NOWRS

The rapid development of workplace health protection and prevention strategies have been encouraged by the government and recommendations as well as by European Union legislation in the field of health and safety in the workplace and by the European Commission’s program on public health. It is also largely due to new demands and expectations of employers, employees and their representative bodies because they realize the benefits of economic, social and health achieved by providing this service in the workplace, thus providing knowledge that is available and the evidence necessary for continuous improvement health management in the workplace. Workplace comprehensive health management is a process that involves all stakeholders inside and outside the business. It aims to empower them to take control over their own health and the health of their families to consider the environmental, lifestyle, and social determinants of health and quality of health services. It is based on the principles of health promotion and creates a great challenge to health professionals, environmental and security to provide services, advice, information and education for the social partners in the workplace. It involves also the interests of substantial socio-economic of all stakeholders involved. Has been shown in several examples that utilize the services business is well managed health research-based work can gain competitive advantage by:

Protect human health against the health and safety hazards that occur in the workplace.
Promote human health workplace for all ages and healthy aging with the appropriate work culture, work organization and support for social cohesion.
Promoting health lifestyles, mental health and prevent major noncommunicable diseases in health policy and workplace specific management tools.
Retain the ability to work with a lifetime of work as well as work.
Reduce health care costs caused by the employee and the employer of injury, illness, disease and premature retirement resulting from or influenced by the work, the style of the environment, life and social determinants of health
Using resources effectively, protect the natural environment and create an environment to support health.
Enhance social communication and literacy on health, environment and ethics.

This article describes the series of observations of the authors of the various roles performed by occupational health nurses. While acknowledging that there are variations in occupational health nursing practice among various industries and blue-collar neighborhood of this series reflects the standards that already exist when the occupational health nursing is the most advanced. But it must be recognized that the level of education, professional skills and national legislation out to determine what role can actually be done by occupational health nurses. Even more important is to remember that no one professional from the health professions work out now able to meet all the health needs of the working population. A multi-disciplinary approach needed to effectively manage the evolving workplace health and safety demands in today’s business.

Health services in the workplace that uses a lot of professional skills as a specialist occupational physician, safety engineers, work hygienists, occupational health nurses, ergonomists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, laboratory technicians, psychologists and other specialists. Roles and tasks actually performed for the company by representatives from different health and safety profession varies greatly depending on the needs of the legislature, the scope of the concept of workplace health perceived by the directors, the practice of law enforcement, the level of their education, position in the health infrastructure, actions taken by the insurance agencies and many other factors. Occupational health nurses are the largest group of health professionals involved in providing health services in the workplace and have the most important role in the management of occupational health. They are at the forefront in helping to protect and improve the health of nations working population.

The role of occupational health nurses in health management at work is a new and exciting concept designed to improve the management of health and health-related problems at work (Baranski 1999). Occupational health nurse specialists can play a major role in protecting and improving the health of residents who work as part of this strategy. Occupational health nurses can also make a major contribution to sustainable development, enhance competitiveness, job security and improved profitability and business community by addressing the factors related to the health of the working population. By helping to reduce the pain of occupational health nurses can contribute to improved profitability and organizational performance and reduce health care costs. Occupational health nurses can also help to reduce the externalization of costs to the taxpayer, by preventing disability and social exclusion, and to improve rehabilitation services in the workplace. By protecting and improving the health of the working population, and by promoting social inclusion, occupational health nurses can also make a significant contribution to building a caring social ethos in the UK. E-Book provides guidance to employers and employees to build a workplace health management systems within their own organizations. How to define and develop the role and functions of occupational health nursing specialist in the respective companies and where to go for additional help and advice in relation to occupational health nursing.

Changing nature of working life and new challenges

Working world has undergone major changes in the last hundred years. For the most part, very heavy dirty and dangerous industry has gone, and the burden of disease, which comes with them, in European countries the most, has been declining (Hunter 1978). However, the new working environment and working conditions that have replaced them have given rise to new and different concerns about the health of the working population (Rantanen et al 1994). Exposure to physical, chemical risk factors, biological and psychosocial support in the workplace is now much more clearly associated with health outcomes in the public mind. Community expectations in terms of health in the workplace is also changing, with increasing demand for better standards of protection in the workplace and to improve the quality of work life. Employers also recognize that health-related problems, such as absence of disease, litigation and compensation costs, increased insurance premiums, which are expensive, ignoring them can cause serious economic consequences. The best entrepreneurs have emphasized the important message that good health is good business, and that much can be achieved in this field simply by introducing better management practices (HSE 1998).

Workplace Management Needs

There are approximately 400 million people working in the EU Member States. Some of them spend more than half of their real life in the workplace. However, fatal accidents at work are still common. Standardized incidence rates per 100,000 workers in the European Union (Eurostat 1997) showed that the rate of fatal accidents in the UK vary between 1.6 to 13.9 in Spain, by Austria, Greece, France, Italy and Portugal all above 5.0%. Throughout the European region there are about 200-7500 non-fatal accidents per 100,000 workers per year, of which approximately 10% of the severe causes no more than 60 working days, and up to 5%, per year, leading to permanent disability (WHO 1995). It has been estimated that the total cost to society of work-related injury and ill health in the EU is between 185 billion and 270 billion ECU per year, representing between 2.6% to 3.8% of Gross National Product (GNP) in country- member states. The cost of occupational accidents and ill health, both in financial and human terms, remains a burden, a large majority has not been recognized in the UK. The majority of those accidents and illnesses can be prevented if appropriate action has been taken in the workplace. Many responsible employers have consistently shown that by paying attention to this problem type and cost of further losses can be avoided, for the benefit of everyone concerned. Increasing attention is the increasing awareness of job stress. Up to 42% of workers in the last survey complained about the high speed of work (Houtman 1996). Job insecurity, fear of unemployment, lack of regular salary and the potential loss of work ability is an additional source of stress, even for those in work (WHO 1999).

Broad social and health effects from stress of work on the health of the working population is well documented, for example, 23% of workers surveyed admitted that they had been absent from work due to health reasons related work within the previous twelve months. (EU doc 1996). Costs resulting from the disease in the UK is considered substantial. In the UK 177 million working days lost in 1994 as a result of the absence of disease, it has been assessed more than 11 billion in lost productivity.HSE statistics that follow are given in the year 2009, only 29.3 million days lost as a whole, 24.6 million due to work-related ill health and 4.7 million due to workplace injuries. Most of the burden of ill health and absence due to illness produced or aggravated by working conditions. Even when the pain is not directly caused by work, but by non-work factors such as smoking, sedentary lifestyle, diet etc. Interventions designed to improve the health of the working population, delivered in the workplace, can help to further reduce the burden of ill health. Current socio-economic impacts of environmental pollution caused by industrial processes in the working population is uncertain, but likely to contribute further to the burden of ill health in some communities.

With all the shouting going on the American health care crisis, many may find it difficult to concentrate, let alone understand the causes of the problems we face. I find myself disappointed in the tone of the discussion (although I understand people are scared —) and also confused that there are people who consider themselves qualified enough to know how best to improve our health care system simply because they see it, when people who have spent entire careers studying (and I do not mean politicians) are not sure what to do themselves.

Albert Einstein was reputed to have said that if he has one hour to save the world he would spend 55 minutes defining the problem and only a 5 minute break. Our health care system is far more complex than most that offer solutions to admit or recognize, and unless we focus most of our efforts on defining the problem and really understand the cause, any changes we make will only make them worse because they are better.

Although I have worked in the American health care system as a doctor since 1992 and has a value of seven years experience as administrative director of primary care, I do not consider myself qualified to really evaluate the viability of most of the suggestions I’ve heard to improve the health care system we. I think, however, I can at least contribute to the discussion by explaining some of the problems, take a reasonable guess at the cause, and outlines some general principles should be applied in an attempt to solve it.

COST PROBLEM

There is no dispute that the U.S. health care spending has increased dramatically. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), health care spending is projected to reach $ 8,160 per person per year by the end of 2009 compared to $ 356 per person per year was 1970. This increase occurred about 2.4% faster than the increase in GDP over the same period. Although the GDP varies from year to year and therefore a perfect way to assess the increase in health care costs compared with other expenditures from one year to the next, we can still conclude from these data that during the last 40 years the percentage of our national income (personal, business , and the government) we have spent on health care has increased.

Despite what most think, this may or may not be bad. It all depends on two things: the reason why health care spending has increased relative to our GDP and how much value we are getting for every dollar we spend.

WHY BE A HEALTH so expensive?

This is a difficult question to answer than many would believe. Rising costs of health care (an average of 8.1% per year 1970-2009, calculated from the data above) has exceeded the increase in inflation (4.4% on average during the same period), so we can not attribute the increase in costs for inflation alone. Health care spending is closely linked to GDP is known (the richer nations, the more spent on health care), but even in the United States remains an outlier (Fig. 3).

Is it because spending on health care for people over the age of 75 (five times what we spend on people between the ages of 25 and 34)? In short, no. Studies show demographic trends explain only a fraction of the growth in health spending.

Is it because of dire profit health insurance companies are raking in? Probably not. This is admittedly difficult to know for sure because not all insurance companies are public and therefore have a balance available for public review. But Aetna, one of the largest public health insurance in North America, reported second-quarter 2009 earnings of $ 346.7 million which, if projected out, predicting an annual profit of approximately $ 1.3 billion from about 19 million people they insure. If we assume that their profit margin is the average for their industry (even if true, it probably is not much different from the average), total profit for all private health insurance companies in America, 202 million people are uninsured (2 points ) in 2007, will come to about $ 13 billion per year. Total health care spending in 2007 was $ 2.2 trillion (see Table 1, page 3), which produces private health care industry profits of about 0.6% of total health care costs (although the analysis of mixed data of different years, it may be permitted as the numbers will not differ by an order of magnitude).

Is it because of health care fraud? Estimated losses from various fraud as high as 10% of all health expenditures, but it’s hard to find hard data to support this. Although some percentage of fraud is almost certainly not be detected, probably the best way to estimate how much money is lost due to fraud is to look at how much the government actually recovered. In 2006, this is a $ 2.2 billion, only 0.1% at $ 2.1 trillion (see Table 1, page 3) in total health care expenditures for that year.

Is it because the cost of pharmaceuticals? In 2006, total expenditures for prescription drugs is about $ 216 billion (see Table 2, page 4). Although this is 10% of the $ 2.1 trillion (see Table 1, page 3) in total health care expenditures for that year and therefore must be considered significant, is still only a fraction of the total health care costs.

Is the cost of administration? In 1999, total administrative costs estimated to be $ 294 billion, 25% full of $ 1.2 trillion (Table 1) in total health care spending that year. This is a significant percentage in 1999 and it is difficult to imagine it shrinks to a significant extent since then.

In the end, though, what may have contributed the largest number with increased health care spending in the U.S. two things:

A. Technological innovation.

2. Overutilization of health care resources to patients and healthcare providers themselves.

Technological innovation. Data demonstrating the rising cost of health care is due in large part to technological innovation is surprisingly difficult to obtain, but estimates of contributing to rising health care costs due to various technological innovations anywhere from 40% to 65% (Table 2, page 8). Although we mostly only have empirical data for this, some examples illustrate the principle. Heart attacks used to be treated with aspirin and prayer. Now they are being treated with drugs to control shock, pulmonary edema, and arrhythmias as well as thrombolytic therapy, cardiac catheterization with angioplasty or stenting, and coronary artery bypass grafting. You do not have to be an economist to figure out which scenario ends up being more expensive. We can learn to do the same procedure is cheaper over time (in the same way we have found a way to make computers cheaper) but the cost per procedure decreased, the total amount spent on each procedure to rise because the number of procedures performed up . Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was 25% less than the price of an open cholecystectomy, but the second level has increased by 60%. As technology advances become more widely available they become more widely used, and one big thing we did in the United States is making the technology available.

Overutilization of health care resources to patients and healthcare providers themselves. We can easily define overutilization as unnecessary consumption of health care resources. What is not so easy is recognizing it. Every year from October to February the majority of patients who come to the Urgent Care Clinic at the hospital I was, in my view, it is not necessary. What they come for? Colds. I can provide support, reassurance that there is nothing seriously wrong, and advice on over-the-counter drugs — but none of these things will make them better more quickly (though I often can I reduce the level of concern) . Furthermore, patients have a hard time believing the key to arrive at a correct diagnosis lies in gathering the history and careful physical examination rather than technology-based testing (not that the latter is not important — just less than most patients believe). How many patient-driven health care system the cost of overutilization is difficult to pin down as we have mostly only anecdotal evidence as above.

Furthermore, doctors often disagree among themselves about what constitutes health care consumption are not necessary. In an excellent article, “The Cost Conundrum,” Atul Gawande argues that regional variations in the overutilization of health care resources to the best doctors account for regional variations in Medicare spending per person. He went on to say that if doctors can be motivated to curb overutilization them in high-cost areas of the country, Medicare would save enough money to remain solvent for 50 years.

A reasonable approach. To get it going, we need to understand why the doctor overutilizing health care resources in the first place:

A. Judgment varies in cases where the medical literature is unclear or unhelpful. When faced with a diagnostic dilemma or a standard treatment of disease has not been determined, the variation in practice always the case. If the primary care physician suspected the patient has an ulcer, if he treated her empirically or see a gastroenterologist for endoscopy? If a “red flag” symptoms are present, most doctors will refer. If not, some will and some will not depending on training and exercises judgment tangible.

2. Inexperience or poor judgment. More experienced doctors tended to rely on history and physical is more than less experienced physicians to order tests and consequently less and less expensive. Studies show primary care physicians spend less money on tests and procedures of sub-specialty colleagues, but they get the same results and sometimes even better.

3. Fear of being sued. It is very common in the emergency setting, but extends to virtually every field of medicine.

4. Patients tend to demand more rather than less testing. As mentioned above. And physicians often have difficulty resisting the demand of patients for various reasons (for example, want to please them, afraid of missing a diagnosis and be sued, etc.).

5. In many situations, overutilization doctors make more money. There exists no reliable incentive for doctors to limit their expenses unless they pay a capitated or they receive a straight salary.

Gawande article implies there is some level of health care resource utilization is optimal: using too little and you get an error and missed diagnoses; use too much and the excess money will be spent with no better results, paradoxically sometimes produce results that are really bad ( probably as a result of complications of all the additional testing and treatment).

So how do we get physicians to use a uniform assessment of whether to order the right number of tests and treatment for every patient — “sweet spot” — in order to produce the best results with the lowest risk of complications? Not easy. There is, fortunately or unfortunately, the art of health care resource utilization is good. Some doctors are more talented at it than others. There are diligent about keeping current. Some care more about their patients. Explosion of studies of medical tests and treatment has occurred in recent decades to help guide physicians in selecting the most effective, most secure way, and even the cheapest way to practice medicine, but the diffusion of evidence-based medicine is a tricky business. Just because beta blockers, for example, has been shown to improve survival after a heart attack does not mean that every physician who knows or provide them. The data clearly shows many are not. How to spread information from the medical literature in medical practice is a worthy subject of a post all its own. Get it to happen in a uniform manner has proven extremely difficult.

In summary, then, most of the increase in spending on health care seems to have come from technological innovation coupled with a doctor working in a redundant system that motivates them to practice medicine much better than drugs, and patients who want to think that the former produces the latter.

But even if we could snap our fingers and magically eliminate the overutilization of all these days, health care in the U.S. will still remain the most expensive in the world, we need to ask next —

WHAT WE GET VALUE FOR OUR DOLLARS SPENT?

According to an article in the New England Journal of Medicine entitled The Burden of Health Costs for Working Families — The implications of the Reformation, the growth of health care spending “could be defined as affordable as long as the percentage increase in revenues earmarked for health care does not reduce the standard of living. While the absolute increase in income can not keep up with the absolute increase in health care spending, the growth of health care can be paid only at the expense of consumption of goods and services that are not related to health care. “When did it ever become acceptable state affairs? Only when additional health care costs to buy an additional value equal or greater. If, for example, you are told that in the near future you will spend 60% of your income on health care but that as a result you will enjoy, say, 30% chance of living to age 250, perhaps you would consider that 60% of small price to pay .

This, in my opinion, is what the debate about health care spending is really to be about. Of course we have to work on ways to eliminate the overutilization. But the real question is not what the absolute value of money is too much to spend on health care. The real question is what we get for the money we spend and is it worth what we have to give up?

People concerned with the idea that rising healthcare costs policy makers may decide to ration health care do not realize that we have at least some of rationing. It just does not appear as if we are because we allotment is on a first-come-first-serve — leave at least partly to chance rather than a policy, which we define and enforce uncomfortable. So we are not aware of the reasons our 90 year-old father in Illinois may not have the heart he needs is for 14 year-old girl in Alaska into the first row (or perhaps our father was in the first line and get it while the girl is 14 years old). Given that most of us remain uncomfortable with the idea of ​​rationing health care based on criteria such as age or utility to society, as technological innovation continues to drive up health care spending, we very well might at some point have to make critical judgments about the value of medical innovation throughout our society to sacrifice access to other goods and services (unless we are so stupid as to repeat the critical error to believe we can continue to borrow money forever without having to pay back).

So what value do we get? It varies. Risk of death from heart attacks has dropped by 66% since 1950 as a result of technological innovation. Because heart disease ranks as the number one cause of death in the U.S. is likely to rank high on the scale value is favorable most of the population in important ways. As a result of advances in pharmacology, we can now treat depression, anxiety, psychosis and even much better than anyone could have imagined even until the mid 1980′s (when Prozac was first released). Clearly, then, some health care cost increases have resulted in tremendous value we do not want to give up.

But how do we decide whether we get good value from a new innovation? Scientific studies have proved innovative (whether a new test or treatment) actually provides significant clinical benefit (Aricept is a good example of a drug that works but does not provide clinical benefit of the patient — crazy score higher on tests of cognitive ability while on it but probably not significantly more functional or significantly better able to remember their children than when they are not). But comparative effectiveness research is very expensive, take longer to resolve, and never can be perfectly applied to each individual patient, all of which means that some health care providers always have to apply good medical judgment for each patient’s problems.

Who is the best position to assess the value for the benefit of an innovation — that is, to decide whether the benefits of an innovation that justifies the cost? I think the group that ultimately pays for it: the American public. How the public views can be reconciled and then effectively communicated to policy makers in an efficient enough to influence actual policy, however, lies far beyond the scope of this paper (and perhaps anyone’s imagination).

ACCESS PROBLEM

Most of the population is uninsured or underinsured, limiting or eliminating their access to health care. As a result, the group found the road a bit (and cheapest) — Emergency Room — resistance is significantly impaired the ability of our nation’s ER doctors to really make timely emergency care. In addition, the survey suggests looming shortage of primary physician care relative to the demand for their services. In my view, the imbalance between supply and demand explain most of the patients poor customer service are facing in our system every day: long wait times for doctor appointments, long waiting times in doctors’ offices once a day they came to the appointment, then spent a short time with the doctor in the exam room, followed by difficulty reaching their doctor between office visits, and finally the delay in getting test results. This imbalance may be only partially solved with less health care overutilization by patients.

SOLUTION MANUAL

As Freaknomics author Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner states, “If morality represents how people want the world to work, then economics represents how it actually does not work.” Capitalism is based on the principle of enlightened self-interest, a system that creates incentives to produce behavior that is beneficial to both suppliers and consumers and thus society as a whole. But when it gets damaged incentives, people start to behave in ways that continue to benefit them often at the expense of others or even their own expense on the road. Whatever changes we make in our health care system (and there are always more than one way to skin a cat), we must be sure to align the incentives so that the resulting behavior of each part of the system contribute to the sustainability and not its destruction.

Here then is a summary of what I consider the best advice I’ve come across to solve the problem I described above:

A. Changing the way insurance companies think about doing business. Insurance companies have the same goals as all other business: maximize profits. And if a public health insurance company and in your 401k portfolio, you want them to maximize profits, too. Unfortunately, the best way for them to do this is to deny their services to customers who are paying for them. More difficult for them to spread the risk (a function of each insurance company) relative to say, an automobile insurance company, because far more people making claims of health insurance claims car insurance. It seems, therefore, from the perspective of consumers, private health insurance model is fundamentally flawed. We need to create a disincentive for insurers to deny health claims (or, conversely, an additional incentive for them to pay for them). Allow and encourage aross-state insurance competition will be at least partially engage the free market forces to lower insurance premiums as well as open up new markets for local insurance companies, benefiting both consumers and insurance providers. With their customers are now armed with the power which is very important to go to other places, health insurance companies may come to see the quality that they actually provide services to their customers (ie, paid claims) as a way to maintain and grow their business. To work, a monopoly or near monopoly should be disbanded or at least discouraged. Even if it does not work, however, the government will probably still have to tighten regulation of health insurance industry to ensure some heinous violations are happening now stop (for example, insurance companies should not be allowed to stratify consumers into sub-groups based on age and increased premiums based on risk higher average older group of diseases because older consumers are more healthy then end up being penalized for their age than their behavior). Karl Denninger suggests some interesting ideas in a posting on his blog about requiring insurance companies to offer a price identical to businesses and individuals as well as creating the “open enrollment” shall where participants can only opt in or out on the basis of the annual plan. This will prevent individuals from buying insurance only when they are sick, which eliminates the problem of adverse selection that encouraged insurance companies to deny payment for a preexisting condition. I would add that, however the level of reimbursement to health care providers specified in the future (again, a whole separate post), all health insurance plans, whether private or public, need to replace the health care providers with the same percentage to eliminate the existence of insurance “good “and” bad “it’s currently responsible for motivating hospitals and physicians to limit or even deny service to the poor and who may be responsible for the same thing happens to the elderly in the future (Medicare reimbursement is only slightly better than the Medicaid ). Finally, the notion of “public option” insurance plan open to all, I am worried that if it is significantly cheaper than a personal choice while providing almost the same benefits across the country will rush to it in bulk, encourage private insurance companies out of business and forcing us to subsidize the health care of each other with higher taxes and fewer choices, but at the same time if the cost to consumers of a “public option” remains comparable to personal choice, the people who were meant to help not will be able to buy it.

2. Motivate people to engage in healthy lifestyles that have been proven to prevent disease. Disease prevention may save money, although some have argued that living longer increases the chance of developing the disease that would not otherwise occur, leading to overall consumption of health care dollars more (though even if it is true, those extra years of life will be judged by most valuable enough to justify the extra cost. After all, the whole purpose of health care is to improve the quality and quantity of life, not save society money. Let us not put the cart before the horse). However, the idea of ​​preventing a potentially bad outcome sometime in the future is only weakly psychologically motivate, explain why so many people having so much trouble getting myself to exercise, eat right, lose weight, quit smoking, etc. The idea of ​​financially rewarding the desired behavior and / or financially punishing the unwanted behavior is very controversial. Although I fear this kind of risk that the policy strategy that could impinge on basic freedoms if taken too far, I am not against thinking creatively about how we can harness the power of a strong motivation to help people achieve their health goals you want to achieve. After all, most obese people to lose weight. Most smokers want to quit. They may be more successful if they could find a more powerful motivation.

3. Decrease overutilization of health care resources by physicians. I agree with Gawande that finding ways to get doctors to stop overutilizing health care resources is a worthy goal that will significantly control costs, that it will require a willingness to experiment, and that it will take time. Furthermore, I agree that focusing only on those who pay for health care (either public or private sector) will fail to adequately address this issue. But how exactly can we motivate the doctors, the pen was responsible for most of the money spent on health care in this country, to focus on what is really best for their patients? The idea that an external body — whether the insurance company or a government panel — can be used to set the standard of care physicians must follow in order to control costs for me, is ridiculous. These agencies do not have the training or the main concern for the welfare of the patient can be trusted to make their judgments. Why else would we need a doctor if it does not employ their expertise to implement nuanced approach to complex situations? During their work in a system of incentives to compete freely with their duty to their patients, they remain in the best position to make decisions about what tests and treatments should be considered a particular patient, as long as they are careful to avoid overconfident paternalism (refusing to get CT head for headache may overconfidently paternalistic; refused to offer chemotherapy to colds do not). So maybe we should eliminate the financial incentives doctors have to care about anything but the welfare of their patients, which means that doctors’ salaries should be cut off from the number of operations they’re doing and the number of tests they order, and instead should be determined by market forces. This model already exists in health care centers do not seem to promote academic and bad treatment when doctors feel they are paid fairly. Doctors need to have a good life to compensate for years of training and a large amount of debt they collect, but there is no financial incentive to practice medicine more should be allowed to attach itself to the good life.

4. Decrease overutilization of health care resources by patients. This, in my opinion, requires at least three interventions:

* Make available appropriate resources to correct the problem (so that patients will not ER for colds, for example, but to their primary care physician). This will require hitting the “sweet spot” of the number of primary care physicians, the best on the front line of gatekeeping, not health spending as in the old HMO model, but from the triage and treatment. It will also require re-calculate reimbursement rates for primary care services relative to a specific service to encourage more medical students to enter primary care (as opposed to an alarming trend we have seen over the last ten years).

* A massive effort to improve public health literacy to improve its ability to triage the complaint itself (so the patient does not really go anywhere for a cold or MRI requests from physicians on their backs when they trusted told them it was just stress). It is probably best done through a series of educational programs (although given that no one in the private sector have an incentive to fund such programs, in fact probably one of the few things the government should — we’d only need to study and compare the different educational programs and methods to see which, if any, to reduce unnecessary use without worsening patient outcomes and result in savings of more health care than they cost).

* Redesign the patient’s insurance plan to make in some ways a more financially responsible for their health care choices. We can not have people go bankrupt because of illness, we also do not want people to underutilize health care resources (avoiding the ER when they have chest pain, for example), but we also can not continue to support a system where patients are actually motivated to overutilize resources, as the current “pre-pay all” model no.

CONCLUSION

Given the enormous complexity of the health care system, there is no single post may be able to overcome any problems that need fixing. Significant issues are not raised in this article include the challenges associated with rising drug costs, direct to consumer marketing of pharmaceuticals, end-of-life care, skyrocketing malpractice insurance costs, lack of cost transparency which allows hospitals to charge uninsured more paradoxical than the insured for the same care, expanding health care insurance coverage for those who still do not have it, improve administrative efficiency to reduce costs, the implementation of electronic medical records to reduce medical errors, the financial burden that businesses must provide their employees with health insurance, and tort reform. All are highly interdependent, stood together like the proverbial house of cards. To attend a single one is to affect them all, which is why health care reform rushed through without careful contemplation risk unintended consequences and potentially devastating. Changes do not need to come, but if we do not allow ourselves time to think through problems clearly and cleverly, and implementing solutions with measurable way, we risk dropping that house of cards instead of cementing it.

Health insurance has proven Itself of great help and financial aid in Certain cases when events turn out Unexpectedly. In times when you are ill and when your health is in grave jeopardy and when Finances seem to be incapable to sustain for your care, health insurance is here to the rescue. A good health insurance plan will definitely Make Things better for you.

Basically, there are two types of health insurance plans. Your first option is the indemnity plans, the which includes the fee-for-services and the second is the managed care plans. The differences Between these two include the choice Offered by the providers, the amount of bills the policy holder has to pay and the services covered by the policy. As you can always hear there is no ultimate or best plan for anyone.

As you can see, there are some plans the which may be way better than the others. Some may be good for you and your family’s health and medical care needs. However, amidst the sweet terms Presented health insurance plan, there are always drawbacks Certain That you may come to Consider. The key is, you will have to weigh the benefits Wisely. That Especially Among these plans will not pay for all the financial damages associated with your care.

The Following are a brief description about the health insurance plans That Might be fitting for you and your family’s case.

Indemnity Plans

Flexible Spending Plans – These are the types of health insurance plans are sponsored That when you are working for a company, or any employer. These are the inclusive care plans in your employee benefits package. Some of the specific types of benefits included in this plan are the multiple options of pre-tax conversion plan, medical plans plus flexible spending accounts, tax conversion plan, and employer credit cafeteria plans. You can always ask your employer of the benefits included in your health care / insurance plans.

Indemnity Health Plans – This type of health insurance plan allows you to choose your own health care providers. You are given the freedom to go to any doctor, medical institution, or other health care providers for a set monthly premium. The insurance plan reimbursement will you and your health care provider According to the services rendered. Depending on the health insurance policy plan, there are Those That offers a limit on individual expenses, and when That expense is reached, the health insurance will cover for the remaining expenses in full. Sometimes, indemnity health insurance plans impose restrictions on covered services and may require prior authorization for hospital care and other expensive services.

Basic and Essential Health Plans – It provides a limited health insurance benefits at a considerably low cost insurance. In opting for this kind of health insurance plan, it is Necessary That one should read the policy description giving special focus on covered services. There are plans on the which may not cover some basic treatments, Certain medical services Such as chemotherapy, maternity care or Certain prescriptions. Also, rates Vary considerably since unlike other plans, premiums Consider age, gender, health status, occupation, geographic location, and community rated.

Health Savings Accounts – You own and control the money in your HSA. This is the recent alternative to the old fashioned health insurance plans. These are savings product designed to offer policy holders different way to pay for Their health care. This type of insurance plan allows the individual to pay for the current health expenses and also save for future qualified untoward medical and retiree health costs on a tax-free basis. With this health care plan, you Decide on how your money is spent. You make all the decisions without relying on any third party or a health insurer. You Decide on the which investment will help your money grow. However, if you sign up for an HSA, High Deductible Health Plans are required in adjunct to this type of insurance plan.

High Deductible Health Plans – Also called Catastrophic Health Insurance Coverage. It is an inexpensive health insurance plan the which is enabled only after a high deductible is met of at least $ 1,000 for an individual expense and $ 2,000 for family-related medical expense.

Managed Care Options

Preferred Provider Organizations – This is charged in a fee-for-service basis. The INVOLVED health care providers are paid by the insurer on a negotiated fee and schedule. The cost of services are Likely lower if the policy holder Chooses an out-of-network provider required to pay ad Generally the difference Between what the provider charges and what the health insurance plan has to pay.

Point of Service – POS health insurance plans are one of the indemnity-type option in the which the primary health care providers usually the make referrals to other providers within the plan. In the event the make referrals the which the doctors are out of the plan, that plan pays all or most of the bill. However, if you refer yourself to an outside provider, the service charges may also be covered by the plan but the individual may be required to pay the coinsurance.

Health Maintenance Organizations – It offers access to a network of physicians, health care institutions, health care providers, and a variety of health care facilities. You have the freedom to choose for your personal primary care doctor from a list of the which may be provided by the HMO and this doctor chosen may coordinate with all the other aspects of your health care. You may speak with your chosen primary doctor for further referrals to a specialist. Generally, you are paying fewer out-of-pocket fees with this type of health insurance plan. However, there are instances Certain That Often you may be charged of the fees or co-payment for doctor visits as Such services or prescriptions.

Government-Sponsored Health Insurance

Indian Health Services – This is part of the Department of Health and Human Services Program offering all the medical assistance of the American Indians at HIS facilities. Also, the HIS helps in paying the cost of the health care services utilized at non-HIS facilities.

Medicaid – This is a federal or state public assistance program s created in the year 1965. These are available for the people WHO may have insufficient resources to pay for the health care services or for private insurance policies. Medicaid is available in all states. Eligibility levels and coverage benefits though May Vary.

Medicare – This is a health care program for people 65 and older aging, with disabilities Certain That pays part of the cost associated with Hospitalization, surgery, home health care, doctor’s bills, and skilled nursing care.

Military Health Care – This type includes the TRICARE or the CHAMPUS (Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services) and CHAMPVA (Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs). The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) may also Provide this service.

State Children’s Health Insurance Program – This is available to low-income children Whose parents were not Able to qualify for the Medicaid.
State-Specific Plans – This type of plan is available for low income uninsured individuals.

There are many different types of insurance plans That you may have the prerogative to know about. By learning the which health care insurance fits your situation, you can avail of the many options Likely That will be of great assistance to you in times when you will need it most. Insurance costs have Become Typically one of the common Draw Backs in choosing for an insurance quote. However, weighing the benefits will really matter. Make sure you always read That the benefits, terms and conditions before landing to whichever type of health insurance you choose….

What is Health?

How do you define health? Is the state of physical, mental and social well-being? Is it just the absence of disease or infirmity? Or health resource for everyday life, not the purpose of life; positive concept, emphasizing social and personal resources as well as physical capabilities?

Good health is harder to define than bad health (which can be likened to a disease), because they have to convey a more positive concept than the mere absence of disease, and there is a variable area between health and disease. Health is clearly a concept that is complex, multidimensional. Health is, in turn, is less obvious and difficult to measure, despite the impressive efforts with the epidemiology, vital statistics, social scientists and political economists. Health of each individual shaped by many factors, including medical care, social, and behavioral choices.

Health Care

While it is true to say that health care is the prevention, treatment and disease management, and preservation of mental and physical well-being, through the services offered by medical, nursing and allied health professions, health-related behaviors are influenced by our own values, which are determined by upbringing, by example, by experience, by the company one keeps, by the persuasive power of advertising (often forces that can harm health behaviors), and effective health education. A healthy person is able to mobilize all the resources of physical, mental, and spiritual to increase their chances of survival, to live happy and satisfying, and beneficial to families and communities.

Achieving health and remaining healthy is an active process. Natural health based on prevention, and to keep our body and mind in good condition. Lies in balancing the health aspects of the body through a regimen consisting of diet, exercise, and emotion regulation. The latter is too often overlooked when dispensed health advice, but can have a pronounced effect on physical well-being.

Diet

Every day, or so it seems, new research suggests that some aspects of lifestyle – physical activity, diet, alcohol consumption, and so on – affect the health and longevity. Physical fitness is good body health, and is the result of regular exercise, proper diet and nutrition, and proper rest for physical recovery. The field of nutrition also studies foods and dietary supplements that improve performance, promote health, and cure or prevent disease, such as fibrous foods to reduce the risk of colon cancer, or supplementation with vitamin C to strengthen teeth and gums and to improve the immune system. When exercising, it becomes more important to have good diet to ensure that the body has the correct ratio of macronutrients whilst providing sufficient micronutrients, this is to assist the body in the recovery process after strenuous exercise.

If you are trying to lose weight “diet”, do not call it diet, first of all – a successful dieters do not call what they do “diet”. A healthy diet and regular physical activity are both important for maintaining a healthy weight. Even the literate, educated people sometimes have a false view of what makes or make them healthier, often believe that regular daily exercise, regular bowel movements, or a particular dietary regime alone will be enough to maintain their good health. While it is always changing, always against the opinion of medical experts for what is good for us, one aspect of what we eat and drink still continues agreed upon by all: a balanced diet.

A balanced diet consisting of a mixture of the main varieties of nutrients (protein, carbohydrates, fats, minerals, and vitamins). Proper nutrition the same, if not more, important to health as exercise. If you are worried about being overweight, you do not need to add extra pressure from the “diet”. Not “low fat” or “low carb”; only small portions of healthy eating, weight loss be a side effect satisfactory. Improve health by eating real food in moderation. (For various reasons, not everyone has easy access to or incentive to eat a balanced diet, however, those who eat a balanced diet is healthier than those who do not ..)

Exercise

Physical exercise is considered important to maintain physical fitness and overall health (including healthy weight), build and maintain healthy bones, muscles and joints, promoting physiological well-being, reducing surgical risks, and strengthen the immune system. Aerobic exercise, like walking, running and swimming, focus on increasing cardiovascular endurance and muscle density. Anaerobic exercise, like weight training or running, increase muscle mass and strength. Rest and recovery is equally important to health as exercise, if no body was injured in a state of permanent and will not increase or adaptable enough to exercise. The above two factors can be compromised by psychological boost (eating disorders, such as exercise bulimia, anorexia, and other bulimias), misinformation, lack of organization, or lack of motivation.

Ask your doctor or physical therapist what exercises are best for you. Physician and / or physical therapist can recommend specific types of exercises which, depending on your particular situation. You can use the exercises to maintain strength and flexibility, improve cardiovascular fitness, expand the reach of the joints’ motion, and reduce your weight. You should not be too busy to exercise. There is always a way to squeeze in a little exercise, no matter where you are. Eliminate one or two items from your busy schedule to free up time for adjustments in some exercise and some “YOU” time. Find a workout partner is a general training strategy.

Emotion

You may have heard about the benefits of diet and exercise ad nauseam, but it may not be aware of the emotional effect you can have your physical well-being, longevity is, you. Such as physical health, mental health is important at every stage of life. Mental health is how we think, feel, and act in the face of life situations. Prolonged psychological stress may negatively affect health, such as weakened immune systems.

Children are particularly vulnerable. Caring for and protecting children’s mental health is a major part of helping the child to grow into normal adults, accepted into the community. Mental health problems are not just a passing phase. Children are at greater risk for developing mental health problems when certain factors occur in their lives or the environment. Mental health problems including depression, bipolar disorder (manic-depressive illness), attention-deficit / hyperactivity disorder, anxiety disorders, eating disorders, schizophrenia and behavioral disorders. Do your best to provide safe and loving home and community for your child, as well as nutritious food, regular health examinations, immunizations and sports. Many children have mental health disorders are real and painful, and they can be severe. Mental health problem affecting at least one of every five young people at any given time. Tragically, an estimated two-thirds of all young people with mental health problems do not get the help they need. Mental health problems can lead to school failure, alcohol or other drug abuse, family breakdown, violence, or even suicide. Various signs may indicate a possible mental health problems a child or adolescent. Talk to your doctor, school counselor, or other mental health professionals trained to assess whether your child has mental health problems.

Control your emotions. If the driver following you on the wrong side, or pull out from the side of the road in front of you, do not boil with anger and honk you, you hurt nobody but yourself to raise your blood pressure. Anger has been linked to heart disease, and studies have suggested that the hardening of the arteries occurs more rapidly in people who achieve high scores on tests of hostility and anger. Remain calm in situations like that, and feel proud of yourself for doing it. Take comfort in the knowledge that such aggressive drivers only improve their own blood pressure. Your passengers will be more impressed with the “cool” to you than with your irascibility.

If you are a constant rush, feel that every second the amount of your life, just slow down a bit. Yes, every second does not count, but considering the concept of quality of life. Compare how you feel when you’re in a hurry with how you feel when you do not. That feel better? Rushing everywhere increase your stress level. The body tries to cope with stress by making certain physiological adjustments. Some time after you slow down, the adjustment of physiological and stress symptoms return to normal. If you never slow down, the adjustment of physiological and stress symptoms persist. It is the persistence of the response of the body. You can develop physical, physiological or psychological problems, and may not be able to lead a normal life

. Many cases of stress that is somehow connected with money, or rather lack of it. Such people struggling to make ends meet or to acquire another property. This brings us to our last discussion: attitude.

Attitude

It is always fun to enjoy the fruits of our labors, of course. Sometimes, however, it seems that whatever we do, just not enough to afford to buy a new car or a foreign holiday. So, what we usually do? We work harder, longer, we increase the stress on the mind and body, we spend less time with family and friends, we became more irascible and less pleasant person. If you find yourself in this situation, only paused a moment, and consider: Is it worth it? What is the purpose of life? Surely it is to be happy. You might be happier if you adopt the philosophy that the actual quality of life can not be found in material things. If you convince yourself that you want less, you need a little more. If you need less, you will face life with greater ease, and happier, healthier and therefore, you will. Buddha called it “enlightenment”. Enjoy the “good-health attitude.” Focus on your abilities, not disabilities. Satisfied with what you have, it is not satisfied about what you do not have and probably never will have.

If you can not cope with exercise, healthy diet and emotional control, but really prefer to eat junk food, permanently drunk, are under constant stress and hated by others, then enjoy your life while it lasts, but understand that trade-off is that it probably will not last long. If you accept this voluntarily, you’ll be happy. There is some merit in philosophy that it is better to live, shorter than a happy, long-suffering.

Conclusion

Private or individual health largely subjective. For most individuals, and for many cultures, however, health is a philosophical concept and subjective, related to satisfaction, and often taken for granted when all goes well. Evidence that behavioral factors such as diet, physical activity, smoking and stress influences health very much. Thus, health is maintained and improved not only through the advancement and application of medical science, but also through the efforts and intelligent lifestyle choices of individuals and communities. Perhaps the best thing you can do for your health is to keep a positive attitude. Optimal health can be defined as a balance of physical, emotional, social, spiritual and intellectual. Maintaining a positive attitude!