S. is the issue of waiting times. Wait times for services are affected by several factors. Both countries are plagued by excessive wait times for certain services, such as specialists, surgery, or specialized treatments such as that for specific cancers or heart conditions. In both the United States and Canada, waiting times are determined in part by the number of providers available to provide that service in a certain geographic area. However, in the United States, wait times can be slowed by access to funding or the unwillingness of a provider to perform a certain service at the price set by the insurer, be it private or public. In Canada, price does not figure into the wait time. The urgency of the need of the person and the availability of services in a certain geographic area are the only factors that figure into the wait time.
Emergency room waits tend to be longer in Canada than in the U.S., averaging over 2 hours in Canada. Wait times for specialists largely depended on the specialty in both countries. In the U.S., low-income patients can wait three months or more to see specialists (Davis, Shoen, & Shoenbaum, 2007). Medicaid patients often have to wait longer because some doctors refuse to see Medicaid patients. In Canada, the average waiting time to see a specialist was a little over four weeks (Davis, Shoen, & Shoenbaum, 2007). Canadians had much less wait time to see a specialist than patients in the United States, particularly if the person happens to be a Medicaid recipient.
Both the U.S. And the Canadian healthcare systems have positive and negative aspects. The Canadian system regulates healthcare costs by being the sole purchaser of services. It does not allow private patients or insurance companies to bid for services at a higher price. This keeps the costs down. In certain provinces, private insurance is banned altogether, creating only one potential payee for services. The system in the United States is a market driven system. In order to promote this system, the government enacted rules that allowed Americans to establish healthcare savings plans that provided for tax incentives for those who chose to participate. However, in order to qualify, these persons must higher deductibles on their insurance.
The U.S. healthcare system shifts the burden from insurance providers onto the consumer, and from the government to the consumer. Theoretically, the individual has some influence over pricing and the availability of services in the United States. However, this influence is very small. Providers are still responsible for the prices that they charge and there is a declining portion of the population that is willing to pay their price. As a result, many go without the medical services that they need. In Canada, the subsidized system assures that every person has access to medical attention regardless of their ability to pay.
Canadians spend much less than Americans on healthcare than U.S. citizens, who must bear much of the burden themselves. Canadians enjoy longer lives and lower infant mortality rates than those in the U.S. However, in many cases, they must pay the price in longer wait times for necessary services. Wait times were found to be problematic in both the U.S. And in Canada. Wait times in both countries were dependent upon the availability of services within a particular service area. However, in the U.S., the ability to pay was considered in the wait time, where in Canada it was not. In Canada, the patient received services based on their medical need and on the number of physicians in the area for the desired specialty.
Even thought Canadians tended to have longer wait times for necessary medical procedures than those in the Unites States, at least they eventually received the necessary services. In the United States, the inability to pay can mean the inability to access services at all. For some, unless the condition necessitates an emergency medical condition in which the person is expected to deteriorate if they do not receive treatment, the provider has the right to refuse services due to the inability to pay.
When healthcare providers can determine who they wish to treat and who they do not, based on the patient's ability to pay, it creates a class system based on medical care. Those that can pay for medical care are classed differently than those that cannot. Those that can afford medical care constitute the wealthy class. Those on government-subsidized programs are of a lower socioeconomic status than those that can afford private medical insurance in the United States. This is not so in Canada, where everyone has the same chances to access healthcare as the wealthy class.
The medical system in the United States creates a division between those that can afford healthcare and those that cannot. Many Medicaid/Medicare recipients in the United States are stigmatized for being dependent on the government,...
This is not the case in Canada, where the right to basic healthcare is considered a basic human right and the right of every Canadian citizen. This point emphasizes the differences in philosophy between these two systems. The U.S. system could be criticized for creating a system that discriminates against the poor through their inability to access needed services.
Both the Canadian and U.S. systems have positive an negative aspects. The Canadian system provides equal access to healthcare services at the expense of the providers of such services. In the market driven system of the United States, physicians and providers have the ability to set higher and higher prices through the ability to deny services to those who cannot pay. Currently, this system has set up conditions where healthcare costs are spiraling out of control. In any other commodity, the inability to pay would force providers to lower their prices. However, in the case of the healthcare industry, normal economics do not necessarily apply. This is especially true when the necessary medical treatment can mean the life or death of the patient.
It is difficult to say whether the Canadian or the U.S. healthcare system is better. However, it appears that the Canadian system at least has the ability to stabilize the provision of healthcare services for its citizens. The current U.S. system creates the situation where rising prices will mean denial of services for a growing portion of its population. Neither system is perfect, but given the current state of the U.S. medical care system, the position that favors greater government control appears to be a logical answer to the healthcare crisis.
CBS Staff Reporter (2009). "Medical Debt Huge Bankruptcy Culprit - Study: It's Behind Six-In-
Ten Personal Filings." CBS. 2009-06-05.
Coverme. (n.d.). Newfoundland and Labrador Government Health Insurance Plan Offers Limited
Coverage. Retrieved January 24, 2010 from http://www.coverme.com/LH/CoverMe/miniWhy/English/NotCovered/A_NF.html
Davis, K., Schoen, C. & Shoenbaum, S. et al. (2007). Commonwealth Fund, Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: An International update on the comparative performance of American health
care, Karen Davis et al., May 15, 2007. Retrieved January 24, 2010 from http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Fund-
Reports/2007/May/Mirror--Mirror-on-the-Wall -- An-International-Update-on-the-Comparative-Performance-of-American-Healt.aspx
Irvine, B., Ferguson, S. & Cackett, B. (2005). Background Briefing: The Canadian Healthcare
System. Retrieved January 24, 2010 from http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/Canada.pdf
Holohan, J., Cook, A., & Dubay, L. (2007). Characteristics of the Uninsured: Who is Eligible for Public Coverage and Who Needs Help Affording Coverage?" (PDF). Kaiser Commission
on Medicaid and the Uninsured. Retrieved January 24, 2010 from http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/7613.pdf. Retrieved 2007-07-19.
Lasser, K., Himmelstein, D. & Woolhandler, S. (2006).d "Access to Care, Health Status, and Health Disparities in the United States and Canada: Results of a Cross-National
Population-Based Survey." American Journal of Public Health 96 (7). 07 2006.
Retrieved January 24, 2010 from http://www.pnhp.org/canadastudy/CanadaUSStudy.pdf.
Miller, G. (2009).Frequently Asked Questions about the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). Retrieved January 24, 2010 from http://www.emtala.com/faq.htm
OECD. (How Does Canada Compare? OECD Health Data 2009. Retrieved January 24, 2010
OECD (2008). "OECD Health Data 2007 - Frequently Requested Data" (Excel). OECD.
Retrieved January 24, 2010 from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/36/38979632.xls. -27.
Paris, V. & Docteur, E. (2006). Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement Policies in Canada.
OECD. Publication 24. DELSA/HEA/HWP (2006)4. Retrieved January 24, 2010 from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/21/40/37868186.pdf
Szick S, Angus DE, Nichol G, Harrison MB, Page J, Moher D. (1999). "Health Care Delivery in Canada and the United States: Are There Relevant Differences in Health Care
Outcomes?" Toronto: Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, June 1999. (Publication
04-TR.) Retrieved January 24, 2010 from http://www.ices.on.ca/file/Health%20care%20delivery%20in%20Canada%20and%20the
US Census Bureau. (2008). "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United
States: 2007" (PDF). U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved January 24, 2010 from http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf
World Health Organization (WHO) (2008) Core Health Indicators. Retrieved January 24, 2010
World Health Organization. (2000). World Health Report. Health system attainment and performance in all Member States, ranked by eight measures, estimates for 1997.
Retrieved January 24, 2010 from http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/annex01_en.pdf
EMTALA Violations in the Healthcare System The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) was introduced because of concerns that patients who needed emergency medical treatment were being denied access to that treatment due to inability to pay (Schecter, 2010). The law basically requires any hospitals that receive federal funding to provide emergency medical care under specific circumstances. However, despite the clear language of the law, hospitals and healthcare providers
While this cannot be expected to work in the larger emergency department, in small institutions this method might prove productive. The pay is further calculated by units according to duties perfumed while the physician is on-call. (Physician Compensation Duties, 2001) V. EVALUATION of STRATEGIES The strategies reviewed in this work include on-call pay for emergency room physicians as well as punitive reduction of pay for refusal to take calls. The primary
EMTALA stands for Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act and was passed in 1986 to guarantee the public has access to emergency services irrespective of the ability to pay. The main reason for its implementation is section 1867 of the Social Security Act. This part imposes concise requirements on any Medicare-participating hospitals that provide MSE/emergency services. Before EMTALA, people were turned down for medical treatment if they could not pay,
Conflict Reduction Strategies According to EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act), hospitals are responsible to ensure on-call physicians respond in a reasonable time frame and medical staff bylaws, or policies and procedures, must define the responsibilities of on-call physicians to respond, examine, and treat patients with emergency medical conditions (On-Call Responsibilities for Hospitals and Physicians, 2013). And, "when feasible, requests for consultative services should be made in accordance with
Health Management (Discussion questions) First student The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) is a law governing how and when patients may be denied treatment or moved from one hospital to another in cases of extreme medical conditions. EMTALA was legalized as a component of the 1986 consolidated budget reconciliation (Richards & Rathbun, 2009). Sometimes, it is known as the CONRA law. This generalized name has generated other laws. A common
rights EMTALA grants, to whom, when, and in what setting. EMTALA is short for the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. It was part of the larger Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, which is commonly referred to as COBRA. The EMTALA legislation governs how and when a patient may be refused treatment and/or when they may be transferred from one hospital to another while in an unstable