HEALTHCARE TRENDS

This week’s assignment centers around a report released by the centers for disease control (CDC) back in 2011. Within the report we are asked to focus on two specific topics; mortality and morbidity. In addition to reviewing the data, there were some accompanying questions that will be addressed. Before delving further into the topics, lets first start with a good working definition of both.
According to Webster’s Online Dictionary, mortality is defined as the quality or state of being a person or thing that is alive and therefore certain to die (Webster’s 2014). For morbidity, Webster’s summarizes it as quality or state of being morbid; the relative incidence of disease (Webster’s 2014). Now that good working definitions have been established, the relating questions can be addressed. The first discussion point asks to identify changes that seem to be occurring based on the mortality and morbidity data.
In his article titled MORTALITY TRENDS, Preston shares “When death rates decline, they do so at all ages. Hence, the likelihood that an individual of any age will survive to subsequent stages of life will increase, and the largest effects will tend to occur among the very young. Individuals typically undergo a series of related cycles as they age - physical, educational, occupational, recreational and familial. The chance that an individual will complete any particular cycle obviously depends on prevailing risks of death. Moreover, the choice of stage at a particular age is likely to be affected by impending mortality. The reason for this dependence is that many of the states in childhood and early adulthood fundamentally represent investments, and the expected return to investment will vary with the duration of time over which the returns are expected to accrue” (Preston 1977).
The positions that Preston shares in his article, have some relational points to the report conducted by the CDC. Per the report, “Between 2000 and 2009, life expectancy at birth increased 1.9 years for males and 1.6 years for females. The gap in life expectancy between males and females narrowed from 5.2 years in 2000 to 4.9 years in 2009 (CDC 2011). This quote alludes to two specific changes. First, overall between the sexes, life expectancy has increased. And secondly, the well-established gap in life expectancy has narrowed. With respect to morbidity, the report states some very startling facts that demonstrate a trend heading in the wrong direction.
According to the report released by the CDC, “Between 1999–2000 and 2009–2010, the prevalence of lifetime respondent-reported heart disease among adults 18–54 years of age was similar for men and women. Among adults 55 years of age and over, heart disease prevalence was higher for men than for women. Among adult women in all age groups, and among men 45–74 years of age, prevalence remained steady from 1999–2000 to 2009–2010. Among men 75 years of age and over, prevalence rose from 39% in 1999–2000 to 45% in 2009–2010” (CDC 2011). This directly states that heart disease, with respect to morbidity, is on the incline among adults 18-54.
The second question asks what we believe those changes might be attributed to. Also, what they mean for the future of healthcare delivery. I think one major attribute for these changes is the overall health of Americans today. As a nation, we have lots of unhealthy habits. These habits lead to lifestyles and those directly relate to our overall health. Bad habits such as excessive drinking, smoking, illicit drug use and even poor food choices are all triggers that lead to living an unhealthy lifestyle. As a result, it’s only natural that as our health declines, our views on morality must change as well.
In the article titled Morality, the author took a somewhat humorous approach to an otherwise grim subject. The article quotes as follows: “The universe at large would suffer as little in its splendor and variety, by the destruction of our planet, as the verdure and sublime magnitude of a forest would suffer by the fall of a single leaf. The leaf quivers on the branch which supports it. It lies at the mercy of the slightest accident. A breath of wind tears it from it stem, and it lights on a stream of water which passes underneath. In a moment of time, the life which we know, by the microscope, it teems with, is extinguished” (American 1817).
As for what these changes mean for the future of healthcare delivery, that remains to be seen. It could mean that changes, very blatantly needed changes, are on the horizon. However, it could also mean that more empty promises are on the horizon. When presented with stone cold facts, we are presented with a choice. That choice is either to accept the facts, and whatever changes or consequences may come with that. Or the obvious inverse is to ignore those facts and continue with whatever operating procedures are currently the standard.
Christopher Murray hits on related topic in his article titled Understanding Morbidity Change. In it, he says “Attempts to assess morbidity--illness, disability, and other compromised states of well-being--have grown in importance as life expectancy increases and mortality declines to very low levels in many populations. Morbidity measures are of two fundamental types, self-perceived and clinically observed, and different morbidity indicators may capture entirely different aspects of illness and health. The authors develop an approach to morbidity definition and measurement, review specific methods, and present a framework for classifying different types of morbidity indicators” (Murray 1992).
After reviewing key areas of the report from the CDC, there are some relational topics and connections that can be made from them. The next question posed by the assignment asks when is the use of regulation appropriate in the delivery of healthcare services. The simple answer I think would be whenever those in need of healthcare services, require it. At least, that’s what the answer should be. However, it should be of no shock that we don’t live in a perfect society where this answer would not only be accepted, but expected.
The term regulation, can invoke in some a negative connotation. Instead of focusing on emotion, I think we should focus on the term itself. Regulation means installing rules, policies or a regulatory environment. Using that definition, regulation doesn’t necessarily have to be something negative. Instead, it can be positive when the intended purpose and how to reach that purpose is clearly stated. This ensures that all involved parties understand the terms of the regulation. Simply put, everyone who has a seat at the table should have a clear and concise meaning of the rules. If this term is applied in its truest meaning, regulation could and should be viewed as something that can do more good than harm.
Another often debated topic in the effectiveness of regulatory efforts aimed at hospitals and at physicians. The next question required for this assignment deals with evaluating the effectiveness of those efforts. In order to rate something, there must be a rating system in place. For this assignment, I will use a simple rating scale of 1 to 5 with one being terrible and 5 being outstanding. In its present working condition, I would have to give it a modest 3. Not terrible but not outstanding either by any means.
Giving a rating of 3 isn’t the end of world nor should it be viewed as something extremely disheartening. It simply represents that there are some good policies in place, but that there are more needed. There should always be an opportunity to advance and make improvements. Regardless of your industry, becoming complacent can kill a company, entity or industry. In present day society, every company uses information technology in some manner or form. Could you imagine, if no advancements were made by industry leaders? What would happen if online banking for example, still used the same protocols and security features from the year 2000? The answer is chaos. A rating of a three should be encouraging to strive for a 4 and eventually a 5. Even if the maximum rating is achieved, striving to continually improve should always be the common goal.
As with any assessment, once the conclusion is in sight, there are some expectations that come along with it. One of the biggest is the recommendations made by the author to improve the problems discussed in the preceding article. After combining my own knowledge with the information gathered from several sources, I do have some recommendations that I think could improve patient care. First, would be the quality of care. By improving the quality of care patients receive, I sincerely believe that in most cases, the amount of care a patient would need could increase.
Another recommendation I would recommend is decreasing the wait times experienced by some patients. While I understand that in some cases that is just not entirely feasible, that should be a rare exception, the problem is, some Americans feel that is the normal operating standard. Changing this wide spread perception is something I think could spark massive change in how people feel about the healthcare system. The final recommendation I would suggest to healthcare leaders is the possibility of coming up with a flat rate for some standard medical procedures. Whether insured or not, if there were a standard rate for common procedures it would put a lot of citizens at ease when the possibility of a hospital or urgent care facility visit, is looming. I also think this could help improve some of the negative image associated with the healthcare system. Repairing the trust of the general public, is a big step on the road to recovering the healthcare delivery system as a whole.

REFERENCE PAGE

Centers for Disease Control (CDC): Health, United States 2011. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morbidity http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mortality
MORALITY. (1817, Sep 06). The Ladies' Weekly Museum; Or, Polite Repository of Amusement and Instruction; being an Assemblage of Whatever can Interest the Mind, Or Exalt the Character of the American Fair (1817-1817), I, 304. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/90448807?accountid=38107
Murray, C. L., & Chen, L. C. (1992). Understanding Morbidity Change. Population & Development Review, 18(3), 481-503.
Preston, S. H. (1977). MORTALITY TRENDS. Annual Review Of Sociology, 3163.