation and coordination of tasks conducted by each team member.

Barriers to coordination include insufficient resources available to (a) help people who need health care at home to identify and establish connections to appropriate sources of care, (b) facilitate communication and coordination among caregivers involved in home-based health care, and (c) facilitate communication among the people receiving and the people providing health care in the home.

The application of systems analysis techniques, such as task analysis, can help identify problems in care coordination systems and identify potential intervention strategies. Human factors research in the areas of communication, cognitive aiding and decision support, high-fidelity simulation training techniques, and the integration of telehealth technologies could also inform improvements in care coordination.

Recommendation 8 . The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality should support human factors–based research on the identified barriers to coordination of health care services delivered in the home and support user-centered development and evaluation of programs that may overcome these barriers.

Medical Device Database

It is the responsibility of physicians to prescribe medical devices, but in many cases little information is readily available to guide them in determining the best match between the devices available and a particular care recipient. No resource exists for medical devices, in contrast to the analogous situation in the area of assistive and rehabilitation technologies, for which annotated databases (such as AbleData) are available to assist the provider in determining the most appropriate one of several candidate devices for a given care recipient. Although specialists are apt to receive information about devices specific to the area of their practice, this is much less likely in the case of family and general practitioners, who often are responsible for selecting, recommending, or prescribing the most appropriate device for use at home.

Recommendation 9. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, in collaboration with device manufacturers, should establish a medical device database for physicians and other providers, including pharmacists, to use when selecting appropriate devices to prescribe or recommend

for people receiving or self-administering health care in the home. Using task analysis and other human factors approaches to populate the medical device database will ensure that it contains information on characteristics of the devices and implications for appropriate care recipient and device operator populations.

Characterizing Caregivers, Care Recipients, and Home Environments

As delivery of health care in the home becomes more common, more coherent strategies and effective policies are needed to support the workforce of individuals who provide this care. Developing these will require a comprehensive understanding of the number and attributes of individuals engaged in health care in the home as well as the context in which care is delivered. Data and data analysis are lacking to accomplish this objective.

National data regarding the numbers of individuals engaged in health care delivery in the home—that is, both formal and informal caregivers—are sparse, and the estimates that do exist vary widely. Although the Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes estimates of the number of workers employed in the home setting for some health care classifications, they do not include all relevant health care workers. For example, data on workers employed directly by care recipients and their families are notably absent. Likewise, national estimates of the number of informal caregivers are obtained from surveys that use different methodological approaches and return significantly different results.

Although numerous national surveys have been designed to answer a broad range of questions regarding health care delivery in the home, with rare exceptions such surveys reflect the relatively limited perspective of the sponsoring agency. For example,

• The Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) and the Health and Retirement Survey (administered by the National Institute on Aging) are primarily geared toward understanding the health, health services use, and/or economic well-being of older adults and provide no information regarding working-age adults or children or information about home or neighborhood environments.
• The Behavioral Risk Factors Surveillance Survey (administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC), the National Health Interview Survey (administered by the CDC), and the National Children’s Study (administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) all collect information on health characteristics, with limited or no information about the housing context.
• The American Housing Survey (administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) collects detailed information regarding housing, but it does not include questions regarding the health status of residents and does not collect adequate information about home modifications and features on an ongoing basis.

Consequently, although multiple federal agencies collect data on the sociodemographic and health characteristics of populations and on the nation’s housing stock, none of these surveys collects data necessary to link the home, its residents, and the presence of any caregivers, thus limiting understanding of health care delivered in the home. Furthermore, information is altogether lacking about health and functioning of populations linked to the physical, social, and cultural environments in which they live. Finally, in regard to individuals providing care, information is lacking regarding their education, training, competencies, and credentialing, as well as appropriate knowledge about their working conditions in the home.

Better coordination across government agencies that sponsor such surveys and more attention to information about health care that occurs in the home could greatly improve the utility of survey findings for understanding the prevalence and nature of health care delivery in the home.

Recommendation 10. Federal health agencies should coordinate data collection efforts to capture comprehensive information on elements relevant to health care in the home, either in a single survey or through effective use of common elements across surveys. The surveys should collect data on the sociodemographic and health characteristics of individuals receiving care in the home, the sociodemographic attributes of formal and informal caregivers and the nature of the caregiving they provide, and the attributes of the residential settings in which the care recipients live.

Tools for Assessing Home Health Care Tasks and Operators

Persons caring for themselves or others at home as well as formal caregivers vary considerably in their skills, abilities, attitudes, experience, and other characteristics, such as age, culture/ethnicity, and health literacy. In turn, designers of health-related devices and technology systems used in the home are often naïve about the diversity of the user population. They need high-quality information and guidance to better understand user capabilities relative to the task demands of the health-related device or technology that they are developing.

In this environment, valid and reliable tools are needed to match users with tasks and technologies. At this time, health care providers lack the

tools needed to assess whether particular individuals would be able to perform specific health care tasks at home, and medical device and system designers lack information on the demands associated with health-related tasks performed at home and the human capabilities needed to perform them successfully.

Whether used to assess the characteristics of formal or informal caregivers or persons engaged in self-care, task analysis can be used to develop point-of-care tools for use by consumers and caregivers alike in locations where such tasks are encouraged or prescribed. The tools could facilitate identification of potential mismatches between the characteristics, abilities, experiences, and attitudes that an individual brings to a task and the demands associated with the task. Used in ambulatory care settings, at hospital discharge or other transitions of care, and in the home by caregivers or individuals and family members themselves, these tools could enable assessment of prospective task performer’s capabilities in relation to the demands of the task. The tools might range in complexity from brief screening checklists for clinicians to comprehensive assessment batteries that permit nuanced study and tracking of home-based health care tasks by administrators and researchers. The results are likely to help identify types of needed interventions and support aids that would enhance the abilities of individuals to perform health care tasks in home settings safely, effectively, and efficiently.

Recommendation 11. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality should collaborate, as necessary, with the National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research, the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to support development of assessment tools customized for home-based health care, designed to analyze the demands of tasks associated with home-based health care, the operator capabilities required to carry them out, and the relevant capabilities of specific individuals.

Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. (2009). ANSI/AAMI HE75:2009: Human factors engineering: Design of medical devices. Available: http://www.aami.org/publications/standards/HE75_Ch16_Access_Board.pdf [April 2011].

Self-Determination Housing Project of Pennsylvania, Inc. (n.d.) Promoting visitability in Pennsylvania. Available: http://www.sdhp.org/promoting_visitability_in_pennsy.htm [March 30, 2011].

In the United States, health care devices, technologies, and practices are rapidly moving into the home. The factors driving this migration include the costs of health care, the growing numbers of older adults, the increasing prevalence of chronic conditions and diseases and improved survival rates for people with those conditions and diseases, and a wide range of technological innovations. The health care that results varies considerably in its safety, effectiveness, and efficiency, as well as in its quality and cost.

Health Care Comes Home reviews the state of current knowledge and practice about many aspects of health care in residential settings and explores the short- and long-term effects of emerging trends and technologies. By evaluating existing systems, the book identifies design problems and imbalances between technological system demands and the capabilities of users. Health Care Comes Home recommends critical steps to improve health care in the home. The book's recommendations cover the regulation of health care technologies, proper training and preparation for people who provide in-home care, and how existing housing can be modified and new accessible housing can be better designed for residential health care. The book also identifies knowledge gaps in the field and how these can be addressed through research and development initiatives.

Health Care Comes Home lays the foundation for the integration of human health factors with the design and implementation of home health care devices, technologies, and practices. The book describes ways in which the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and federal housing agencies can collaborate to improve the quality of health care at home. It is also a valuable resource for residential health care providers and caregivers.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.367; 2019

Quality Improvement

How to improve healthcare improvement—an essay by mary dixon-woods.

As improvement practice and research begin to come of age, Mary Dixon-Woods considers the key areas that need attention if we are to reap their benefits

In the NHS, as in health systems worldwide, patients are exposed to risks of avoidable harm 1 and unwarranted variations in quality. 2 3 4 But too often, problems in the quality and safety of healthcare are merely described, even “admired,” 5 rather than fixed; the effort invested in collecting information (which is essential) is not matched by effort in making improvement. The National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death, for example, has raised many of the same concerns in report after report. 6 Catastrophic degradations of organisations and units have recurred throughout the history of the NHS, with depressingly similar features each time. 7 8 9

More resources are clearly necessary to tackle many of these problems. There is no dispute about the preconditions for high quality, safe care: funding, staff, training, buildings, equipment, and other infrastructure. But quality health services depend not just on structures but on processes. 10 Optimising the use of available resources requires continuous improvement of healthcare processes and systems. 5

The NHS has seen many attempts to stimulate organisations to improve using incentive schemes, ranging from pay for performance (the Quality and Outcomes Framework in primary care, for example) to public reporting (such as annual quality accounts). They have had mixed results, and many have had unintended consequences. 11 12 Wanting to improve is not the same as knowing how to do it.

In response, attention has increasingly turned to a set of approaches known as quality improvement (QI). Though a definition of exactly what counts as a QI approach has escaped consensus, QI is often identified with a set of techniques adapted from industrial settings. They include the US Institute for Healthcare Improvement’s Model for Improvement, which, among other things, combines measurement with tests of small change (plan-do-study-act cycles). 8 Other popular approaches include Lean and Six Sigma. QI can also involve specific interventions intended to improve processes and systems, ranging from checklists and “care bundles” of interventions (a set of evidence based practices intended to be done consistently) through to medicines reconciliation and clinical pathways.

QI has been advocated in healthcare for over 30 years 13 ; policies emphasise the need for QI and QI practice is mandated for many healthcare professionals (including junior doctors). Yet the question, “Does quality improvement actually improve quality?” remains surprisingly difficult to answer. 14 The evidence for the benefits of QI is mixed 14 and generally of poor quality. It is important to resolve this unsatisfactory situation. That will require doing more to bring together the practice and the study of improvement, using research to improve improvement, and thinking beyond effectiveness when considering the study and practice of improvement.

Uniting practice and study

The practice and study of improvement need closer integration. Though QI programmes and interventions may be just as consequential for patient wellbeing as drugs, devices, and other biomedical interventions, research about improvement has often been seen as unnecessary or discretionary, 15 16 particularly by some of its more ardent advocates. This is partly because the challenges faced are urgent, and the solutions seem obvious, so just getting on with it seems the right thing to do.

But, as in many other areas of human activity, QI is pervaded by optimism bias. It is particularly affected by the “lovely baby” syndrome, which happens when formal evaluation is eschewed because something looks so good that it is assumed it must work. Five systematic reviews (published 2010-16) reporting on evaluations of Lean and Six Sigma did not identify a single randomised controlled trial. 17 18 19 20 21 A systematic review of redesigning care processes identified no randomised trials. 22 A systematic review of the application of plan-do-study-act in healthcare identified no randomised trials. 23 A systematic review of several QI methods in surgery identified just one randomised trial. 56

The sobering reality is that some well intentioned, initially plausible improvement efforts fail when subjected to more rigorous evaluation. 24 For instance, a controlled study of a large, well resourced programme that supported a group of NHS hospitals to implement the IHI’s Model for Improvement found no differences in the rate of improvement between participating and control organisations. 25 26 Specific interventions may, similarly, not survive the rigours of systematic testing. An example is a programme to reduce hospital admissions from nursing homes that showed promise in a small study in the US, 27 but a later randomised implementation trial found no effect on admissions or emergency department attendances. 28

Some interventions are probably just not worth the effort and opportunity cost: having nurses wear “do not disturb” tabards during drug rounds, is one example. 29 And some QI efforts, perversely, may cause harm—as happened when a multicomponent intervention was found to be associated with an increase rather than a decrease in surgical site infections. 30

Producing sound evidence for the effectiveness of improvement interventions and programmes is likely to require a multipronged approach. More large scale trials and other rigorous studies, with embedded qualitative inquiry, should be a priority for research funders.

Not every study of improvement needs to be a randomised trial. One valuable but underused strategy involves wrapping evaluation around initiatives that are happening anyway, especially when it is possible to take advantage of natural experiments or design roll-outs. 31 Evaluation of the reorganisation of stroke care in London and Manchester 32 and the study of the Matching Michigan programme to reduce central line infections are good examples. 33 34

It would be impossible to externally evaluate every QI project. Critically important therefore will be increasing the rigour with which QI efforts evaluate themselves, as shown by a recent study of an attempt to improve care of frail older people using a “hospital at home” approach in southwest England. 35 This ingeniously designed study found no effect on outcomes and also showed that context matters.

Despite the potential value of high quality evaluation, QI reports are often weak, 18 with, for example, interventions so poorly reported that reproducibility is frustrated. 36 Recent reporting guidelines may help, 37 but some problems are not straightforward to resolve. In particular, current structures for governance and publishing research are not always well suited to QI, including situations where researchers study programmes they have not themselves initiated. Systematic learning from QI needs to improve, which may require fresh thinking about how best to align the goals of practice and study, and to reconcile the needs of different stakeholders. 38

Using research to improve improvement

Research can help to support the practice of improvement in many ways other than evaluation of its effectiveness. One important role lies in creating assets that can be used to improve practice, such as ways to visualise data, analytical methods, and validated measures that assess the aspects of care that most matter to patients and staff. This kind of work could, for example, help to reduce the current vast number of quality measures—there are more than 1200 indicators of structure and process in perioperative care alone. 39

The study of improvement can also identify how improvement practice can get better. For instance, it has become clear that fidelity to the basic principles of improvement methods is a major problem: plan-do-study-act cycles are crucial to many improvement approaches, yet only 20% of the projects that report using the technique have done so properly. 23 Research has also identified problems in measurement—teams trying to do improvement may struggle with definitions, data collection, and interpretation 40 —indicating that this too requires more investment.

Improvement research is particularly important to help cumulate, synthesise, and scale learning so that practice can move forward without reinventing solutions that already exist or reintroducing things that do not work. Such theorising can be highly practical, 41 helping to clarify the mechanisms through which interventions are likely to work, supporting the optimisation of those interventions, and identifying their most appropriate targets. 42

Research can systematise learning from “positive deviance,” approaches that examine individuals, teams, or organisations that show exceptionally good performance. 43 Positive deviance can be used to identify successful designs for clinical processes that other organisations can apply. 44

Crucially, positive deviance can also help to characterise the features of high performing contexts and ensure that the right lessons are learnt. For example, a distinguishing feature of many high performing organisations, including many currently rated as outstanding by the Care Quality Commission, is that they use structured methods of continuous quality improvement. But studies of high performing settings, such as the Southmead maternity unit in Bristol, indicate that although continuous improvement is key to their success, a specific branded improvement method is not necessary. 45 This and other work shows that not all improvement needs to involve a well defined QI intervention, and not everything requires a discrete project with formal plan-do-study-act cycles.

More broadly, research has shown that QI is just one contributor to improving quality and safety. Organisations in many industries display similar variations to healthcare organisations, including large and persistent differences in performance and productivity between seemingly similar enterprises. 46 Important work, some of it experimental, is beginning to show that it is the quality of their management practices that distinguishes them. 47 These practices include continuous quality improvement as well as skills training, human resources, and operational management, for example. QI without the right contextual support is likely to have limited impact.

Beyond effectiveness

Important as they are, evaluations of the approaches and interventions in individual improvement programmes cannot answer every pertinent question about improvement. 48 Other key questions concern the values and assumptions intrinsic to QI.

Consider the “product dominant” logic in many healthcare improvement efforts, which assumes that one party makes a product and conveys it to a consumer. 49 Paul Batalden, one of the early pioneers of QI in healthcare, proposes that we need instead a “service dominant” logic, which assumes that health is co-produced with patients. 49

More broadly, we must interrogate how problems of quality and safety are identified, defined, and selected for attention by whom, through which power structures, and with what consequences. Why, for instance, is so much attention given to individual professional behaviour when systems are likely to be a more productive focus? 50 Why have quality and safety in mental illness and learning disability received less attention in practice, policy, and research 51 despite high morbidity and mortality and evidence of both serious harm and failures of organisational learning? The concern extends to why the topic of social inequities in healthcare improvement has remained so muted 52 and to the choice of subjects for study. Why is it, for example, that interventions like education and training, which have important roles in quality and safety and are undertaken at vast scale, are often treated as undeserving of evaluation or research?

How QI is organised institutionally also demands attention. It is often conducted as a highly local, almost artisan activity, with each organisation painstakingly working out its own solution for each problem. Much improvement work is conducted by professionals in training, often in the form of small, time limited projects conducted for accreditation. But working in this isolated way means a lack of critical mass to support the right kinds of expertise, such as the technical skill in human factors or ergonomics necessary to engineer a process or devise a safety solution. Having hundreds of organisations all trying to do their own thing also means much waste, and the absence of harmonisation across basic processes introduces inefficiencies and risks. 14

A better approach to the interorganisational nature of health service provision requires solving the “problem of many hands.” 53 We need ways to agree which kinds of sector-wide challenges need standardisation and interoperability; which solutions can be left to local customisation at implementation; and which should be developed entirely locally. 14 Better development of solutions and interventions is likely to require more use of prototyping, modelling and simulation, and testing in different scenarios and under different conditions, 14 ideally through coordinated, large scale efforts that incorporate high quality evaluation.

Finally, an approach that goes beyond effectiveness can also help in recognising the essential role of the professions in healthcare improvement. The past half century has seen a dramatic redefining of the role and status of the healthcare professions in health systems 54 : unprecedented external accountability, oversight, and surveillance are now the norm. But policy makers would do well to recognise how much more can be achieved through professional coalitions of the willing than through too many imposed, compliance focused diktats. Research is now showing how the professions can be hugely important institutional forces for good. 54 55 In particular, the professions have a unique and invaluable role in working as advocates for improvement, creating alliances with patients, providing training and education, contributing expertise and wisdom, coordinating improvement efforts, and giving political voice for problems that need to be solved at system level (such as, for example, equipment design).

Improvement efforts are critical to securing the future of the NHS. But they need an evidence base. Without sound evaluation, patients may be deprived of benefit, resources and energy may be wasted on ineffective QI interventions or on interventions that distribute risks unfairly, and organisations are left unable to make good decisions about trade-offs given their many competing priorities. The study of improvement has an important role in developing an evidence-base and in exploring questions beyond effectiveness alone, and in particular showing the need to establish improvement as a collective endeavour that can benefit from professional leadership.

Mary Dixon-Woods is the Health Foundation professor of healthcare improvement studies and director of The Healthcare Improvement Studies (THIS) Institute at the University of Cambridge, funded by the Health Foundation. Co-editor-in-chief of BMJ Quality and Safety , she is an honorary fellow of the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Physicians. This article is based largely on the Harveian oration she gave at the RCP on 18 October 2018, in the year of the college’s 500th anniversary. The oration is available here: http://www.clinmed.rcpjournal.org/content/19/1/47 and the video version here: https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/events/harveian-oration-and-dinner-2018

This article is one of a series commissioned by The BMJ based on ideas generated by a joint editorial group with members from the Health Foundation and The BMJ , including a patient/carer. The BMJ retained full editorial control over external peer review, editing, and publication. Open access fees and The BMJ ’s quality improvement editor post are funded by the Health Foundation.

Competing interests: I have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and a statement is available here: https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/advisory-panels/editorial-advisory-board/mary-dixonwoods

Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.

Home — Essay Samples — Nursing & Health — Childhood Obesity — Importance Of Good Health

Importance of Good Health

• Categories: Childhood Obesity

About this sample

Words: 649 |

Published: Mar 14, 2024

Words: 649 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: Nursing & Health

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1398 words

4 pages / 1719 words

5 pages / 2053 words

13 pages / 5869 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Childhood Obesity

In conclusion, obesity is a growing epidemic in America that has severe health, economic, and social consequences. Addressing obesity as a societal issue requires a multi-faceted approach that addresses the root causes of the [...]

In today's modern society, the issue of childhood obesity has become an alarming concern. As the rates continue to rise at an unprecedented pace, it is imperative that we address this issue with urgency and determination. One [...]

Childhood obesity is a growing epidemic that has raised significant concerns among health professionals, parents, and policymakers alike. With the rise of sedentary lifestyles, increased consumption of processed foods, and lack [...]

Ducat, S. (2007). Child obesity policy brief. Journal of Health Policy, 29.Pretlow, R. (2010). Overweight: What kids say: What's really causing the childhood obesity epidemic. North Charleston: CreateSpace.Satter, E. (2005). [...]

Throughout recent years obesity has been a very important topic in our society. It has continued to rise at high rates especially among children. This causes us to ask what are the causes of childhood obesity? There are many [...]

It is, indeed disheartening that a large proportion of people the world over is becoming obese. This is a serious socio-economic problem, and it is largely attributed to the modern lifestyle. Although, the majority of parents [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Essay on the Impact of Technology on Health Care

Technology has grown to become an integral part of health. Healthcare organizations in different parts of the world are using technology to monitor their patients’ progress while others are using technology to store patients’ data (Bonato 37). Patient outcomes have improved due to technology, and health organizations that sought profits have significantly increased their income because of technology. It is no doubt that technology has influenced medical services in varied ways. Therefore, it would be fair to conclude that technology has positively affected healthcare.

First, technology has improved access to medical information and data (Mettler 33). One of the most significant advantages triggered by technology is the ability to store and access patient data. Medical professionals can now track patients’ progress by retrieving data from anywhere. At the same time, the internet has allowed doctors to share medical information rapidly amongst themselves, an instance that leads to more efficient patient care.

Second, technology has allowed clinicians to gather big data in a limited time (Chen et al. 72). Digital technology allows instant data collection for professionals engaged in epidemiological studies, clinical trials, and those in research. The collection of data, in this case, allows for meta-analysis and permits healthcare organizations to stay on top of cutting edge technological trends.

In addition to allowing quick access to medical data and big data technology has improved medical communication (Free et al. 54). Communication is a critical part of healthcare; nurses and doctors must communicate in real-time, and technology allows this instance to happen. Also, healthcare professionals can today make their videos, webinars and use online platforms to communicate with other professionals in different parts of the globe.

Technology has revolutionized how health care services are rendered. But apart from improving healthcare, critics argue that technology has increased or added extra jobs for medical professionals (de Belvis et al. 11). Physicians need to have excellent clinical skills and knowledge of the human body. Today, they are forced to have knowledge of both the human body and technology, which makes it challenging for others. Technology has also improved access to data, and this has allowed physicians to study and understand patients’ medical history. Nevertheless, these instances have opened doors to unethical activities such as computer hacking (de Belvis et al. 13). Today patients risk losing their medical information, including their social security numbers, address and other critical information.

Despite the improvements that have come with adopting technology, there is always the possibility that digital technological gadgets might fail. If makers of a given technology do not have a sustainable business process or a good track record, their technologies might fail. Many people, including patients and doctors who solely rely on technology, might be affected when it does. Apart from equipment failure, technology has created the space for laziness within hospitals.

Doctors and patients heavily rely on medical technology for problem-solving. In like manner, medical technologies that use machine learning have removed decision-making in different hospitals; today, medical tools are solving people’s problems. Technology has been great for our hospitals, but the speed at which different hospitals are adapting to technological processes is alarming. Technology often fails, and when it does, health care may be significantly affected. Doctors and patients who use technology may be forced to go back to traditional methods of health care services.

Bonato, P. “Advances in Wearable Technology and Its Medical Applications.”  2010 Annual International Conference of The IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology , 2010, pp. 33-45.

Chen, Min et al. “Disease Prediction by Machine Learning Over Big Data from Healthcare Communities.”  IEEE Access , vol. 5, 2017, pp. 69-79.

De Belvis, Antonio Giulio et al. “The Financial Crisis in Italy: Implications for The Healthcare Sector.”  Health Policy , vol. 106, no. 1, 2012, pp. 10-16.

Free, Caroline et al. “The Effectiveness of M-Health Technologies for Improving Health and Health Services: A Systematic Review Protocol.”  BMC Research Notes , vol. 3, no. 1, 2010, pp. 42-78.

Mettler, Matthias. “Blockchain Technology in Healthcare: The Revolution Starts Here.”  2016 IEEE 18Th International Conference On E-Health Networking, Applications and Services (Healthcom) , 2016, pp. 23-78.

Cite this page

Similar essay samples.

• Essay on the Connection Between Othello and the Ongoing Protests in th...
• Title: Study of Emotions and Meta-cognitive skills of entrepreneurs in...
• Essay on Anotts Marketing
• Essay on State Income Taxes
• Essay on the Process of Digital Transformation in Financial Services
• Psychology Research Paper; Parenting Styles: A Closer Look at a Well-K...

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

The Importance of Mental Health

It's not just a buzzword

Elizabeth is a freelance health and wellness writer. She helps brands craft factual, yet relatable content that resonates with diverse audiences.

Akeem Marsh, MD, is a board-certified child, adolescent, and adult psychiatrist who has dedicated his career to working with medically underserved communities.

Westend61 / Getty Images

Risk Factors for Poor Mental Health

Signs of mental health problems, benefits of good mental health, how to maintain mental health and well-being.

Your mental health is an important part of your well-being. This aspect of your welfare determines how you’re able to operate psychologically, emotionally, and socially among others.

Considering how much of a role your mental health plays in each aspect of your life, it's important to guard and improve psychological wellness using appropriate measures.

Because different circumstances can affect your mental health, we’ll be highlighting risk factors and signs that may indicate mental distress. But most importantly, we’ll dive into why mental health is so important.

Mental health is described as a state of well-being where a person is able to cope with the normal stresses of life. This state permits productive work output and allows for meaningful contributions to society.

However, different circumstances exist that may affect the ability to handle life’s curveballs. These factors may also disrupt daily activities, and the capacity to manage these changes. That's only one reason why mental health is so important.

The following factors, listed below, may affect mental well-being and could increase the risk of developing psychological disorders .

Childhood Abuse

Childhood physical assault, sexual violence, emotional abuse, or neglect can lead to severe mental and emotional distress. Abuse increases the risk of developing mental disorders like depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, or personality disorders.

Children who have been abused may eventually deal with alcohol and substance use issues. But beyond mental health challenges, child abuse may also lead to medical complications such as diabetes, stroke, and other forms of heart disease.

The Environment

A strong contributor to mental well-being is the state of a person’s usual environment . Adverse environmental circumstances can cause negative effects on psychological wellness.

For instance, weather conditions may influence an increase in suicide cases. Likewise, experiencing natural disasters firsthand can increase the chances of developing PTSD. In certain cases, air pollution may produce negative effects on depression symptoms.  

In contrast, living in a positive social environment can provide protection against mental challenges.

Your biological makeup could determine the state of your well-being. A number of mental health disorders have been found to run in families and may be passed down to members.

These include conditions such as autism , attention deficit hyperactivity disorder , bipolar disorder , depression , and schizophrenia .

Your lifestyle can also impact your mental health. Smoking, a poor diet , alcohol consumption , substance use , and risky sexual behavior may cause psychological harm. These behaviors have been linked to depression.

When mental health is compromised, it isn’t always apparent to the individual or those around them. However, there are certain warning signs to look out for, that may signify negative changes for the well-being. These include:

• A switch in eating habits, whether over or undereating
• A noticeable reduction in energy levels
• Being more reclusive and shying away from others
• Feeling persistent despair
• Indulging in alcohol, tobacco, or other substances more than usual
• Experiencing unexplained confusion, anger, guilt, or worry
• Severe mood swings
• Picking fights with family and friends
• Hearing voices with no identifiable source
• Thinking of self-harm or causing harm to others
• Being unable to perform daily tasks with ease

Whether young or old, the importance of mental health for total well-being cannot be overstated. When psychological wellness is affected, it can cause negative behaviors that may not only affect personal health but can also compromise relationships with others. 

Below are some of the benefits of good mental health.

A Stronger Ability to Cope With Life’s Stressors

When mental and emotional states are at peak levels, the challenges of life can be easier to overcome.

Where alcohol/drugs, isolation, tantrums, or fighting may have been adopted to manage relationship disputes, financial woes, work challenges, and other life issues—a stable mental state can encourage healthier coping mechanisms.

A Positive Self-Image

Mental health greatly correlates with personal feelings about oneself. Overall mental wellness plays a part in your self-esteem . Confidence can often be a good indicator of a healthy mental state.

A person whose mental health is flourishing is more likely to focus on the good in themselves. They will hone in on these qualities, and will generally have ambitions that strive for a healthy, happy life.

Healthier Relationships

If your mental health is in good standing, you might be more capable of providing your friends and family with quality time , affection , and support. When you're not in emotional distress, it can be easier to show up and support the people you care about.

Better Productivity

Dealing with depression or other mental health disorders can impact your productivity levels. If you feel mentally strong , it's more likely that you will be able to work more efficiently and provide higher quality work.

Higher Quality of Life

When mental well-being thrives, your quality of life may improve. This can give room for greater participation in community building. For example, you may begin volunteering in soup kitchens, at food drives, shelters, etc.

You might also pick up new hobbies , and make new acquaintances , and travel to new cities.

Because mental health is so important to general wellness, it’s important that you take care of your mental health.

To keep mental health in shape, a few introductions to and changes to lifestyle practices may be required. These include:

• Taking up regular exercise
• Prioritizing rest and sleep on a daily basis
• Trying meditation
• Learning coping skills for life challenges
• Keeping in touch with loved ones
• Maintaining a positive outlook on life

Another proven way to improve and maintain mental well-being is through the guidance of a professional. Talk therapy can teach you healthier ways to interact with others and coping mechanisms to try during difficult times.

Therapy can also help you address some of your own negative behaviors and provide you with the tools to make some changes in your own life.

The Bottom Line

So why is mental health so important? That's an easy answer: It profoundly affects every area of your life. If you're finding it difficult to address mental health concerns on your own, don't hesitate to seek help from a licensed therapist .

World Health Organization. Mental Health: Strengthening our Response .

Lippard ETC, Nemeroff CB. The Devastating Clinical Consequences of Child Abuse and Neglect: Increased Disease Vulnerability and Poor Treatment Response in Mood Disorders . Am J Psychiatry . 2020;177(1):20-36. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.19010020

 Helbich M. Mental Health and Environmental Exposures: An Editorial. Int J Environ Res Public Health . 2018;15(10):2207. Published 2018 Oct 10. doi:10.3390/ijerph15102207

Helbich M. Mental Health and Environmental Exposures: An Editorial. Int J Environ Res Public Health . 2018;15(10):2207. Published 2018 Oct 10. doi:10.3390/ijerph15102207

National Institutes of Health. Common Genetic Factors Found in 5 Mental Disorders .

Zaman R, Hankir A, Jemni M. Lifestyle Factors and Mental Health . Psychiatr Danub . 2019;31(Suppl 3):217-220.

Medline Plus. What Is mental health? .

National Alliance on Mental Health. Why Self-Esteem Is Important for Mental Health .

By Elizabeth Plumptre Elizabeth is a freelance health and wellness writer. She helps brands craft factual, yet relatable content that resonates with diverse audiences.

The Demonization of Rural America

B y the time I was seven or eight years old, I was keenly aware of my father’s drug use. He didn’t snort pills in front of me yet—he saved that for my teen years—but he talked about pills freely and I knew he took them. He was meaner than usual when he couldn’t get his pills, and I learned to recognize the signs of withdrawal long before I ever heard that term. Any hope for stability in our lives probably vanished before I could walk. And by the time I became an adult, everyone in my nuclear family—and plenty of my extended family members—was struggling to cope with the impacts of violence, incarceration, and addiction.

I grew up in Appalachian Eastern Kentucky, where systemic poverty has been a challenge for many decades. We always joked that Kentucky was 20 years behind the rest of the country but as a kid, I didn’t understand what we really faced: underfunded schools, inadequate transportation systems, poor healthcare, unreliable utilities. Prescription pain pills flooded into our region and did nothing to cure our collective pain, but instead exacerbated the personal and social struggles that the region is often associated with.

I was born in 1979, so most of this unraveling and destruction took place during the 1980s and 1990s . But it was sometime in the early 2000s when I read about the opioid epidemic online for the first time. At first, I was shocked to learn prescription pills had become a mainstream problem. But next, I was angry. By this time, pain pill manufacturers had changed their formulas so pills could no longer be crushed and snorted or injected; right away, heroin became widely available, which shocked me. When I was little, heroin was a city drug, scary and distant. Someone must have known that opiate-addicted hillbillies were a ripe market for a replacement opiate, just as someone had first found a way to saturate the Appalachian region with highly addictive pills without drawing attention to their crime.

But why wasn’t it talked about until now? Why wasn’t it an epidemic when it was ravaging my family for the last 20 years? Why wasn’t it newsworthy when my father chose pain pills over feeding his family, or when the same thing happened to families all around me?

I already knew the answer to those questions, though. Eastern Kentucky had been a throwaway place for a long time. Through a wide range of experiences, I learned at a young age that we were poor white trash. The stereotypes about us were, and continue to be, disdainful and dismissive, mixed with a potent disgust for good measure. Our accents are signs of ignorance and stupidity; we’re presumed to be shoeless and perpetually pregnant, sometimes—repulsively—even as a result of incest. Lawless and toothless, who would decry a manmade epidemic that wiped out thousands of hillbillies and their worthless children?

Read More: Kentucky Floods Destroyed Homes That Had Been Safe for Generations. Nobody’s Sure What to Do Next

Americans have discarded and scapegoated various socioeconomic groups throughout our history—this is not a new phenomenon. Unlike many biases that we have reckoned with, though, the vitriolic view of Appalachia—and to some extent, other areas of rural America—stems from an entrenched classism that remains unchallenged in our collective moral consciousness.

The most popular Mexican restaurant in our small town of Berea, Kentucky, has several machines where you can buy gumballs, small toys, and even temporary tattoos. When they were little, my kids always begged for a quarter or two so they could buy something after we ate there. But there was one novelty that made me cringe each time and I forbade my children from spending quarters on it: the hillbilly teeth , which are “the first line of fake teeth purposefully designed to look trashy, hillbilly-like, and downright gross.”

The teeth didn’t offend my sensibilities as a young mother; they publicized my shame. I grew up in a holler and the well my father dug for our house never functioned quite right. My parents often had to pump creek water into the well so we would have water pressure and I knew we weren’t supposed to drink it. But we still mixed it into Kool-Aid and coffee, cooked with it, and brushed our teeth with it. Most of the time, we drank milk or pop.

My brother and I both had visible black cavities on our baby teeth and I looked forward to the day they would fall out. But when my permanent teeth grew in, they were spaced too far apart on top and crowded against each other on the bottom; my gums bled at humiliating moments. Somehow, I always knew my teeth were a sign of the particular kind of poverty I came from.

Why didn’t my parents get us clean drinking water and ensure we had proper dental care? The first reason for these oversights was my father’s drug addiction; the second was his relentless abuse of my mother, my brother, and me. Visits to the dentist, fixing the well, braces for my permanent teeth—those concerns fade into the background for both the drug-addicted and traumatized minds.

When I moved away from my hometown, I found a way to hide my accent at college and work, as so many Appalachians do. But I couldn’t hide my teeth or fix them until I was well into adulthood. The hillbilly teeth at the Mexican restaurant served as a cruel reminder that it’s socially acceptable to mock the socioeconomic class I was born into; our problems are a joke.

Another popular, insidious sentiment loomed large in the 2016 election, and I suspect it was infused into early conversations about our opioid problem: “They deserve what they get.”

The 2024 book, White Rural Rage , highlights the problematic conversations around Appalachia in interesting ways. Early in the book, the authors claim that rural America poses “a quadruple threat to democracy” and they begin their critique with Mingo County, West Virginia. The authors decry the fact that this county’s majority vote went to Trump in both 2016 and 2020, but fail to acknowledge an important fact in Appalachian voting and indeed, in voting among many vulnerable populations: less than half of the registered voters cast a ballot in either election.

Even though this book doesn’t claim to focus on Appalachia, Mary Jo Murphy at The Washington Post suggests early in her review of it that “Someone write a new elegy for the bilious hillbilly, because these authors went for his jugular.” She addresses rural Americans from that point after. “Hillbillies” are historically associated with Appalachia, but the poor, white inhabitants of this handful of states don’t represent rural America as a whole. They’re used as an easy target—a convenient stand-in for the diverse population that actually comprises rural America—because they’re considered to be poor, ignorant, white trash that no one will defend.

There will be no social backlash against overt and covert claims that rural Americans deserve everything they get. Poor whites remain a safe target for political commentary and cheap humor alike.

Classism is not just a problem when someone writes a book about it. And it’s not just a problem when people take to social media to blame election results on some of our most disenfranchised citizens. Classism distracts us from solving our collective problems because it keeps us from asking the right questions. Classism tells us to blame rural whites for our country’s ills—just like other populations have been blamed in the past—demonizing our neighbors instead of the dysfunctional systems and perhaps even individuals who hold incredible power over our political and financial wellbeing.

Whether they are poor or not, white or not, rural Americans grapple with the same issues as everyone else: poverty, violence, addiction, and social decay are obviously not unique to rural areas. But this population faces those problems with fewer resources than their urban and suburban neighbors. Just as there is no excuse for bigotry, we cannot justify blaming our country’s challenges on a disempowered socioeconomic group. Placing blame fuels divide. We need to do some collective soul-searching to understand our biases and find a way to move past them.

Finding solutions is the harder work and the right work. That work requires that everyone has a voice and a seat at the table—especially the people who have historically been excluded. If we can find the courage to set aside classist prejudice, we might discover that there are no throwaway places and more importantly, no throwaway people. Not even hillbillies like me.

Photographer Stacy Kranitz has been documenting life in Appalachia for over 13 years to challenge stereotypes and provide an honest look at a complex region .

More Must-Reads from TIME

• Javier Milei’s Radical Plan to Transform Argentina
• The New Face of Doctor Who
• How Private Donors Shape Birth-Control Choices
• What Happens if Trump Is Convicted ? Your Questions, Answered
• The Deadly Digital Frontiers at the Border
• Scientists Are Finding Out Just How Toxic Your Stuff Is
• The 31 Most Anticipated Movies of Summer 2024
• Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Contact us at [email protected]

Healthy Food Essay for Students and Children

500+ words essay on healthy food.

Healthy food refers to food that contains the right amount of nutrients to keep our body fit. We need healthy food to keep ourselves fit.

Furthermore, healthy food is also very delicious as opposed to popular thinking. Nowadays, kids need to eat healthy food more than ever. We must encourage good eating habits so that our future generations will be healthy and fit.

Most importantly, the harmful effects of junk food and the positive impact of healthy food must be stressed upon. People should teach kids from an early age about the same.

Benefits of Healthy Food

Healthy food does not have merely one but numerous benefits. It helps us in various spheres of life. Healthy food does not only impact our physical health but mental health too.

When we intake healthy fruits and vegetables that are full of nutrients, we reduce the chances of diseases. For instance, green vegetables help us to maintain strength and vigor. In addition, certain healthy food items keep away long-term illnesses like diabetes and blood pressure.

Similarly, obesity is the biggest problems our country is facing now. People are falling prey to obesity faster than expected. However, this can still be controlled. Obese people usually indulge in a lot of junk food. The junk food contains sugar, salt fats and more which contribute to obesity. Healthy food can help you get rid of all this as it does not contain harmful things.

In addition, healthy food also helps you save money. It is much cheaper in comparison to junk food. Plus all that goes into the preparation of healthy food is also of low cost. Thus, you will be saving a great amount when you only consume healthy food.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Junk food vs Healthy Food

If we look at the scenario today, we see how the fast-food market is increasing at a rapid rate. With the onset of food delivery apps and more, people now like having junk food more. In addition, junk food is also tastier and easier to prepare.

However, just to satisfy our taste buds we are risking our health. You may feel more satisfied after having junk food but that is just the feeling of fullness and nothing else. Consumption of junk food leads to poor concentration. Moreover, you may also get digestive problems as junk food does not have fiber which helps indigestion.

Similarly, irregularity of blood sugar levels happens because of junk food. It is so because it contains fewer carbohydrates and protein . Also, junk food increases levels of cholesterol and triglyceride.

On the other hand, healthy food contains a plethora of nutrients. It not only keeps your body healthy but also your mind and soul. It increases our brain’s functionality. Plus, it enhances our immunity system . Intake of whole foods with minimum or no processing is the finest for one’s health.

In short, we must recognize that though junk food may seem more tempting and appealing, it comes with a great cost. A cost which is very hard to pay. Therefore, we all must have healthy foods and strive for a longer and healthier life.

FAQs on Healthy Food

Q.1 How does healthy food benefit us?

A.1 Healthy Benefit has a lot of benefits. It keeps us healthy and fit. Moreover, it keeps away diseases like diabetes, blood pressure, cholesterol and many more. Healthy food also helps in fighting obesity and heart diseases.

Q.2 Why is junk food harmful?

A.2 Junk food is very harmful to our bodies. It contains high amounts of sugar, salt, fats, oils and more which makes us unhealthy. It also causes a lot of problems like obesity and high blood pressure. Therefore, we must not have junk food more and encourage healthy eating habits.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

• Search Please fill out this field.
• Newsletters
• Sweepstakes

I Sent My Daughter to Daycare Instead of a Nanny and I Couldn't Be Happier

Everyone warned me it would be difficult, but sending my baby to daycare was one of the best parenting decisions I've made.

Parents/Getty Images

When I was pregnant, I frequently met other pregnant people who could rattle off their philosophies on sleep training and secure attachment, and deliver TED Talk-worthy presentations on the merits of this crib versus that crib or this stroller versus that stroller. I wondered, "How did all these people seemingly already know how to raise children? How did they decide on a nanny vs. babysitter vs. daycare?"

I felt as if my recurring nightmare had come true, the one where I show up for a final exam only to realize I've missed an entire semester's worth of classes. Personally, I had no strong convictions about baby sleeping arrangements, no grand vision for our nursery—and no idea, I thought, about how to be a mother. When I was asked about my future parenting plans, my nonchalant shrug belied the panic I felt in the pit of my stomach.

But, when talk inevitably turned to child care, I was surprised to hear myself express a clear, confident opinion: "My daughter will go to daycare, definitely."

Of course she would. I knew I would keep working—I'd spent over a decade building my career, and I cared about my job, not to mention that it wasn't a financial option for me not to return to work. Daycare was a financial necessity too—it costs a fortune, yes, but a nanny costs two fortunes. Still, finances aside, I loved the idea of my kid spending her days hanging out with other kids and being cared for by a team of child care professionals, all in a setting designed for little ones to play and explore.

Why I Loved Our Daycare

I was sold on our daycare the moment my husband and I walked through the doors. In the bright, cozy playroom, a couple of babies were tucked into the lap of a teacher reading to them, a trio of toddlers was building a block tower, and the owner was playing the ukulele and singing, "She'll be coming around the mountain" to a cluster of kids dancing and rolling around the rug.

The space smelled like cinnamon oatmeal, which the group had eaten for breakfast. By the time we made it to the grassy backyard filled with playground equipment and a small garden, I was ready to hang up my coat on my own designated hook and enroll myself at the daycare. I was thrilled for my daughter—still nestled in my belly at the time—to learn and grow in this sweet environment.

I loved the idea of my kid spending her days hanging out with other kids and being cared for by a team of child care professionals, all in a setting designed for little ones to play and explore.

My maternity leave spanned a gorgeous summer. When autumn arrived and it was time to go back to work, I felt anxious about a dozen things: the commute, the breast-pumping, the challenging assignments I'd need to complete on very little sleep. But among my anxieties was not the fact of sending my daughter to daycare. I'd enjoyed several beautiful months as a full-time mother, but I didn't wish to keep at it permanently, and I didn't feel guilty about it.

When people inquired about my childcare plans, some told me they could never leave their kids like that—with strangers in a strange place. Others lamented the high cost of living, assuming that I'd be staying at home if I could. And many who'd sent their own kids to daycare responded with sympathy: A friend told me her child's first day there was the worst day of her life; she assured me it would get easier. A co-worker related that he felt so distraught after dropping off his daughter, he ended up picking her up 10 minutes later, never to return.

Most of these people meant well, and I respected their opinions and experiences. But I simply didn't share their fears, their worries, or their regrets. I believed to my core that it would be good for my daughter to have lots of caring, competent adults in her life. It takes a village, right?

As far as I was concerned, the more love and attention she received, the better. When I expressed these feelings to my therapist, she kept prompting me to dig deeper, to get in touch with the sadness or ambivalence I might feel about handing off my baby to other caretakers. I probed and probed my heart and mind, but I felt fine about it—really, truly.

The First Day of Daycare

When it came time to drop off my 4-month-old for day one of daycare, it was strange to watch her handling a rattle that wasn't ours and to see her being held by a woman whose name I'd just learned. I felt a twinge acknowledging the transition—the start of this new chapter, the end of the last one.

But as I waved goodbye, I felt confident my daughter was in fantastic hands—hands that had spent way more time than my own changing diapers and feeding bottles and singing lullabies to countless little ones. When I returned that evening, my daughter greeted me with a wide smile, and I felt a surge of happiness—this would become her place, her community.

Where We Are Today

One year later, my daughter has grown to love her teachers as much as they love her, and she has a slew of friends she eats and plays and naps with every day. When I drop her off and the aromas of bacon and eggs waft through the kitchen, she runs to grab her chair, says hello to her buddies, and gleefully waves me goodbye. She comes home each evening saying new words and demonstrating new skills (and sometimes wearing new clothes).

Most of motherhood still feels like trial and error to me. And I still find myself in conversations with parents who seem to have it all figured out, as they hold forth on screen time or discipline or school districts. But more and more I've realized that different things are important to different parents, and what's right for them isn't necessarily right for us, and vice versa. I feel strongly about this one big thing: Daycare is fantastic for our family. The rest we're figuring out as we go along.

Of course, there are days I would prefer to stay home and be with my daughter all day. And sometimes the weekday math strikes me as ridiculous: the two or three hours I have with my daughter versus the eight hours I spend in front of a computer screen in my office. But one consolation is that I've gotten to know other daycare parents who share my confidence in our childcare choice.

At pick-up the other day, a fellow mom turned to me and said, "Isn't this place amazing? Our kids are so happy here." She said it conspiratorially like we'd discovered some buried treasure. And really, I believe we have.

Lindsey J. Palmer is the author of many novels, including " Reservations for Six ," which came out in May 2022. A former magazine editor and high school English teacher, she's now a senior editor for the ed tech company BrainPOP. Find Lindsey at lindseyjpalmer.com .

Related Articles

Healthcare, illegal betting ads most violative, says ASCI

About the Author

A business journalist with around two decades of experience tracking key consumer-focussed sectors like consumer durables, retail, consumer goods, aviation, automobiles and advertising, as well as economic ministries of the Union government. Now, writes primarily on pharmaceuticals and healthcare, and on issues of consumer interest. Besides also looks at trends that are shaping consumer behaviour and the broad consumer landscape. \nYou can follow Rupali on Twitter@Rupalijee. Read More

Visual Stories