Quality of US Health Care Stuck in Neutral
Given that the quality of health care in the U.S. was almost stagnant, the link between higher health care spending and quality of is being examined. The article focuses on various measures put in place in order to improve the quality and efficiency of health care. Furthermore, much attention has been paid on the benefits of improving the health care and progresses attributed to health care practices. The impact of regions on the quality of services resulting to the vulnerable population being offered with less quality care is also analyzed (NCQA, 2009).
The author’s main point is the provision of quality health care to patients which should be done without favoritism. All patients ought to be given equal treatment and governing laws should consider care givers welfare so as to ensure that they follow the health care guidelines.
The main elements of the argument are; there are considerable benefits on improving the quality of health care given that it helps to reduce deaths cases and to save on the medical cost which could otherwise be lost due to decline in adherence to suitable measures in health care. The author also argues that regions and amount paid should not measure the quality of health care is too offered. Patients should be given equal care irrespective of these factors given that one cannot spend his way to better health (National Geographic, 2010). The author concludes that quality of health care should be measured in comprehensive manner and congress has to expand the use of quality reporting. Furthermore, people should be insured in order to guarantee the best services given that those who are not insured
Accountability versus care
Even though the payment system of medical care services has improved, the level at which appropriate care is being extended to the patients is still low and to improve the quality of health.
Anti-depressant drugs use
According to the report, only a 46.4 percent of the anti-depressant drugs users are being monitored by their physicians.
Follow up care
For children under prescription for medications such as (ADHD), only a 34.1 percent of these children are committed to a follow-up care. About 50.0 percent of patients who heave a previous record of hospitalization due to mental illness have been known to go for follow up visits to their physicians (NCQA, 2009).
Colon cancer screening
Even though colon cancer screening is a vital care provision, the level of people receiving this care at an appropriate age is 45.3 percent.
Treatment of 42.6 percent patients who are dependence on alcohol or other drugs is being administered. There are gains in helping smokers to stop smoking in the Medicaid beneficiaries.
Provision of beta-blocker drugs
The Medicare patients who had suffered from heart attack were provided with beta-blocker drugs which so a decline in the possibility of fatal attacks later in life due to the 12 percent increase in these drugs provision. Americans with asthma received a universal high quality care (NCQA, 2009).
Adherence to health plans guidelines
In the treatment of diabetics, over 16.3 percent of patients in New England were treated in accordance to the health care guidelines unlike in the health care plans in South Central States. When compared to South Central states, 14.1 percent more patients with cardiovascular disease in Mid-Atlantic were treated in accordance to health plans guidelines. Furthermore, health plans guidelines in New England assured that 19.2 percent of all patients received all the appropriate cancer screening as compared to the health plans in South Central states (NCQA, 2009). Thus, patients used to receive different standards of treatment in respect to their residence given that some regions were higher performing than others.
In conclusion, the report carries with it certain problems in the analysis of data, presentation mode and the arguments. The author of these articles would have analyzed clearly the data since most of the data presented has got no base. The presentation is for a good report making it lose on various aspects and the arguments are not convincing given that facts are dishonored and much emphasis is placed on other people’s views rather than on solid facts. The author could have analyze his data in an efficient way and argue well the arguments in the entire presentation (Ritcher, 2010). This would have added credit to this work due to great argument and thus easing reading because of proper presentation of analyzed data. This article is of great help to the government and health practitioners for it challenges them on the need to offer quality health care to the public. On the part of the public, they are informed of their right in pursuit for proper health care.
National Committee for Quality Assurance, NCQA. (2009). Quality of U.S, Health Care Stuck in Neutral: Analysis shows spending unrelated to quality improvement. Quality Digest, October Issue. Retrieved on 12th August 2010 from, http://www.qualitydigest.com/inside/health-care-article/quality-us-health-care-stuck-neutral.html#
National Geographic, (2010). The Other Health Care Debate: Lines vs. Scatter plot. Retrieved on 12th August 2010 from, http://blogs.ngm.com/blog_central/2010/01/the-other-health-care-debate-lines-vs-scatterplot.html
Richter, S. (2010). The U.S. Healthcare Debate: Still Catching Up to Bismarck. Retrieved on 12th August 2010 from, http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=8318