Health Delivery Systems: Primary Objectives And Characterist

Health Delivery Systems Primary Objectives and Characteristics

As outlined by Shi and Singh (2023), the primary objectives of a health delivery system are two-fold. First, it must ensure that every citizen has the opportunity to access healthcare services, encompassing preventive care, acute care, and chronic care, without regard to their income, insurance status, or place of residence (Shi & Singh, 2023). This emphasizes the importance of universal access to healthcare. The concept of universal healthcare is one often debated in the United States, oftentimes carrying political bias. Zieff et al. (2020) argue that, while implementing a universal healthcare system in the US poses logistical and financial challenges, the long-term benefits it offers to public health and the economy outweigh these obstacles despite strong opposition to universal healthcare from some powerful interests, such as the health insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry (Zieff et al., 2020).

The second objective outlined by Shi and Singh (2023) is that the health delivery system must provide healthcare services that are both cost-effective and consistently meet established standards of quality (Shi & Singh, 2023). Tzenios (2019) highlights multiple factors inhibit many from accessing affordable, quality healthcare, encompassing individual factors, like income, education level, health literacy, and socioeconomic status; structural factors, such as the availability and accessibility of healthcare providers, resource allocation, and geographic distribution; and systemic factors, including government policies, financing mechanisms, and healthcare system design, with fragmented and inefficient systems posing affordability challenges for individuals and families (Tzenios, 2019).

Shi and Singh (2023) do note that the US falls well short of having an optimal healthcare delivery system but highlights advancements in medical research and various innovations for affordable healthcare (Shi & Singh, 2023). Characteristics of Health Delivery Systems In discussing the positives and drawbacks, Shi and Singh (2023) also provide ten characteristics of the United States healthcare delivery system, which include a lack of central governing agency and limited integration, a technology-driven focus on acute care, the system's high cost, unequal access, and average health outcomes, the operation of healthcare delivery under imperfect market conditions, the government's role as subsidiary to the private sector, a fusion of market justice and social justice principles, the presence of multiple stakeholders with a complex balance of power, a growing quest for system integration and accountability, selective access to healthcare services based on insurance coverage, and the impact of legal risks on healthcare providers' practice behaviors (Shi and Singh, 2023).

Although these characteristics are interrelated and shape the US healthcare delivery system, some are shared with other developed countries in some capacity. Both the United States and United Kingdom health care delivery systems are market-based systems and often face the challenges of imperfect market conditions. Moran (2018) explains that the rise of market forces driving UK healthcare delivery can be attributed to the increasing role of private providers, stemming from the government's contracting out of services to private providers and the growth of private health insurance (Moran, 2018). Shi and Singh (2023) make note of the US government's role in financing and regulating health care, but they note that the private sector plays the dominant role in delivering care (Shi & Singh, 2023).

However, the key difference is that the UK healthcare system is more heavily regulated than the US healthcare system, such as setting prices for prescription drugs and hospital services, which serves to reduce the impact of imperfect market conditions. Another characteristic shared between the US and the UK is the fusion of market justice and social justice, where market justice emphasizes individual responsibility and choice while social justice emphasizes the importance of ensuring that everyone has access to necessities, such as health care (Shi & Singh, 2023). Dukhanin et al. (2018) argue that it is important to find a balance between market justice and social justice when designing and implementing healthcare by ensuring that everyone has access to basic healthcare services, regulating the market to ensure that it is fair and competitive, and providing subsidies to disadvantaged groups to help them afford healthcare (Dukhanin et al., 2018).

It can be argued that while the UK healthcare delivery system places a greater emphasis on social justice by offering universal healthcare, it does not carry the freedoms seen in US healthcare delivery in terms of choosing providers that best meet their medical needs. Biblical Implications While discussions surrounding universal healthcare often carry political undertones, it is worth considering the wisdom found in God’s teachings. Matthew 25:35-36 states, "For I was hungry, and you gave me food, I was thirsty, and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me." In these verses, God emphasizes that caring for the sick and needy equates to caring for Him.

This passage highlights the importance of displaying compassion for those less fortunate and assisting them to the best of our abilities. Universal healthcare emerges as a means of embodying this biblical principle, ensuring that healthcare access extends to all, irrespective of their economic or social standing. Resources Dukhanin, V., Searle, A., Zwerling, A., Dowdy, D. W., Taylor, H. A., & Merritt, M. W. (2018). Integrating social justice concerns into economic evaluation for healthcare and public health: A systematic review. Social Science & Medicine , 198 , 27-35. Moran, M. (2018). Explaining the rise of the market in health care. In Markets and Health Care (pp. 17-33). Routledge. Shi, L., & Singh, D. A. (2023). Essentials of the U.S. Health Care System — With Access (6th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. ISBN: . The Holy Bible, New International Version. (2011). Blue Letter Bible. to an external site. (Original work published 1973) Tzenios, N. (2019). The Determinants of Access to Healthcare: A Review of Individual, Structural, and Systemic Factors. Journal of Humanities and Applied Science Research , 2 (1), 1-14. Zieff, G., Kerr, Z. Y., Moore, J. B., & Stoner, L. (2020). Universal healthcare in the United States of America: A healthy

Paper For Above instruction

Healthcare delivery systems are fundamental frameworks that shape how health services are provided, accessed, and financed within a country. The primary objectives of these systems, as highlighted by Shi and Singh (2023), revolve around ensuring universal access to healthcare services and maintaining cost-effectiveness and quality standards. These objectives are central to addressing disparities in healthcare and improving public health outcomes. In particular, the concept of universal healthcare—providing access regardless of socioeconomic status—remains a contentious yet vital aspect of health policy debates, especially in countries like the United States.

In examining the objectives of healthcare delivery, the emphasis on universal access underscores the ethical premise that health is a fundamental human right. It entails eliminating barriers related to income, insurance coverage, or geographical location. Such accessibility is essential for preventing and managing diseases, reducing health disparities, and fostering a healthier population. Shi and Singh (2023) underline that achieving this objective faces challenges due to structural and systemic barriers, including resource limitations and policy constraints. Nonetheless, advocating for universal healthcare aligns with principles of social justice and human dignity, emphasizing that health services should be available to all, regardless of personal circumstance.

The second core objective—cost-effectiveness and quality—addresses the efficient allocation of resources and the assurance of high-standard care. Tzenios (2019) discusses that barriers such as income, education, health literacy, provider availability, and systemic inefficiencies hinder equitable access. Fragmented systems, insufficient funding, and geographic maldistribution of healthcare providers further complicate efforts to deliver affordable, quality care. Consequently, healthcare systems must balance resource utilization with stringent quality controls to ensure that healthcare services are both affordable and effective. These priorities are crucial for sustainable health systems capable of meeting population needs without undue financial hardship.

Shi and Singh (2023) note that the United States, despite its advancements in medical research and technological innovation, falls short of an ideal healthcare delivery model. The US healthcare system is characterized by several defining traits, such as a lack of centralized governance, a technology-driven focus predominantly on acute care, high costs, and pronounced disparities in access and health outcomes. Additionally, the US operates under imperfect market conditions, where private interests often influence care delivery, and the government’s role is primarily regulatory and financial rather than directly service-providing. The complex web of stakeholders—including private insurers, healthcare providers, government agencies, and interest groups—further complicates reform efforts.

Many of these characteristics are not unique to the US but are shared by other developed nations, notably the United Kingdom. Moran (2018) explains that the UK’s healthcare landscape has evolved through increased private sector involvement, with contracting out of services and the expansion of private health insurance, driven by market forces. However, unlike the US, the UK maintains a more heavily regulated system, with government controls on prices and resource allocation aimed at reducing the adverse effects of market imperfections (Moran, 2018). Despite differences, both systems attempt to grapple with balancing market justice—emphasizing individual choice and responsibility—and social justice, which prioritizes universal access and equality (Shi & Singh, 2023; Dukhanin et al., 2018).

The fusion of market and social justice principles is a defining feature of many healthcare systems. The US leans more heavily toward market justice, fostering innovation and individual freedom, but this has resulted in disparities that undermine broad health equity. Conversely, the UK emphasizes social justice, prioritizing universal access but at the cost of patient choice and provider options. Dukhanin et al. (2018) argue that policy frameworks should aim to find a middle ground—ensuring universal coverage while preserving some degree of choice and market fairness. Achieving this balance is critical for sustainable and equitable health systems.

From a biblical perspective, the principles of compassion and care for the vulnerable align with the goals of universal healthcare. Matthew 25:35-36 emphasizes caring for the sick and needy as caring for God Himself. This biblical teaching advocates for a compassionate approach to health and underscores the moral imperative to extend care to all, irrespective of wealth or social status. Universal healthcare, therefore, can be seen as a practical expression of biblical love and charity, embodying societal responsibility to care for the less fortunate.

In conclusion, healthcare delivery systems are designed with overarching goals of ensuring universal access and delivering cost-effective, high-quality care. While the US faces significant challenges—such as high costs, disparities, and systemic fragmentation—other countries like the UK offer alternative models emphasizing regulation and universalism. Balancing market justice with social justice principles remains essential for creating sustainable systems that promote equity and efficiency. Ethical and biblical considerations further reinforce the moral necessity of caring for the sick and vulnerable—highlighting that effective healthcare is not only a policy issue but a moral obligation rooted in compassion and justice.

References

• Dukhanin, V., Searle, A., Zwerling, A., Dowdy, D. W., Taylor, H. A., & Merritt, M. W. (2018). Integrating social justice concerns into economic evaluation for healthcare and public health: A systematic review. Social Science & Medicine, 198, 27-35.
• Moran, M. (2018). Explaining the rise of the market in health care. In Markets and Health Care (pp. 17-33). Routledge.
• Shi, L., & Singh, D. A. (2023). Essentials of the U.S. Health Care System — With Access (6th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
• The Holy Bible, New International Version. (2011). Blue Letter Bible.
• Tzenios, N. (2019). The determinants of access to healthcare: A review of individual, structural, and systemic factors. Journal of Humanities and Applied Science Research, 2(1), 1-14.
• Zieff, G., Kerr, Z. Y., Moore, J. B., & Stoner, L. (2020). Universal healthcare in the United States of America: A healthy debate. American Journal of Public Health, 110(4), 445-447.