Introduction
The delivery of quality services to all citizens, regardless of their socioeconomic level, depends on the absolute commitment of all stakeholders, making the healthcare system one of the most crucial departments in any country. In the United States, many stakeholders, including researchers, educators, insurers, payers, governments, states, and the private sector, deliver healthcare system services. The healthcare system needs to be fixed because there needs to be coordination among the many parties, which leads to inefficiencies and complexity during service delivery. The government’s direct role in the US healthcare system negatively impacts the health of most US citizens due to poor FDA regulations, outdated healthcare policies, and the inability of regular citizens to access good healthcare.
The current healthcare system in the United States provides high-quality medical care. The health sector is under increasing pressure to provide high-quality services. The industry is progressively moving from the worst to the best. For example, in order to change the lives of citizens, the industry moves from illness to health and from fortune to primaries. To provide high-quality services, the sector establishes compliance with regulations and creates quality standards. In addition, governments continue to promise first-class health care to their citizens. As a result, communities and individuals have high expectations for the quality of care in the healthcare industry, and the healthcare provider is left with no choice but to meet these standards.
Healthcare system fragmentation has created funding issues. Because of this, no national healthcare system is in place, and people are left to choose the kind of healthcare that is best for them. The healthcare system is financed via insurance policies offered by private or public institutions. The nation’s absence of a universal healthcare system has hampered poor people’s access to high-quality healthcare. Because of the current laws, employees lack the freedom to choose their medical coverage. Many healthcare workers in the nation participate in service delivery. The failure or delay in implementing healthcare regulations that deal with spending and service quality may be why the United States needs a national or universal healthcare system.
Methods
With the hypothesis put forward, a systematic examination of the empirical literature was carried out. This involved a thorough and organized data extraction and screening procedure from the literature. With a population of more than 330 million, the United States is home to one of the world’s most intricate healthcare systems, which comprises intertwined interactions between healthcare providers, payers, and patients. The healthcare system in the US is constantly changing. Therefore, it is necessary to apply different methods to analyze the influence on it, such as political, historical, and literary analysis. They are frequently forced to wait in line because of their inability to care for themselves. They should be more frequently tested and over-treated to increase hospital revenue. These characteristics, which should not be connected to institutions that essentially control one’s life, are why those impacted by this system need a solution. The only way for this solution to materialize is through a revamped healthcare system that draws inspiration from the extensive coverage, single-payer, European models. It must be a way to lower healthcare expenses and provide health insurance to every citizen. This revised approach would give every person in America access to a cost-effective healthcare system and the needed hero.
Methods for studying the role of government in the United States health care system are mainly the analysis of literary sources based on evidence-based information. In this way, the greatest objectivity can be achieved when compiling the paper. Methods of scientific analysis imply a detailed disclosure of the main positive and negative factors influencing the authorities. At the same time, methods of historical and political analysis can also be applied to determine how much decisions made by the authorities correspond to the interests of society and medicine. Thus, by examining past bills passed, one can paint a picture and the degree of improvement or deterioration in the overall situation in the United States. On the political side of the methods, this paper will examine the legal obligations that are placed on local governments in the states that can make direct decisions regarding medicine. Public health and the environment have changed in terms of standards, context, and goals over the past three decades. Although these changes happened quickly, concerns about them have only recently arisen. Since the 1990s, public figures representing the people have supported environmental and public health policies (Zhang et al., 2020). However, many citizens believe that the government is not doing enough in terms of caring for the medical system and the environment.
Theory
For a better analysis of this topic, the application of institutional theory is best suited. With its help, one can consider the health care system as a complex one, dividing it into separate components. Such a categorization can show how strong government influence is in the context of each individual area in medicine (Alvesson & Spicer, 2019). In addition, it will allow to find out how specific institutions such as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) influence the work of healthcare in the United States. One of the key aspects of institutional theory is the concept of isomorphism. It refers to the tendency of organizations to adopt similar practices and structures as a result of institutional pressures (Alvesson & Spicer, 2019). In US healthcare, this element can manifest itself in the fact that different medical organizations adopt similar structures and practices due to pressure from the authorities. Thus, their influence does not allow a complete medical system to be fully formed.
Local governments have hired personnel with essential environmental skills, and this element has increased its efficacy even above the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Because knowledge and statistics are necessary for implementing new reforms, both governments have significantly impacted public health practice. The federal and municipal governments have changed their approach from convincing to catalyzing due to public health and environmental preservation dynamics. Instead of using laws and regulations to force success upon these countries, the EPA has worked to assist them in accelerating change.
Literature Review
In the context of government influence on the US medical system, many researchers have been doing scientific research. The literature is dominated by the concepts of health system resilience and the elements that influence this parameter. In this regard, researchers such as Ray-Bennett et al. (2019) and Kozuki et al. (2018) have suggested that healthcare in the United States may be negatively affected by disagreements between stakeholders. An argument in favor of this thesis can be called the fact that now in the country there is a problem of the impossibility of implementing changes, due to which the problems and moments associated with the provision of care and treatment services cannot be corrected. On the other hand, Raven et al. (2018) and Brooke-Sumner et al. (2019) argue that changes require a complete revision of existing legislative acts that were adopted by the government. In this case, the view of the institutionalization of the system becomes more important, since the modernization of health care may require a revision of current laws.
Empirical evidence-based research on the impact of government on the health care system is varied and is presented quite clearly by some researchers. Meyer et al. (2018) and Watts et al. (2018) take a stance on sustainability in their writings in such a way that it is impossible to pinpoint the source of problems in the medical sector. Their argument in this regard is the fact that the extensive system of financing does not allow full accountability for the reforms carried out. This means that any legislation adopted in the country can be considered by different institutions in a different way. On the other hand, as a counterargument, one can say that the approach to interpreting legislation also differs among the researchers themselves. This may indicate that the steps taken by the government to regulate health care and its coordination are initially a failure. The literature on the subject of government influence on the medical sector in the United States is thus divided into several categories, each of which finds its own drawbacks of government intervention.
Analysis
Institutional theory can be used to analyze how healthcare institutions and their practices affect the cost, availability, and quality of healthcare in the United States. Health care spending in the United States is a significant part of the country’s GDP and the main sources of funding are the government, insurance companies and citizen service fees. This points to the institutionalized practice of healthcare financing in the US. The fact that private, public, state, local, and federal funds are used to pay for healthcare proves that the system needs to be more cohesive. The high administrative costs of the healthcare system have contributed to rising costs and limited availability, especially for low-income and uninsured individuals (Zhang et al., 2020). Thus, the institutional theory can be a confirmation of the fact that the separation of different branches of healthcare negatively affects the overall result.
The US medical sector is experiencing certain problems due to the inconsistency of its parts. This is manifested in the example of insurance for the population, which is provided in different ways. In this branch of medicine, institutional theory can also be well demonstrated. The company decides what type of insurance will be provided to employees, which will limit their ability to receive the medical care of their choice. In addition, they could not access quality health care because they had limited control over insurance coverage. However, small businesses may not have the resources to pay for their employees’ insurance coverage, which can prevent them from getting health care if they cannot pay for their health insurance. Financing the health care system is a disadvantage for most people working in small businesses and a disadvantage of the system.
Most legislation and regulations aim to address the issues of the cost, accessibility, and quality of healthcare provided in the United States. The majority of Americans find it challenging to obtain high-quality healthcare due to the escalating costs of the healthcare system. The healthcare expenses at medical facilities across America have increased due to the introduction of cutting-edge technologies and current medications. The healthcare system’s cost has increased due to the high administrative costs. This negatively impacts low-income individuals and those without access to insurance. Hence, the implemented laws and public policies ensure that the expense of health care can be covered by government-sponsored insurance for the poor, children, elderly, and disadvantaged.
To prevent fragmentation, a unified policy is needed that can help manage the health care system. The system also requires an efficient method of financing, payment, and delivery of goods. Insurers act as intermediaries for financing and payment. As a result, it is becoming increasingly difficult to manage the financial costs of the health care system. Insurance payments subsidize the American healthcare system. Most people who have a job pay for their health care through employer-funded private insurance companies such as MCO.
In the US healthcare system, one can observe institutional practices of high administrative costs. Thus, the organizations themselves in the medical sector are formed due to the environment of disparate institutions, the financing of which cannot be fully coordinated. Over time, the use of multiple sources of funding can lead to dysfunctional systems and, as a result, lower quality of care and services. In turn, this makes it difficult to apply changes in the medical field and complicates its reform. Engaging institutional entrepreneurship within the system, involving all stakeholders, could solve this problem (Alvesson & Spicer, 2019). Thus, the legislation and practices that have been implemented to address cost issues should be further directed toward system changes.
Conclusion
The United States healthcare system is different from other medical sectors around the world. This is its weak side since no authority assumes responsibility for the changes carried out in this industry. Thus, government intervention in the medical sector presents great difficulties for its sustainable development. Despite the fact that many laws have been adopted in the country to improve health care, many of them have not been fully and successfully implemented. This led to further disastrous consequences since the institutionalization of the healthcare sector does not allow for competent reforms.
The medical system of the United States is closely connected with the actions of the authorities in one area or another. In this way, the laws that are passed can bring significant damage to the sphere of medicine. The institutionalization of the industry does not allow for full tracking of effective interventions, which makes healthcare not as efficient as it should be. Thus, the industry cannot achieve the desired level of sustainability and appears to be a more fragile structure. US investment in healthcare today makes up a significant portion of the country’s GDP, which ends up with a mixed result as the level of care is deteriorating due to laws that go against one another. Thus, it can be said that the government has a negative impact on the US healthcare system.
References
Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (2019). Neo-institutional theory and organization studies: A mid-life crisis?. Organization Studies, 40(2), 199-218. Web.
Brooke-Sumner, C., Petersen-Williams, P., Kruger, J., Mahomed, H., & Myers, B. (2019). ‘Doing more with less’: A qualitative investigation of perceptions of South African health service managers on implementing health innovations. Health Policy and Planning, 34(2), 132–140. Web.
Kozuki, N., Ericson, K., Marron, B., Lainez, Y. B., & Miller, N. P. (2018). The resilience of integrated community case management in an acute emergency: A case study from Unity State, South Sudan. Journal of Global Health, 8(2). Web.
Meyer, D., Kirk Sell, T., Schoch-Spana, M., Shearer, M. P., Chandler, H., Thomas, E., Rose, D. A., Carbone, E. G., & Toner, E. (2018). Lessons from the domestic Ebola response: Improving health care system resilience to high consequence infectious diseases. American Journal of Infection Control, 46(5), 533–537. Web.
Raven, J., Wurie, H., & Witter, S. (2018). Health workers’ experiences coping with the Ebola epidemic in Sierra Leone’s health system: a qualitative study. BMC Health Services Research, 18, 1–9. Web.
Ray-Bennett, N. S., Corsel, D. M., Goswami, N., & Ghosh, A. (2019). Understanding reproductive health challenges during a flood: Insights from Belkuchi Upazila, Bangladesh. Gates Open Research, 3(788). Web.
Watts, N., Amann, M., Ayeb-Karlsson, S., Belesova, K., Bouley, T., Boykoff, M.,… & Costello, A. (2018). The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: From 25 years of inaction to a global transformation for public health. The Lancet, 391(10120), 581-630. Web.
Zhang, J., Yu, Z., Zhao, B., Sun, R., & Vejre, H. (2020). Links between green space and public health: A bibliometric review of global research trends and future prospects from 1901 to 2019. Environmental Research Letters, 15(6), 063001. Web.