The USA Health Care System Strategic planning Brief Synopsis US Health care strategy has been faulty

and wasteful for some time. The private market attempt to create a free market system of healthcare has proven only to provide a wasteful and clunky bureaucracy that eats up resources with red tape, paperwork and administrative salaries without any efficiency or accessibility of the American citizen at all. This study is designed to identify the source of these issues, and change the perspective so we can think outside of the box for a possible solution, which is already visible as successful model in other parts of the world.

Objectives We present goals of focus as listed by research in order to address the most pressing healthcare issues at the administrative level with the specific healthcare needs of this country in terms of delivering health care: 1. Governmentally supported pooling mechanisms for catastrophic illness 2. Payment mechanisms that encourage quality of care 3. Support for information technology use by health care providers 4. Promoting coordinated care and disease management 5. Increased funding for research and public health 6. Provider cost transparency 7. Promoting healthy lifestyles 8. Allowing re-importation of drugs and quicker release of generics 9. Portable health insurance

10. Greater attention to treatment of cancer and autism (Pavarini, 2008)

If there is any question as to the validity of these issue listed, these goals were agreed upon by both of our Presidential candidates.

External environment/ conditions and trends Threats The administrative threat comes not from the quality of health care available, as this country has probably the bent medical care in the world. However, the problem lies with the inability of our government in the present system to deliver it. Health care in this country requires an excess of administrative service and headaches for both employees and recipients. Research cites the massive private bureaucracy that doctors, hospitals and businesses must react by employing armies of administrators. Research further reveals the concern that health care administration consumes 31 percent of this countrys health spending. Research estimates that $350 billion is being waste on administrative costs, while so many people in this country go without insurance because they choose not to pay for it. Two third of the system is funded through health care system. Yet we are not getting the service we need, nor are Americans choosing or financially able to buy health insurance privately.

Opportunities/possibilities The opportunity is through some organizational efficiency to find a way to extend good coverage to all Americans. Americans are already paying for healthcare through taxes, of which two thirds go to insurance, yet many Americans cannot afford private health insurance.

This requires not only being more efficient as a healthcare organization, but diversifying the capabilities of the physician, and teaching diversity and multicultural care to all students (Emerging Goals, 2002). The ability to adapt to different cultures for medicals staff could eliminate some of the paperwork and holdups. Further, better redistribution of health care apportionments could bring funding to rural areas that are traditionally understaffed because of lower salaries in an economy where health insurance companies are conglomerate in big cities, along with contracting medical organizations. Characteristic and performance Strength Our main strength is the quality of care, the final product that is the end result. The problems with delivery of that service is what needs to be discussed, which is getting coverage (no insurance!) to as many Americans as possible, especially when other countries cover their citizens across the board. Countries such as France, Germany and England cover all their citizens via the government, in a system called universal coverage, including Canada.

Weakness The weakness is that the US chose not to offer universal coverage. In fact, the US has 47 million uninsured Americans because the "right" to purchase in this country has remained in the hands of the private citizen. Worse, even those services are included, find out their policies (insurance coverage) are insufficient coverage-wise, or even insured Americans often discover they dont have enough money for the service due to the additional co-fees they have to pay, when in other countries most these services are guaranteed by the government. In this country, health care costs for anything besides a minor check up can cause financial disaster:

Although unheard-of in other nations, illness and medical bills contribute to half of personal bankruptcies here, and 75 percent of those with medical debt had coverage when they got sick (McCanne, 2006). In short, there is generally disorganized, fragmented, and warped insurance payment system in this country, a severe weakness that needs to be addressed. Strategic selection Bringing costs down would still leave medicals costs high, because doctor perform expensive procedures and have to pay their own bills. Thus why the country has chosen the privatized route becomes only more unfathomable. The free market rational is certainly not enough to justify the disproportionate and faulty coverage in this country. The PPO system is the closest we have had to a solution. The doctors make deals with the insurance company to accept specified reduced fees for services, and agree not to bill the patient for the difference between the fee and the insurance company reimbursement: the insurance company then markets its group (or "panel") of doctors to major employers to provide medical services at some lower cost to the employer than traditional Indemnity Health Insurance (Whats the Difference, 2008). But this is already too complicated. Who are we kidding? The current convoluted system needs to be simplified, as HMOs have not provided the answer either. While a patient may get an attractive package of fees, they cant afford the co-payments that come with insurance coverage for medical services thereof, and assistance from government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid is hardly sufficient to cover anything more than basic costs of the elderly,

who have a lot more medical problems than basic costs.

Alternatives In other countries, the alternative seems the best. In the UK, the government owns the healthcare system. Other countries use a social insurance model in which care is paid for either directly through the government or via tightly organized and regulated nonprofit companies, while doctors and hospitals remain independent (McCanne, 2006).

Recommendations The time has come to just let it go. Adopt a universal health care plan. Take out the money from peoples paychecks (this is already happening now when people pay taxes). Thus the best thing we could do is just intervene to make sure the money gets to all citizens, not only those who can afford co-payment after taxes are so disjointedly redistributed to the wasteful bureaucracy of the healthcare system at present. Even if you have a philosophical issue with universal coverage, there is one thing that no can argue: everyone is covered.

Sources Emerging Strategic Goals: August 2002: http://www.southalabama.edu/usa/goals/StrategicGoals.pdf McCanne, Don. Would Europe's health-care-for-all model work here? Cover everyone and use Medicare as a model. The Press-Enterprise December 17, 2006. Retrieved November 22, 2008: http://www.pnhp.org/news/2006/december/would_europes_healt.php Pavarini, Peter. October 14, 2008: http://www.szdhealthlawscan.com/articles/strategicplanning-and-policy/ WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INDEMNITY INSURANCE, HMO'S, AND PPO'S? (2008). Retrieved November 23, 2008: http://home.austin.rr.com/austintxmd/Pages/ppohmo.html