Are integrated health care systems the best hope for true innovation and cost-effectiveness of the health system in the United States?

  • I support integrated health care systems for the United States, because they can cut costs and make health care easier to navigate.

    Integrated health care systems make it so that all of your doctors work together, instead of you having to go outside of the system. In this way, all of your doctors know your other health issues and can treat you better. This is also usually more cost effective, as all files and records are stored in one place.

    Posted by: TMacias
  • I believe in allowing integrated health care systems to optimize cost-effectiveness and innovation of health care in the United States, because they allow for more consistency.

    Integration of health care services provides consistency along the continuum of care. This ensures the elimination of unnecessary tests and procedures, improves communication between medical providers and provides the patient with a comprehensive plan and overview of treatment. Communication between physicians and hospitals and working together for patient care keeps all health care providers informed and cooperating for the best patient outcome.

    Posted by: TidyRick37
  • Yes, because integrated medicine will reduce overall health care costs.

    Current research indicates that a holistic approach to health care improves overall patient compliance and health. The importance of an integrated holistic approach is evidenced by the fact that many of America's best medical schools are beginning to teach alternative forms of medicine, including the potential power of prayer, which is assumed to be a function similar to the well known placebo effect. Moreover, one of the nation's best hospitals, John Hopkins, has incorporated integrated medicine into all of its patient care metrics.

    Posted by: RareAl49
  • Most definitely integrated health care systems is the best hope for the US health system.

    With the high cost of living today, it will be nice to have a health care system that is affordable. Integration would help achieve this. Wouldn't it be nice if your family doctor could work with your cardiologist and give you a better service. Instead of the patient being the go between. Just a thought.

    Posted by: StripperMor
  • Integrated health care systems are the best hope for fixing health care because it is financially and morally the right thing to do.

    Having everyone insured is the financially and morally right thing to do. In the long term, integrating health care will save the country money. Since right now we are picking up the tab for the uninsured who are forced to use emergency rooms as their doctors and miss out on crucial preventative care, it will be cheaper in the long run to do this. Revamping what we have is an innovative approach to fixing the broken health care system.

    Posted by: JayceC
  • Integrated health care systems are the best hope for true innovation and cost-effectiveness in the United States because it is convenient and efficient.

    Integrated Health Systems are simple, convenient, and efficient. It is run by the government of these great United States, so how could it not be? It's better than having 9001 small health systems(some of them fraudulent) running around trying to make a profit.

    Posted by: MarIMiIk
  • Integrated health care systems have proven successful for many countries in the past and are most likely Americas only hope.

    France and many other countries whom now have free health care did not initially. By being forced into integrated health care systems through war and hospital over-crowding, many countries eventually completely switched over to free health insurance for all of their citizens before long. These effects were dominantly visible during or after World War 2.

    Posted by: ChanAttractive
  • Integrated health care systems are the best hope for true innovation and cost-effectiveness of the health system in the United States, as they would increase efficiency, promote universal coverage and greatly reduce fraud.

    The United States must push forward integrated healthcare systems if it hopes to continue providing quality healthcare for the population. The current system is an expensive failure. There are more people without health coverage today than there have been for decades.

    Businesses can no longer afford to provide healthcare for their employees. Duplication, inefficiency and greed of the healthcare insurance companies are placing the well being of all of us at their mercy. Fraud among doctors and providers is at an all time high. The corporations have abrogated their responsibility. The only hope we have is for the government to step up to the plate and demand an integrated health care system with universal coverage.

    Posted by: 5h4yBrigh
  • Integrated health care systems are not the best hope for innovation and cost-effectiveness in U.S., free enterprise is.

    The more requirements being placed on our health care system, the worse our health care is getting. There is less and less incentive for our smartest people to become doctors, and even the best doctors are becoming cosmetic surgeons, since that is where the money is. Until we allow doctors to act as independent business people again, our health care will continue to decline.

    Posted by: OddFrancesco97
  • No, because National health care is unconstitutional in its proposed form.

    The proposed national health care would be terrible for the country. Not only that, it is unconstitutional. The government cannot force us to purchase anything, yet they are trying to make us purchase government health insurance, if we choose to not purchase our own. The care will not be as good as private insurance either, since you will just be another statistic.

    Posted by: R04chGrov
  • Integrated systems can be less efficient, and offer less choice for the consumer.

    Although the propaganda from the HMOs and PPOs will tell you that their customers are largely satisfied with the services they are receiving, I would contend they have no choice. Most of the users are getting their plans through their employers. These programs are meant to standardize care and reduce cost, but only for the company. Medicine, in my opinion, should be specialized and tailored to the individual. Many such programs offer "canned" solutions to complex problems, and the best possible care is not given. Consumers have less autonomy in their care, because it is dictated what provider, what costs, and what services will be made available. Inefficiency occurs at the front-end, and the consumer has to bear it. Try experiencing what it takes to fight a case of non-coverage with the provider.

    Posted by: NedCar
  • I believe that the best hope for innovation and cost effectiveness in the U.S. health system cannot be found through integrated health care systems, because it requires too great of an initial financial investment.

    In an ideal world, integrated health care would be a worthy consideration. However, the world in which we find ourselves is one that requires an immediate incentive in order to take action. Any benefits found in an integrated health care system would be reaped far too late. While these benefits would eventually be a positive feature for the health care industry, the initial cash layout would be too great to ensure that any meaningful segment of the industry would be willing to pursue this change.

    Posted by: ButEasy
  • Health care should return to a patient-doctor relationship, not one enforced by a government.

    Government involvement with health care in the first place is the sole reason why health care costs are so absurd. If the government wouldn't subsidize the insurance industry, we as a public would have less costs associated with it. The doctor patient relationship of the '50s is where we should be heading, not some agency that has a PAC that is donating money to some bureaucrat or funding some campaign. We as a public should be allowed choice and competition, not something forced upon us by some government worker with zero clue as to what health care should be.

    Posted by: C4rrFinaI
  • Integrated health care systems spend way too much on profit and too little in ways which would enhance patient care.

    Integrated health systems, when not in place, spend way too much on administration which would allow for doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies to work together. On the other hand, single payer health care for all, preferably cradle-to-grave Medicare, is already in place and structured, and would be a sole, non-profit health care provider.

    Posted by: R4f3HiPur
  • I do not believe that integrated health care systems will increase innovation or cost effectiveness of health care.

    While integrated health care systems are promoted as though they should increase access and availability of health care and lower costs, in reality they often limit access and become a form of health care rationing. In many countries with integrated health care systems people have to wait a long time to receive treatment for their illnesses and some are denied care based on other co-morbid conditions.

    There is no doubt that our health care system need reform, but integrated health care systems are not the answer.

    Posted by: Prid3Humf
  • Integrated health care systems are a fascinating new business technology, but are just one among many health care solutions

    While integrated health care systems have clearly shaken up the health care world and lead to some improvements, there are many other innovations, from new medical technology to social change and governmental innovation, which may help us improve our health care system. It would be hyperbole to describe IHCSs as the best bet, ignoring the wider world of society and political economy, as well as the other innovations waiting in the wings.

    Posted by: VultureDer

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.