How Much Should be Spent on Health Care

A big topic is health care and how money a country should be putting in health care. In 1981 the World Health Organization (WHO) had figured that a country should give 5 percent of national income into health care. There is no research to back up as to why 5 percent is a good figure for spending and in this current date this amount isn’t that ambitious as it once was. In this study they look into the ways and the factors that should be considered when looking at how much a country should spend on their health care. While the question of “how much should a country spend on health care?” is the main idea it is a vague question to be asking for research. Times have changed, and circumstances have change so this changes the question to, how much should be spent given current epidemiological profile? This question is still too vague there needs to be a look at what level of health status is needed in each country. There is still factors that need to be added to the question. Those factors are, with the improvements in medicine we need to look at how much it will cost to maintain and distribute the medicine and the improving science. The last factor to look at is the value, cost of other demands on social resources.

In this paper they talk about what health spending is and find 4 factors; absolute terms (amount per person) vs. relative terms (share of GDP), total vs. public-sector health spending. There is a relatively small difference between total and public spending, public spending involves public policy makers who influence both public and private spending. The paper speaks so different approaches and the problems with each approach. Peer approach accept the underlying relationship between health spending and health outcomes. The problem with this approach is that it focuses on inputs and expenditures but doesn’t look at the main goal of better health. The next approach is the political economy approach. This approach asks, “why is the country spending more of less on health than it should?” and looks at how the country budgets its money. This approach addresses the political mechanisms but doesn’t look into the factors involved in modeling such processes. The third approach, production function approach, looks at the data to estimate the best budget. This approach is more grounded than the peer approach but still has the same problem as that approach. The final approach is the budget approach/ this approach looks at what needs to be bought and the price it should be placed at. The is the best approach for the stated question.

This paper was difficult to read because there was a lot of unexplained lingo and had a lot of information that wasn’t explained. They tried to cover too many topics in this paper.

Citation: Savedoff, W. D. (2007). What should A country spend on health care? Health Affairs, 26(4), 962-70. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.usd.edu/docview/204652238?accountid=14750. Accessed 20 Nov, 2017

Advertisements

Disparities in Under-Five Child Injury Mortality

Yun Huang and colleagues did this study to look at the difference in the rates of injury related deaths between developed and developing countries. They looked are the mortality rates that were collected from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study done in 2013. They then calculated the percent change from 1990 to 2013 and had two separate age groups (<1 year and 1-4 years old). The questions they asked in this study were 1. Did developing countries experience the same changes in under-five injury mortality as developed countries between 1990 and 2013? 2. Did age- and cause-specific child injury mortality rates change equally in the study time period? 3. Within developing countries and within developed countries, did all countries witness equal changes in child injury mortality rate?

Before looking at the results, in the study they explain what kinds of death fall under the category of injury. The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) divided injury into 14 categories: road injury, other transport injury, falls, drowning, fire/heat and hot substances, poisonings, exposure to mechanical forces, adverse effects of medical treatment, animal contact, unintentional injuries not classified elsewhere, forces of nature, self-harm, interpersonal violence, collective violence and legal intervention. The first 11 categories are unintentional and the last 3 are intentional.

From the information collected, there was a similar decrease in injury rates for both developed and developing countries (<1 year: -50% vs. -50% respectively; 1-4 years: -56% vs. -58%). To answer the second question, they found that there was a greater drop in deaths due to many automotive accident and medical treatment in developed countries compared to developing countries; there was less of a reduction in drownings, exposure to mechanical forces, and animal contact in developed compared to developing; and there was an increase in rates from exposure to mechanical forces for <1 children in developed countries; equal decreases in deaths from all other injuries for both countries. To answer the third question, they found that there were equal changes in children mortality rate within the developing and developed countries so, in general, country-specific analysis showed similar gaps in injury mortality for both age groups. However, there was significant differences in rates observed within developed countries and within developing countries.

The study was easy to read and provided a lot of information. All information stated in the article was explained that much of the information didn’t need a graph to understand the results. The graphs gave the paper a visual aspect and they were easy to read and know what the paper was about. The study was clearly written, everything flowed together well, there wasn’t any jargon in the writing; this made it easier to read. I really enjoyed reading this study and learned a lot of information from reading it.

Citation: Huang, Yun et al. “Disparities in Under-Five Child Injury Mortality between Developing and Developed Countries: 1990–2013.” Ed. Ian Pike and Alison Macpherson. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 13.7 (2016): 653. PMC. Web. ProQuest. https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.usd.edu/pmc/articles/PMC4962194/. Accessed 2 Dec. 2017.

The determinants of infant and child mortality in developing countries

In this study, Bichaka Fayissa wanted to look at some of the factors that may play a role in infant and child mortality rates (CMR) in sub-Sahara Africa. Infant mortality rates (IMR) are measured for children under one year of age and child mortality is children less than five years old. Fayissa had four objectives to writing this paper. the objectives were 1. examine the determinants of the variations in the crude birth rates (CBR), IMR and CMR 2. Account for possible endogeneity or feed-back effects between CBR and CMR 3. Draw conclusions based on the results 4. Make some policy recommendations for reducing the relatively high CMR in Sub-Saharan Africa (Fayissa pg. 84). In many developing countries, such as Sub-Sahara Africa, there is a 30% chance of all of a women’s children living to the age of 5. There is a high positive correlation between birth rate and mortality rate because of the short birth spacing and conception period (Fayissa pg. 85).

There was a commonality between the factors that Fayissa was studying. All factors showed that the education of women affects birth rates. Women with more education are less likely to have children and when they do they tend to have few children. Having more children causes a strain to poor family as the cost of children increases. Educated women postpone marriage and take measures to prevent getting pregnant. In developing countries, there is less money spent on health products and health programs. The access to safe water and food can be a possible solution to dropping the infant and child mortality rates. Providing the resources in developing countries that are available in developing countries would provide a better chance of children to live.

This article was easy to read and easy to follow. There was reliable information with correct citations on information. The equations used in research was stated clearly and each variable was described in the article under the equation. This made it easier to understand what was happening in the research. While there was a lot of information in study and most was explained, it was difficult to follow. I think there were too many factors that they were looking at to be put into one study. Some information worked well together I still think there was too much to comprehend. The tables were a little harder for me to understand. If I didn’t read the study I wouldn’t be able to easily understand the tables.

Source: Fayissa, Bichaka. “The Determinants of Infant and Child Mortality in Developing Countries: The Case of Sub-Sahara Africa”. Review of Black Political Economy. Vol. 29, issue 2, December 2001, pp. 83-98. ProQuest. https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.usd.edu/docview/203734186/fulltextPDF/8A122876D7B54789PQ/1?accountid=14750. Accessed 30 October 2017.

Comparing UK and Other Western Countries

The way money is being spent in wealthy countries is often questioned by the people. While looking into child mortality rates (CMR) in developed countries, countries that may be known to have great income, I wanted to see the impact that money had with the CMR. This article wanted to see if children in the UK where at a double disadvantage. Colin Pritchard and Mark S Wallace researched how health expenditure, the spending of money in health care, services, and health goods, and relative poverty effected the CMR. Pritchard and Wallace compared the UK with 20 other western countries. Some of the 20 other countries include the USA, Canada, the Netherlands, Denmark and Japan.

Through the research they had made the discovery that children in the UK are at a double disadvantage. the UK was equally low with three other countries in having the lowest GDP Expenditure on Health (%GDPHE). The total average %GDPHE in the UK between the years 1980-2008 was a 7.3% (Pritchard, Wallace). The United Kingdom had the fourth highest CMR with 1789 pm (per million). While there was no significant correlation between the CMR and %GDPHE in the UK, the was a correlation between the income inequality (relative poverty) and CMR. UK’s CMR was reduced to 2647 rpm (rates per million) and in a ratio with GDP they had a ratio of 1:373. Even though the UK was 8th on the list of reduced CMR they had a significantly higher drop than other countries such as Canada and the Netherlands who were above the UK in their CMR. One of the limitations in this study was that the economic input was based solely on the proportion of the money in a country going into health and not the size of the Gross Domestic Product (Pritchard, Wallace).

This study was easy to find all the data, the calculations, and the ratios of their study but it was difficult to understand how this information was beneficial. I had to read the study several times to catch small hints that helped me understand the information and I would have to read paragraphs many times to figure out what the authors were waiting to say and much of the information was spread around. There would be abbreviations to things that were never stated what they meant. Even though there were problems in reading this study there were many strong parts that I liked about this study. The tables in the paper were easy to read and they had reliable and pretty recent information. Pritchard and Wallace made it clear and stated to connection and differences between countries. This made it easier to understand the study.

 

Source: Pritchard, Colin, Wallace, Mark S. “Comparing UK and Other Western Countries’ Health Expenditure, Relative Poverty and Child Mortality: Are British Children Doubly Disadvantaged?” Children & Society, vol. 29 (2015) pp. 462-472. Wiley Online Library, doi: 10.1111/chso.12079. http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.usd.edu/science/article/pii/S014067361460581X. Accessed 4 September 2017.

Factor of child mortality in high-income countries

Child mortality rates of the decades have gone down in many high-income countries. The greatest drop in the rates of children deaths has been in the younger age groups. This leaves adolescents (age ranging 10-19) as the highest rate of child deaths, excluding the infancy rates (ages 0-2). There are four main domains that are part of mortality rates; intrinsic factors, physical environment, social environment, service delivery. In those four domains, there are sub factors that play in the role of child deaths such as income, sex, ethnic origin, genetics, etc. Data collected from England and Wales showed that male children had a higher mortality rate compared to females, it was a 1:23 ratio for ages 1-14 (Sidebotham, et al.). The reasoning as to why male child rates are higher has not be determined to the lack of research on the topic.

Ethnic origin showed that different races of people had higher mortality rates. Many scientists are against this factor due to the fact that sometimes with immigrant families may be affected by lower income and a lower social status. Even though people may live in a high-income country doesn’t always mean that people are gaining the money required to keep up on their health. The physical environment of children plays a factor in mortality rates. Motor accidents, firearms, household chemical or drug poisoning increase mortality rates. Another effect in environment can be the behavior of those around them (smoking, drinking, etc.) and effect the health of children.

The article itself was well written and easy to understand for the most part. There is a lot of information and there isn’t a lot of charts and tables to show the information. I would have added more charts to make it easier to interpret the information provided in the article. The charts and tables that are provided in the article were not that easy to read and were printed quite small. The article had several side boxes in the reading that pointed out other information. These boxes in the text provided other helpful information that could not be written in the article itself. The last problem with this article is some of the language that makes the article seem passive. They referenced that this article is the third version in a series. This made it seem that you wouldn’t be able to get all the information from this article or that the information provided isn’t that reliable.

Sidebotham, Peter, etc. “Understanding why children die in high-income countries”. Science Direct. Vol 384, 6 Sept. 2014, pp.915-927. http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.usd.edu/science/article/pii/S014067361460581X