Health Care Policy and Government Plans
Professor’s name
Course
Student’s name
Date
Health Care Policy and Government Plans
The United States healthcare policy and government plans play a fundamental role for many Americans in receiving healthcare services (Brown, 2018). There are six primary government healthcare programs: Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). As a result, the federal government has formulated that the relevant group of people receive assistance, especially through the universal healthcare program and policy (Brown, 2018). The primary programs should target groups of people such as older persons, children, low-income mothers, people living with different disabilities, and other vulnerable groups. Other vulnerable groups include veteran Americans, Native Americans, and active-duty military personnel and their dependents (Brown, 2018). Indeed, these programs were formulated within America’s healthcare system at different times when the healthcare market historically failed to work due to increased healthcare demands and low social-economic status (Harrington, 2018). However, the other three remaining programs are different from the initial ones because they served particular populations with whom the federal government possesses a special relationship, such as the active military personnel, veterans, their dependents, and the native Americans. An example of these programs is DOD TRICARE, VHA, and HIS (Brown, 2018).
First, the federal government plays a significant role in universal healthcare delivery by ensuring at least a third of the American people benefit from the various programs and policies. The government shows utter responsibility by ensuring that over $500 billion is invested every year through these programs, and funds are used prudently to lower the burden of costs in injuries, illnesses, and disability. Also, it contributes to the improvement of universal health coverage and the functionality of the population (Brown, 2017). Healthcare is a fundamental right as entrenched in the U.S constitution and should thus be a priority. In this regard, it is indispensable for the government to exercise strong leadership that addresses critical concerns related to safety and the quality of health service delivery in facilities (Brown, 2018). Perhaps, this explains why millions of Americans receive healthcare services through multiple government policies and programs. For example, low-income beneficiaries account for 19% of the total Medicare and Medicaid populations (Harrington, 2017). The market should play a critical role in ensuring that all groups benefit from the programs and policies (Brown, 2017). Indeed, we should not pay other individuals to access healthcare. This is because access should go in hand with care and coverage again with care. In a perfect economy, the government should pay a health care system and not through private insurance policies that oppress the common American (Harrington,2017). In this case, an income should not be a bother on what one pays as a premium. This aspect should matter to social work because health is a social issue that affects people.
However, there are different paradoxes of universal healthcare delivery in the U.S. of advanced medical care services that lack accessibility for many common Americans (Brown, 2018). Many individuals, especially with the public sector, fail to view general health as a fundamental right rather than a commodity. New research has shown that the weakness of people perceiving healthcare as a commodity and not a basic human right is the first step of an example of a failing system of health (Harrington, 2017). Since the federal government put many finances, especially through health and social welfare services, in financing these programs and policies, deaths should be controlled significantly. An example, the mortality rate. According to Brown (2017), “paradox that health insurance coverage is an important determinant of one’s ability to access adequate health care has been linked to negative health outcomes.” Lack of health assurance cover further aggravates the situation because many government programs and policies cover a small proportion of people. In this regard, the likelihood that uninsured individuals are less likely to benefit than those with insurance covers which have the advantage of receiving preventive care through regular check-ups and consultations (Brown, 2018. These individuals do so for the primary health conditions and other terminal and chronic illnesses that may be costly to treat in its shelf-life.
In reflection, the fundamental role of these government-sponsored programs and policies such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the children cover should not be downplayed because they cover a proportion of people. The programs benefit a sizeable number because they lack the capacity to pay for insurance covers for their health and those of their dependents (Brown, 2018). For example, the elderly require regular check-ups and assessments due to their vulnerability and prevalence of terminal illnesses, such as diabetes, asthma, cancer, heart diseases, and so on. For that reason, it is recommended that the federal government assume a stronger leadership position towards improving the healthcare sector delivery (Harrington, 2017). The improvement can be met through focusing on quality and safety care services offered to an estimated 100 million beneficiaries of the six government healthcare programs and policies. Finally, it is recommended that the focused leadership will contribute to the improvements in quality and safety for all Americans, provided the amount leveraged by the federal government (Brown, 2018). This aspect should shift from the challenges that were witnessed during the Great Depression, where hospitals grappled with a few doctors’ challenge to save lives.
References
Brown, E. (2018). Principles for a National Health Program: A Framework for Analysis and Development. The Milbank Quarterly, 2(1), pp 2-617.
Harrington, S. (2017). The Health Insurance Reform Debate. The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 1(1), 5-138.