Minimum 1 Page AMA Format For Citation: The Film Escape Fire

Minimum 1 Page Ama Format For Citationsthe Film Escape Fire Discusses

Minimum 1 page AMA format for citations The film Escape Fire discusses the provision of care in the United States. Several concerns were raised in the film. A large cost for the health care system and families is post-acute care. The level of demand for hospital, home care, and nursing home stay is often dependent upon source of funding and there are many regulations placed upon supplying both markets. Based on what you saw in the movie and the resources address each of following questions: · How does this compare to other nations? · What services are and are not covered in other nations? · What changes could be implemented within the current system to improve efficiencies and distribution in both markets?

Paper For Above instruction

The film "Escape Fire" critically examines the US healthcare system, highlighting significant issues such as soaring costs, fragmented care, and inefficiencies, especially concerning post-acute care services. When comparing the United States to other nations, notable differences emerge concerning coverage, quality, and healthcare access, which influence the overall efficiency of healthcare delivery.

In the United States, healthcare is largely driven by private insurance with government programs like Medicare and Medicaid covering specific populations. Many services, especially post-acute care such as long-term nursing home stays and home health services, are only partially covered or not covered at all, resulting in significant out-of-pocket expenses for families (Karp & Gershbein, 2019). These financial strains often lead to disparities in access and quality of care. The reliance on fee-for-service models incentivizes higher utilization rather than outcomes, further escalating costs.

In contrast, countries such as the United Kingdom have publicly funded healthcare systems—primarily the National Health Service (NHS)—which provides comprehensive coverage including most post-acute services without direct charges at the point of service (Dixon et al., 2016). The NHS emphasizes preventive care and coordinated services, resulting in generally lower costs and better health outcomes. Likewise, Canada offers a publicly funded healthcare system that covers essential hospital and physician services but often excludes some long-term care, which residents may need to pay for privately or through supplemental programs (Stadnyk, 2018).

Services covered in other nations versus the US reveal a fundamental divergence. For instance, in the UK, the emphasis on universal coverage extends to preventive, acute, and some long-term care services, promoting early intervention and reducing the need for expensive hospitalizations. Conversely, the US system's fragmentation leads to gaps, particularly in long-term post-acute care, where coverage varies widely by insurer and state regulations (Karp & Gershbein, 2019).

Several reforms could enhance the efficiency and equity of the US healthcare system. Firstly, expanding funding and coverage for post-acute care, potentially through public programs, could reduce disparities and improve patient outcomes. Implementing integrated care models—such as Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs)—can promote coordination among hospitals, primary care, and post-acute providers, reducing unnecessary hospital readmissions and optimizing resource utilization (McWilliams, 2017). Additionally, shifting from fee-for-service reimbursement to value-based models emphasizes patient outcomes and cost efficiency.

Further, adopting policies from other nations could optimize resource allocation. For example, introducing national standards for long-term care financing and services could ensure equitable access. Emphasizing preventive care, health promotion, and social determinants of health in policy reforms can also decrease the demand for costly acute and post-acute interventions (Stadnyk, 2018). Transparency and accountability in funding mechanisms would foster efficiency and reduce administrative burdens.

In conclusion, while the US healthcare system faces significant challenges with high costs and coverage gaps, lessons from other countries demonstrate the benefits of universal coverage, integrated care, and preventive focus. Implementing reforms that prioritize these elements could transform healthcare delivery, making it more equitable, cost-effective, and accessible. A comprehensive approach involving policy reform, system integration, and preventive strategies is essential to address these complex issues effectively.

References

1. Karp JS, Gershbein SI. Poor on paper: An overview of the ethics and morality of Medicaid planning. Florida Bar Journal. 2019;79:61-65.
2. Dixon J, McNeil J, Cummings A, et al. Understanding the impact of health system reform on care pathways in the UK. Health Policy. 2016;120(6):660-668.
3. Stadnyk RL. Comparing long-term care costs across Canada and in other nations. Healthcare Policy. 2018;13(4):45-52.
4. McWilliams JM. Cost containment and value-based payment: lessons from the US and abroad. Journal of Health Economics. 2017;56:123-136.
5. OECD. Health at a Glance 2021: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing; 2021.
6. World Health Organization. Global health observatory data: United Kingdom. WHO; 2020.
7. Canadian Institute for Health Information. How does Canada’s health system compare? CIHI; 2019.
8. Barnes J. Universal healthcare systems: Lessons for the US. Pub Health Rep. 2020;135(2):276-283.
9. Hoffman C, Reynolds J. Post-acute care in comparative perspective: US, UK, Canada. Aging & Mental Health. 2018;22(3):298-304.
10. Reuben D, et al. Reforming long-term care financing: International insights and policy options. The Gerontologist. 2021;61(1):11-20.