The Intricacy of the 21st-Century Healthcare System doesn’t exclusively have its place in the U.S.
Originally Published by Being Well on Medium
The essence of the healthcare enigma lies within the scope of perception. It pertains to genuine quality and value within the boundaries of a given system and society. An outwardly apt description, there seems to be continually something fumbling within the recommended solutions. For those citizens, especially those who live in the United States, controversies around the National Health System (NHS) are prevailing.
Metaphorically speaking, Universal coverage is like the Grass being Greener on the other side of the fence. It improperly theorized that having a government-run single-payer system is the ultimate remedy to the ever multifaceted corporate medicine, even though it linguistically sounds the perfect solution in today’s high-cost, low yield healthcare arena. However, In the U.S., unless the fundamental constitutional solution is delivered, applying government programs will further complicate the problem through further subsidizing the corporate cartel, increase government mandates, place the burden on taxpayers.
One can bear many arguments as to why healthcare coverage for all does not translate into quality healthcare for everyone. And universal healthcare coverage does not inevitably signify Affordable medical care to all. Besides, we all envy other nations like Germany or Sweden, that the notion of a national health plan is practically a matter of standard. But almost all countries, particularly the developed nations, share similar challenges. For instance, according to a DW.COM, German clinicians often refuse to take on state insurance plans towards the end of each fiscal quarter in a struggle to preserve money. However, just like the trend we see in the United States, Germany’s profit-driven healthcare system is also being scolded. State health insurance carriers continue fighting to visit their doctors towards the end of every quarter. In contrast, according to the study, privately insured patients get easy access.
Based on another article published in Forbes magazine, over 25% of British patients have been waiting more than six months to receive elective medical care from the National Health Service. More than 36,000 have been on the waiting list for more than nine months or more. Some would probably argue that the healthcare cost in the U.K. is much lower than that of the United States without considering that spending less is not necessarily equal to lower prices. Because, while patients are waiting months for elective surgery, Services provided to patients are underwhelming too. The U.K. only has 2.7 hospital beds per 1000 people, less than Germany for 8.2, 6.2 France, and 5.2 for the entire E.U. average. It also has one of the lowest numbers of practicing doctors per population in the E.U. The latter does not imply that the country’s education is challenged or even is technologically deprived. But, in reality, the government has run out of money to maintain quality medical care in a reasonable time at an affordable cost to the citizens. I recall Margareth Thatcher, the former prime minister of Britain, said once:
“The main problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”
Long waits for care are pervasive to government-run, single-payer arrangements like the NHS. Yet some U.S. policymakers famine to import that model without assessing the quality and compatibility with the current constitution, which would create a massive slipup.
Consider how long it takes to get care in the emergency room in Britain.
Government statistics show that hospitals in England could only care for 84.2% of patients within four hours in February. That’s well below the country’s goal of treating 95% of patients within four hours. Here and now, in its place of cutting wait times, the NHS sees to alienate its own set goal, a promise that they can’t afford to keep. For example, wait time for cancer therapy where timeliness can be a matter of life and death are likewise far too prolonged. According to January NHS England data, nearly 25% of cancer patients didn’t start treatment on time even if they were designated urgent by their treating physicians.
Despite all the challenges, European citizens may still see the problem differently as their perspective is utterly different from their peers in the U.S.
In the European landmass, the dominant mainstream populace drift is the driver of rare but sure tolerance of people to one size fits all solution, merely because, majority share the same values. Therefore, there seems to be a middle ground when it comes to healthcare and patient expectations. However, as the diversity within communities expands (e.g., the one we have in the U.S.), such a scenario becomes the battleground of ideologies and expectations, not to mention the consumeristic attitude that has driven the U.S. market since birth.
Healthcare is Personal, and the Collective approach seems .not to Satisfy the Millennials.
Quality of care in the NHS trails the collective population health scheme. For a “collective” system to optimally function, a robust populist insolence is commonly desirable. But Healthcare is neither “collective” nor political. It is a personal undertaking between one patient and his or -her physician. Populist oratory of the mainstream supporting the population health paradigm amid fifty states lacks paraphernalia to satisfy distinct dearth, patient or the doctor.
It sure neither a corporate-driven remedy exists to solve the puzzle, nor what illuminated by politicians; Healthcare is a purely economic issue, even though it has been inappropriately politicized as such!
Healthcare will always be about more protracted prospects, and in the eyes of the beholder, it will continually be about better quality. Hence, the value of service concluded rest on own fanciful acumen; the vignette of objective social determinants in the light of limited physician resources is duplicitous.
The sentiment of” the customer is always right” doesn’t necessarily apply in now’s Healthcare. As it outlines, the logistics of hosting a favorable environment for patients interacting with their doctors are practically nonexistent. Then one should logically question the validity and fairness of online physician reviews often used to rate physicians. The latter resembles the scenario- where physicians' hands are tied behind their backs by indiscriminate mandates. Meanwhile, it is concomitantly expected of them to keep patients contented. That is why the current healthcare policies worldwide, more so in the United States, are compelling physicians to grasp a defensive medical practice, embrace a behavior of keeping the patient and the system satisfied, burn out, or force them to give up the clinical trial. Admittedly, like their U.S. counterparts, they struggle to find the realistic path out of dual conviction.