Introduction
Quality healthcare has always been based on universal access of healthcare services, effective care, efficient use of resources and a high response rate to patient concerns (Mossialos, 2002, p. 1). These quality concerns have largely characterized most healthcare and political debates. There is a wide consensus regarding the importance of providing quality services to all patients but different healthcare institutions and jurisdictions have adopted different models for healthcare funding (Williams and Torrens, 2008). Healthcare funding varies across different health services because every healthcare service has a unique impact on the quality of healthcare. This paper explores the best way to fund ambulatory services, mental and behavioral services, and a continuum of long-term healthcare services in (your state).
How to Fund Ambulatory Services
Ambulatory services should be funded through taxation. Taxation is an effective way of funding ambulatory services because it is non-discriminatory and easy to implement using state support. The non-discriminatory nature of taxation is appropriate to fund ambulatory services because ambulatory services are often required whenever there is a health emergency. Regardless of a person’s medical funding plan, everybody should have access to ambulatory services. For example, if there is an accident, it would not be ethical to deny a patient (who is probably unconscious) ambulatory services just because they do not have medical insurance or enough cash to finance the same. In fact, denying a patient emergency treatment may lead to the loss of life, thereby making any discriminatory funding on ambulatory services unethical. Funding through taxation has been practiced in different parts of the world with high success. For example, the United Kingdom (U.K) healthcare services are normally funded through direct taxation. Like the U.K, Belgium has also uses direct taxation from cigarette consumption to fund ambulatory services (Mossialos, 2002, p. 11). The taxation proposal for funding ambulatory services may either be implemented through direct or indirect taxation.
How to Fund a Continuum of Long-term Care Services
Funding long-term care services requires a long-term healthcare funding scheme. Insurance comes into sharp focus in this regard because funding healthcare through insurance is a sustainable way of catering to the long-term needs of healthcare treatment. Indeed, insurance stands as the most reasonable way of financing long-term care because other payment options like out-of-pocket payments may prove to be too expensive for the patient. Concisely, evidence has been given of numerous cases where people have lost all their life savings in long-term care because it is very expensive (Porter, 2008). Insurance, therefore, offers a cushion to patients and family members from incurring huge bills associated with long-term healthcare (Paolucci, 2010, p. 5). However, for the purposes of this study, public insurance funding stands out as the most appropriate funding scheme for meeting the financial needs of long-term care services. In America, the most common public healthcare insurance schemes are Medicaid and Medicare programs. There have been many political debates regarding the need to sustain such programs but combining such programs with private insurance services will be an effective way of funding long-term care services. A combination of public and private insurance, therefore, provides the right framework for meeting long-term healthcare costs (Porter, 2008). This combination of insurance schemes is important because it addresses the needs of all population groups within the state. The framework for funding should be progressive because the affordability of healthcare services will determine the insurance scheme that a patient adopts.
Funding mental and Behavioral Health
Funding mental and behavioral health can be undertaken using a variety of approaches. Donor funding and grants are effective ways of funding mental and behavioral health because the nature of mental and behavioral health disorders is likely to appeal to the human sense of compassion. Sponsors, donor organizations, or charity foundations should therefore be encouraged to finance mental and behavioral health because it is an important part of proper societal and community development (Porter, 2008). Mental health patients and other patients suffering from extreme behavioral problems are often neglected by society and discriminated against in the same manner. In fact, in some societies around the world, mental health patients are often denied basic human rights (like the right to education) because they are considered “unnatural” (Porter, 2008). Unfortunately, governments have failed to protect such patients from the extremes of societal prejudice. The involvement of non-profit and non-governmental organizations in providing mental and behavioral health funding has been successful in most parts of the world. Moreover, many insurance companies do not offer coverage for such types of healthcare issues because of the complexities of treating such healthcare issues.
Out-of-pocket funding can also be used to finance mild behavioral health problems because such healthcare problems are not very expensive to finance. Moreover, mild behavioral healthcare problems (such as depression) can be caused by rare life events like death, trauma, and the like. Such healthcare complications are usually one-off and may not recur in the course of a patient’s life. Therefore, paying for such mild healthcare expenses may be affordable through out-of-pocket funding (Mossialos, 2002, p. 11). Alternatively, voluntary insurance with tax subsidies can be paid by individuals and employers. Here, people will voluntarily insure against mental or behavioral health problems but the government and local authorities can subsidize payable premiums to encourage more people to get covered. This financing option is especially appropriate for people who have mental or behavioral health problems in their families. The probability that such people may suffer the same health complications is therefore high and it is wise to cover oneself against such risks. This health financing option should be available to such willing patients and options to subsidize them should also be considered (Mossialos, 2002, p. 11).
Conclusion
Healthcare financing is not a simple process. Different countries have struggled to implement healthcare financing options with success but the complexities in accommodating varied societal dynamics are perplexing. This paper identifies that taxation is the best way to finance ambulatory services because it is a non-discriminatory way of financing such healthcare services. Moreover, the life-threatening nature of access to ambulatory services demands that everybody should have access to such healthcare services. It is therefore crucial for the state government to finance such healthcare services using state taxes. Insurance is proposed as the best strategy for financing long-term healthcare because it offers an affordable cushion to the painstaking process of paying for expensive long-term treatments. A combination of private and public healthcare insurance is supported in this regard. Finally, this paper proposes that mental and behavioral health be funded through voluntary insurance, grants, and out-of-pocket expenses. Each financing option should be evaluated based on the nature of the health complication. These methods are the most appropriate financing options.
References
Mossialos, E. (2002). Funding health care: options for Europe. Web.
Paolucci, F. (2010). Health Care Financing and Insurance: Options for Design. New York: Springer.
Porter, N. (2008). The Macroeconomic Impact of Healthcare Financing Alternatives: Reform Options for Hong Kong SAR (EPub). London: International Monetary Fund.
Williams, S. J., & Torrens, P. R. (2008). Introduction to health services (7th ed.). New York: Cengage Delmar Learning.