scholarly journals Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Cancer Screening in the United States

Esculapio ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-4
Author(s):  
Sonikpreet Aulakh ◽  
Asher Chanan Khan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Healthcare System ◽  
Healthcare Delivery ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Healthcare Services ◽  
The United States ◽  
Healthcare Systems ◽  
Systematic Evaluation ◽  
The Us

COVID-19 pandemic has exposed vulnerabilities all across the global healthcare systems including those within the United States. A systematic evaluation of these soft spots has been crucial in order to reengineer the healthcare system for enhanced competences and superior quality of care. One area that has been undoubtedly affected is the diagnosis and management of neoplastic diseases. The healthcare system in the US witnessed an instantaneous implementation of a “social distancing” strategy, which was implemented in an effort to flatten the infectivity “curve”. This required an urgent modification in the general administration of healthcare delivery, independent of COVID-19 infection status of a patient. For the non-COVID patients, it meant a shift from in-person to a virtual administration platform.''(Royce et al., 2020) Neither the healthcare providers, nor the patients, or the hospital management were adequately prepared for this sudden transition. Various healthcare services offered through these healthcare systems were required to be triaged based upon patients' assessment of needs into either emergent, urgent or routine/non- urgent. Patients seeking services that fell in the non- urgent/routine clinical visits were encouraged to stay home until the pandemic simmered down/resolved. This strategy was erroneously predicated on a rather short anticipated duration of the pandemic. As expected, cancer screening visits were deemed non- urgent and thus most healthcare facilities in and outside the US suspended these services, inadvertently compromising the timely diagnosis of neoplastic disorders.

An American Perspective of the Dental and Public Health Initiatives in Cuba

2021 ◽  
pp. 232020682110301
Author(s):  
Colleen Watson ◽  
Laura Rhein ◽  
Stephanie M. Fanelli
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
United States ◽  
Health Status ◽  
Health System ◽  
Healthcare System ◽  
National Health ◽  
National Health System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Healthcare Systems ◽  
The Us

Aim: To compare following the Cuban Revolution, Cuba’s economy and civil society was transformed by the initiation of a program of nationalization and political consolidation. The Cuban government operates a national health system and assumes fiscal and administrative responsibility for the healthcare of its citizens. Other industrialized nations continue to surpass the US in health-related outcomes indicating areas of improvement in its healthcare system. Assessing the successes and failures as well as the advantages and disadvantages of other countries’ healthcare systems may be instrumental in the development of modifications to the organization and delivery system of healthcare in the US. This paper aims to report the information attained from previous literature as well as from first-hand observations from a public health trip to Cuba in order to compare the healthcare systems in Cuba and the United States. Materials and Methods: A group of New York University College of Dentistry faculty and students traveled to Cuba in April 2019 for professional research and professional meetings (CFR 515.564). While in Cuba, the researchers took written notes of the lecture-based material and conversations. Upon return to the United States, published literature was searched for the collection of any additional data and all qualitative data and quantitative data was compiled and organized. Since 1959, Cuba has made continuous adjustments and improvements to its universal, free and accessible healthcare system. Results: There have been notable improvements to the country’s public health status, such as the implementation of an immunization program and subsequent eradication of communicable diseases, such as polio and rubella. Additionally, the implementation of the National Program on Dentistry guarantees dental care to all Cuban children under the age of 19. Today, the Cuban National Health System (NHS) initiatives have evolved to combat the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Conclusion: Recognizing the advantages as well as the disadvantages of the Cuba’s National Health System (NHS) would be useful for future policymakers in the United States. Cuban approaches to health could be tailored to the United States environment to improve healthcare effectiveness and population health status in the future.

scholarly journals Association of patients’ perception of quality of healthcare received and colorectal cancer screening uptake: An analysis of two national surveys in the United States

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karan Chawla ◽  
Angesom Kibreab ◽  
Victor & Scott ◽  
Edward L. Lee ◽  
Farshad Aduli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
United States ◽  
Healthcare Delivery ◽  
Quality Of Healthcare ◽  
Healthcare Services ◽  
The United States ◽  
Crc Screening ◽  
Fair Poor ◽  
National Trends

Objective: It is unknown whether patients’ ratings of the quality of healthcare services they receive truly correlate with the quality of care from their providers. Understanding this association can potentiate improvement in healthcare delivery. We evaluated the association between patients’ ratings of the quality of healthcare services received and uptake of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Subject and Methods: We used two iterations of the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) of adults in the United States. HINTS 2007 (4,007 respondents; weighted population=75,397,128) evaluated whether respondents were up-to-date with CRC screening while HINTS 4 cycle 3 (1,562 respondents; weighted population=76,628,000) evaluated whether participants had ever received CRC screening in the past. All included respondents from both surveys were at least 50 years of age, had no history of CRC, and had rated the quality of healthcare services that they had received at their healthcare provider’s office in the previous 12 months. Results: HINTS 2007 data showed that respondents who rated their healthcare as good, or fair/poor were significantly less likely to be up to date with CRC screening compared to those who rated their healthcare as excellent. We found comparable results from analysis of HINTS 4 cycle 3 data with poorer uptake of CRC screening as the healthcare quality ratings of respondents’ reduced. Conclusion: Our study suggested that patients who reported receiving lower quality of healthcare services were less likely to have undergone and be compliant with CRC screening recommendations. It is important to pay close attention to patient feedback surveys in order to improve healthcare delivery.

The Ethical Neutrality of Prospective Payments: Justice Issues

1996 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 570-578
Author(s):  
Jean McDowell
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Healthcare System ◽  
West Coast ◽  
Healthcare Delivery ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fee For Service ◽  
Reimbursement Mechanisms ◽  
The West ◽  
The Past ◽  
The U.S

The U.S. healthcare system has been subject to unprecedented scrutiny over the past three years; one of the results of this scrutiny has been recognition of the serious problems that exist in both healthcare delivery and reimbursement mechanisms. While the verbal debate in Washington has essentially ceased, within the healthcare community a historic shift has taken place in the way healthcare reimbursement is structured: increasingly, traditional fee-for-service reimbursement methods are being replaced with capitation reimbursement methods. While this phenomenon originated on the West Coast, it has spread to all geographic sectors of the United States in varying degrees and can be expected to dominate the funding patterns of healthcare over the next decade.

scholarly journals The Cross-national Applicability of Lean Implementation Measures and Hospital Performance Measures: A Case Study of Finland and the United States

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elina Reponen ◽  
Thomas G Rundall ◽  
Stephen M Shortell ◽  
Janet C Blodgett ◽  
Ritva Jokela ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Healthcare System ◽  
Performance Measures ◽  
Service Provision ◽  
The United States ◽  
Hospital Performance ◽  
Lean Implementation ◽  
The Us ◽  
Cross National

Abstract Background Healthcare organizations around the world are striving to achieve transformational performance improvement, often through adopting process improvement methodologies such as Lean management. Indeed, Lean management has been implemented in hospitals in many countries. But despite a shared methodology and the potential benefit of benchmarking lean implementation and its effects on hospital performance, cross-national Lean benchmarking is rare. Healthcare organisations in different countries operate in very different contexts, including different healthcare system models, and these differences may be perceived as limiting the ability of improvers to benchmark Lean implementation and related organisational performance. However, there is no empirical research available on the international relevance and applicability of Lean implementation and hospital performance measures. To begin to understand the opportunities and limitations related to cross-national benchmarking of Lean in hospitals, we conducted a cross-national case study of the relevance and applicability of measures of Lean implementation in hospitals and hospital performance. Methods We report an exploratory case study of the relevance of Lean implementation measures and the applicability of hospital performance measures using quantitative comparisons of data from Hospital District of XX XX University Hospital in Finland and a sample of 75 large academic hospitals in the United States. Results The relevance of Lean-related measures was high across the two countries: almost 90% of the items developed for a US survey were relevant and available from XX. A majority of the US-based measures for financial performance (66.7%), service provision/utilisation (100.0%), and service provision/care processes (60.0%) were available from XX. Differences in patient satisfaction measures prevented comparisons between XX and the US. Of 18 clinical outcome measures, only four (22%) were not comparable. Clinical outcome measures were less affected by the differences in healthcare system models than measures related to service provision and financial performance. Conclusions Lean implementation measures are highly relevant in healthcare organisations operating in the United States and Finland, as is the applicability of a variety of performance improvement measures. Cross-national benchmarking in Lean healthcare is feasible, but a careful assessment of contextual factors, including the healthcare system model, and their impact on the applicability and relevance of chosen benchmarking measures is necessary. The differences between the US and Finnish healthcare system models is most clearly reflected in financial performance measures and care process measures.

scholarly journals Impact of COVID-19 Second Wave on Healthcare Networks in the United States

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emad M. Hassan ◽  
Hussam Mahmoud
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Healthcare System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Healthcare Systems ◽  
Mitigation Strategies ◽  
County Level ◽  
Protective Measures ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Second Wave ◽  
The U.S

The risk of overwhelming healthcare systems from a second wave of COVID-19 is yet to be quantified. Here, we investigate the impact of different reopening scenarios of states around the U.S. on COVID-19 hospitalized cases and the risk of overwhelming the healthcare system while considering resources at the county level. We show that the second wave might involve an unprecedented impact on the healthcare system if an increasing number of the population becomes susceptible and/or if the various protective measures are discontinued. Furthermore, we explore the ability of different mitigation strategies in providing considerable relief to the healthcare system. The results can aid healthcare planners, policymakers, and state officials in making decisions on additional resources required and on when to return to normalcy.

Abstract 367: Comparison of the Healthcare Systems of the United States and Portugal: Epidemiology and Management of Coronary Heart Disease

2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariana F Lobo ◽  
Vanessa Azzone ◽  
Bruno Melica ◽  
Alberto Freitas ◽  
Francisco R Gonçalves ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Coronary Heart Disease ◽  
Heart Disease ◽  
Technology Use ◽  
The United States ◽  
Healthcare Systems ◽  
Public Hospitals ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Health Technologies ◽  
The Us

Objectives: Adoption of health technologies may yield significant individual and societal benefits. Because different healthcare systems vary in their adoption speeds, an understanding of the underlying healthcare system is critical. We compared the United States (US) and Portugal (PT) healthcare systems focusing on coronary heart disease (CHD). CHD remains one of the main causes of death in high-income countries with significant economic costs. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature review based on publications from national governmental bodies, international institutional organizations, professional associations, and scientific journals. We abstracted information regarding risk factors, incidence, access to health technologies, and hospital mortality rates in CHD observed between 2000 and 2011. Findings: The prevalence of obesity and high cholesterol levels is higher in the US while higher rates of hypertension and tobacco consumption prevail in PT. The 2009 incidence of cardiovascular disease per 100000 population in the US is 1944.5 versus 1320.4 in PT. The percentage of total health expenditure financed through public funds is 48.2% in the US versus 65.8% in PT. Public hospitals represent 26% (1526 of 5754) of US hospitals and 55% (129 of 231) of hospitals in PT. Between 2000 and 2011, the average high-risk device approval time was 43 months quicker in the European Union (EU) compared to the US. Drug-eluting stents were approved in 2002 in the EU and in PT versus 2003 in the US. Speeds of approval for pharmaceuticals vary – prasugrel, and ticagrelor were approved 5 and 8 months faster in PT compared to the US but PT approval of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors was slower (18 months slower on average). However, US CHD standardized mortality is more than twice that of PT (126.5 vs 59.4 per 100000). Conclusions: Procedure and new technology use differ dramatically between the two healthcare systems for CHD care. Portugal offers an interesting contrast to the US for studies focusing on health technologies adoption, diffusion, cost-effectiveness and determinants of outcomes in the realm of CHD. How these factors directly impact patient outcomes remains unknown and deserves further investigation.

Venous thromboembolism: Annualised United States models for total, hospital-acquired and preventable costs utilising long-term attack rates

2012 ◽  
Vol 108 (08) ◽  
pp. 291-302 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew E. Borrego ◽  
Alex L. Woersching ◽  
Robert Federici ◽  
Ross Downey ◽  
Jay Tiongson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Healthcare System ◽  
Cost Model ◽  
The United States ◽  
Total Hospital ◽  
The Us ◽  
Hospital Acquired

SummaryHealthcare reform is upon the United States (US) healthcare system. Prioritisation of preventative efforts will guide necessary transitions within the US healthcare system. While annual deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) costs have recently been defined at the US national level, annual pulmonary embolism (PE) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) costs have not yet been defined. A decision tree and cost model were developed to estimate US health care costs for total PE, total hospital-acquired PE, and total hospital-acquired “preventable” PE. The previously published DVT cost model was modified, updated and combined with the PE cost model to elucidate the same three categories of costs for VTE. Direct and indirect costs were also delineated. For VTE in the base model, annual cost ranges in 2011 US dollars for total, hospital-acquired, and hospital-acquired “preventable” costs and were $13.5-$27.2, $9.0-$18.2, and $4.5-$14.2 billion, respectively. The first sensitivity analysis, with higher incidence rates and costs, demonstrated annual US total, hospital-acquired, and hospital-acquired “preventable” VTE costs ranging from $32.1-$69.3, $23.7-$51.5, and $11.9-$39.3 billion, respectively. The second sensitivity analysis with long-term attack rates (LTAR) for recurrent events and post-thrombotic syndrome and chronic pulmonary thromboembolic hypertension demonstrated annual US total, hospital-acquired, and hospital-acquired “preventable” VTE costs ranging from $15.4-$34.4, $10.3-$25.4, and $5.1-$19.1 billion, respectively. PE costs comprised a majority of the VTE costs. Prioritisation of effective VTE preventative strategies will reduce significant costs, morbidity and mortality within the US healthcare system. The cost models may be utilised to estimate other countries’ costs or VTE-specific disease states.

Exposure to Rizatriptan During Pregnancy: Post-Marketing Experience up to 30 June 2004

Cephalalgia ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 25 (9) ◽  
pp. 685-688 ◽  
Author(s):  
M Fiore ◽  
KE Shields ◽  
N Santanello ◽  
MR Goldberg
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Prenatal Exposure ◽  
Congenital Anomalies ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
The United States ◽  
Spontaneous Abortions ◽  
Spontaneous Reports ◽  
The Us ◽  
Post Marketing ◽  
Pregnancy Registry

Merck & Co., Inc. evaluates outcomes of the use of rizatriptan during pregnancy through a Pregnancy Registry in the United States (US) and spontaneous reports for pregnancies reported from sources outside the US. Review of the outcomes of 25 prospective pregnancy reports in the Pregnancy Registry and reports from other sources does not suggest that treatment with rizatriptan predisposes patients to spontaneous abortions or congenital anomalies. However, the number of reports is small. Healthcare providers in the United States are encouraged to report any prenatal exposure to rizatriptan by calling the Pregnancy Registry at +1 (800) 986 8999 or visiting the Registry's website at http://www.merckpregnancyregistries.com

scholarly journals A Comparison of the United States and Austrian Healthcare Needs and Systems

2021 ◽  
Vol 58 ◽  
pp. 004695802110001
Author(s):  
Margaret McAlister ◽  
Joey D. Helton
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Healthcare System ◽  
Social Insurance ◽  
The United States ◽  
Healthcare Systems ◽  
Mediating Effects ◽  
Healthcare Needs ◽  
Societal Norms ◽  
Insurance Model ◽  
United States Healthcare

Austria and the United States have very different healthcare systems with Austria following a social insurance model and the United States following an out of pocket model however;gross domestic product on healthcare expenditures. There is a current gap in literature on how the United States and Austrian healthcare systems comparatively impact patient outcomes, especially when considering the mediating effects of societal norms such as exercise and mental self-care habits. The information presented could benefit the United States healthcare system if they adopted Austria’s model, which expands access, and the Austrian healthcare system regulators could look to American standards of communication and care coordination to improve their healthcare system overall.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document