Health Care Market Concentration Trends in The United States

 

Read the following attachments:

Health Care Market Concentration Trends in The United States: Evidence and Policy Responses

Industry Trends: Key Trends in Healthcare for 2020 and Beyond

Address the following in 400 to 500 words,

Describe population health trends and quality management trends in the past 6 months to 1 year in detail.
Summarize the importance of population health trends and quality management trends as well as possible impacts on a healthcare organization of your choice.
Assess the advantages and disadvantages of a healthcare organization that rides population health trends and quality management trends.

Sample Solution

Recent population health trends indicate a shift towards proactive and preventive care as opposed to traditional reactive approaches. This is evidenced by an increasing number of Americans adopting preventative measures such as exercise, diet modification, and use of alternative medicine in order to maintain their health (Grantham et al., 2019). Additionally, there has been a notable rise in the use of telemedicine services for routine visits which allows for greater access to medical advice from home rather than requiring visits with physicians or specialists (Kesselheim et al., 2018).

Regarding quality management trends over the last 6 months to 1 year, there has been a focus on using data-driven approaches that measure outcomes and then identify opportunities for improvement. This involves gathering feedback from patients regarding their experiences in order to better understand any potential issues with their experience (McCleery & Lavellan, 2020). Furthermore, health systems are closing gaps in care by utilizing predictive analytics which allow providers to anticipate where resources should be allocated most effectively according to patient needs (Freedman & Chaudhry, 2017). Finally, increased emphasis is being placed on consumerism – both with regard to healthcare costs and provider availability – as well as improved patient education initiatives so that individuals can become more informed about available treatments options prior to making decisions about their care (Weston et al., 2020).

In sum then, recent population health trends have seen an uptick in preventative practices while quality management trends have put greater emphasis on data-driven decision making across healthcare systems. By investing resources into these efforts now – through measurement of outcomes as well utilization of predictive analytics – organizations can ensure that they remain competitive within the rapidly changing environment while also providing higher levels of care tailored directly towards patient needs.

First, it is never just to intentionally kill innocent people in wars, supported by Vittola’s first proposition. This is widely accepted as ‘all people have a right not to be killed’ and if a soldier does, they have violated that right and lost their right. This is further supported by “non-combatant immunity” (Frowe (2011), Page 151), which leads to the question of combatant qualification mentioned later in the essay. This is corroborated by the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, ending the Second World War, where millions were intently killed, just to secure the aim of war. However, sometimes civilians are accidentally killed through wars to achieve their goal of peace and security. This is supported by Vittola, who implies proportionality again to justify action: ‘care must be taken where evil doesn’t outweigh the possible benefits (Begby et al (2006b), Page 325).’ This is further supported by Frowe who explains it is lawful to unintentionally kill, whenever the combatant has full knowledge of his actions and seeks to complete his aim, but it would come at a cost. However, this does not hide the fact the unintended still killed innocent people, showing immorality in their actions. Thus, it depends again on proportionality as Thomson argues (Frowe (2011), Page 141).
This leads to question of what qualifies to be a combatant, and whether it is lawful to kill each other as combatants. Combatants are people who are involved directly or indirectly with the war and it is lawful to kill ‘to shelter the innocent from harm…punish evildoers (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as mentioned above civilian cannot be harmed, showing combatants as the only legitimate targets, another condition of jus in bello, as ‘we may not use the sword against those who have not harmed us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).’ In addition, Frowe suggested combatants must be identified as combatants, to avoid the presence of guerrilla warfare which can end up in a higher death count, for example, the Vietnam War. Moreover, he argued they must be part of the army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This suggests Frowe seeks a fair, just war between two participants avoiding non-combatant deaths, but wouldn’t this lead to higher death rate for combatants, as both sides have relatively equal chance to win since both use similar tactics? Nevertheless, arguably Frowe will argue that combatant can lawfully kill each other, showing this is just, which is also supported by Vittola, who states: ‘it is lawful to draw the sword and use it against malefactors (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).’
In addition, Vittola expresses the extent of military tactics used, but never reaches a conclusion whether it’s lawful or not to proceed these actions, as he constantly found a middle ground, where it can be lawful to do such things but never always (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is supported by Frowe, who measures the legitimate tactics according to proportionality and military necessity. It depends on the magnitude of how much damage done to one another, in order to judge the actions after a war. For example, one cannot simply nuke the terrorist groups throughout the middle-east, because it is not only proportional, it will damage the whole population, an unintended consequence. More importantly, the soldiers must have the right intention in what they are going to achieve, sacrificing the costs to their actions. For example: if soldiers want to execute all prisoners of war, they must do it for the right intention and for a just cause, proportional to the harm done to them. This is supported by Vittola: ‘not always lawful to execute all combatants…we must take account… scale of the injury inflicted by the enemy.’ This is further supported by Frowe approach, which is a lot m

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.