Scarcity of Healthcare Services in Australia
Discuss about the Journal Of Health Organization And The Management.
Australia has made major steps in strengthening its healthcare system. However, just like any other nation across the globe, the country’s healthcare sector is still not perfect because of the myriad of challenges that it faces. One of the major issues that the healthcare sector has been facing is scarcity. There is a scarcity of healthcare services because not all the people can be provided with all the primary and essential services that they always need at any given time. The scarcity of medical services has been posing a great challenge to the policy and decision-makers because they do not know exactly how to address it. However, the scarce resources can be effectively allocated if appropriate distribution principles are applied.
In Australia, there is no equality and equity in the healthcare sector. Not all the people can have access to the specific healthcare services that they do require at any given time. There are many cases in which the Australians fail to acquire even essenngly utilized. However, each medical intervention requires some resources to be allocated for it (Fleck, 018). What the decision-makers, therefore, need to do is to conduct a financial analysis to study the costs incurred and the opportunity costs that might arise if at all the intervention is provided. The overall costs of not taking an action should never be more than the expenses incurred.
when allocating scarce resources, the policy-makers should decide based on the principle framework of the potential to bring the desirable improvements. Each and every intervention should be beneficial. This implies that it should be a
tial primary healthcare services that they direly need (Whitty, Lancsar, Rixon, Golenko & Ratcliffe, 2014). On many occasions, patients have failed to get services like organ transplant and surgeries that they so direly need. At times, when there are disasters, some people might fail to get the emergency medical services on which they rely to restore their health. All these are issues that should be taken so seriously because it hinders the country from accomplishing its short and long-term health goals.
There are any reasons why the problem of scarcity has persisted in the country. First and foremost, many healthcare facilities are operating on a limited budget. This problem mostly affects the public healthcare facilities which solely rely on the government for funding (Bryant, Sanson-Fisher, Walsh & Stewart, 2014). The financial constraints so far faced by the healthcare facilities has made it difficult for them to acquire all the facilities and equipments that they can use to deliver quality services to all their patients. The other reason for the scarcity of services is that there is a high demand in the country (Fleischer, 2014). The demand has been prompted by increased population and life expectancy. Thus, it has become virtually impossible for the healthcare facilities to meet the diverse needs of each of their clients.
Reasons for Scarcity of Services in Australia
Scarcity is a serious problem in the health care sector. Despite the magnitude of its challenge, the issue can be still be resolved if appropriate measures are taken. One of the major problems that have been facing the decision and policy-makers is the modalities to use while allocating resources to the public. For a very long time, the authorities have found it extremely difficult to make a decision on the best way through which they can fairly distribute resources to the people who need it (Clark & Weale, 2012). However, all these can still be achieved if at all the policy and decision-makers are committed to adhering to standard ethical principles of distribution.
The first ethical principle that should be applied when distributing scarce resources is equal treatment of people. According to this principle, the allocation of scarce resources should be done in a fair and equitable manner without any form of discrimination to any segment of the population. Basically, this principle involves the use of two strategies: lottery and distribution on the first-come-first-served basis. According to the principle of lottery, the distribution of resources should be done to the beneficiaries by giving each of them an equal opportunity (Meadowcroft, 2015). Whenever used in allocating resources, lottery guarantees equality because it does not discriminate upon anyone nor leave any loopholes for malpractices such as corruption or favoritism. That is why all the people who benefit from lottery usually deserve such opportunities (van Exel, Baker, Mason, Donaldson, Brouwer & Team, 2015). First-come-first-served is a strategy that can also be applied when distributing scarce medical resources in the country. As its name suggested, it does not consider any factor rather than the time at which the request is made. Therefore, whenever there is need to transplant any organ, for example, the decision-makers only give it to the patient who comes first.
The second ethical principle that the decision and policy-makers should apply when distributing scarce resources is favoring the worst-off: prioritization. According to this principle, whenever distributing scarce resources, the best thing to do to benefit the society is to prioritize the underprivileged people and give them first priority over the wealthy and the rest of the privileged persons. Under this principle, two approaches are applied (Whitty & Littlejohns, 2015). The first one is called the sickest first. Here, the allocation of scarce medical resources should be done by favoring the sickest-the people who are seriously sick and require an immediate intervention because it might be the only way to save or prolong their lives. By favoring this category of patients, it means that the decision-makers would have no choice rather than discriminating upon the patients whose conditions are a bit better. The second modality under this principle is the youngest first. Here, priority is given to the youngest population because they are more vulnerable than their adult or ageing counterparts.
Ethical Principles for Resource Allocation in Australia’s Healthcare Sector
The third ethical principle used in the allocation of scarce medical resources in the country is called utilitarianism. This is a strategy that is applied to ensure that the medical resources yield optimal benefits to the largest possible number of people in the nation. According to the proponents of this principle, it is ethical to make a decision that can benefit as many people as possible (Falkenström, Ohlsson & Höglund, 2016). Utilitarianism is, therefore, aimed at achieving two goals-saving and prolonging human lives. The utilitarian strategy of saving lives is aimed at salvaging as many lives as possible because the utilitarian believe that human life matters a lot and should be saved using whatever means possible. The principle of life saving can be effective if applied in the distribution of scarce resources like vaccines particularly when there is an outbreak of a disease.
Priority setting is undoubtedly a challenging endeavor that many decision and policy-makers deal with each day. Although such decisions should always be based on the principles of equality, prioritization, and utilitarianism, many at times, it has proven to be hard given the obstacles encountered. Therefore, to address this and carry out an effective and useful allocation of scarce resources, prioritization should be done by adhering to a well-defined prioritization setting framework (Norheim, 2016). A priority-setting framework is necessary in resource allocation because it addresses all the evidentiary, moral, social, economic, and political factors that determine the allocation of scarce resources in the community or nation.
Top at the list of the priority-setting frameworks is the data comparison. Data comparison simply refers to the analysis of different sets of available data on the health status of an individual, family, community, region, state or nation. For a scarce resource to be allocated, the decision-makers must ensure that they acquire all the necessary information that can enable them to do so in a fair and equitable manner (Mihalopoulos, Carter, Pirkis & Vos, 2013). However, for this to happen, the decision-makers must consider all the data pertaining to the mortality statistics, demographic profiles, well-being, community health, hospital admission rates, and all the other social, economic factors that determine the health needs and status of people at the local, community, regional, state, and national levels.
The other priority-setting framework that should be considered when allocating scarce resources is the consideration of the social determinants of health. As already highlighted, there is an inequality in the Australia’s healthcare system because of the unfair distribution of the socio-economic factors which favor a segment of the population and disadvantage the other section. Therefore, when planning to fairly-allocate scarce healthcare resources, the decision-makers should not fail to consider all the social and economic determinants of health such as the levels of income, education, cultural beliefs, location, availability of infrastructure, and accessibility to healthcare facilities (Norheim, 2016). Each of these factors should be considered when making a decision regarding the allocation of scarce resources in Australia where there is a diverse population composed of the rich and the poor. For example, when there is a need to roll-out a health education campaign or provide a vaccination during a disaster, the decision-makers should prioritize the underprivileged people like the Aboriginals who have been worse-off when it comes to health matters.
Priority-Setting Frameworks for Resource Allocation
Identification of the scale of the problem is also a major priority-setting framework that should be considered when allocating scarce resources. Each and every health issue that arises brings an impact to the society. However, not all health issues have similar effects because their consequences vary depending on the nature of the incident. There are some health problems which have a low scale of effect (Nord & Johansen, 2014). At the same time, there are others whose impacts are so huge to the extent that they might be considered disastrous. That is what happens whenever there is an outbreak of calamities like flooding or earth quake. Some health problems also cause death (Smith, Mitton, Davidson & Williams, 2014). Therefore, when setting an intervention priority, the decision-makers should ensure that they consider each of these factors before coming up with a decision on which issue to prioritize without being unfair to anyone.
The decision-makers should set their priorities by aligning them with the government’s targets and priorities. In Australia, the government is the supreme organ that has authority to oversee all the health-related matters. It finances, supervises, and controls all the activities within the healthcare sector. Hence, whenever there is any project to be undertaken, it should be done in line with the government policies. In case there is need for the allocation of scarce resources, the concerned decision-makers should do so by adhering to the regulations of the government (Fleck, 2018). Since the government is actively involved in the healthcare-related matters, it has its targets and priority areas that it deems fit. Therefore, whenever there is a need to set a priority to allocate scarce resources, the concerned should always ensure that they strictly comply with the standards set by the government.
The assessment of the financial cost is another important framework that should be considered when allocating scarce resources. Resources are about finances. Therefore, whenever the resources are scarce, they should be sparingly utilized. However, each medical intervention requires some resources to be allocated for it (Fleck, 018). What the decision-makers, therefore, need to do is to conduct a financial analysis to study the costs incurred and the opportunity costs that might arise if at all the intervention is provided. The overall costs of not taking an action should never be more than the expenses incurred.
when allocating scarce resources, the policy-makers should decide based on the principle framework of the potential to bring the desirable improvements. Each and every intervention should be beneficial. This implies that it should be able to improve the health condition of the people who are to benefit from it (Hipgrave, Alderman, Anderson & Soto, 2014). Therefore, if it is found out that a particular intervention has more benefits, it should be given priority over the others which do not have as much benefits and cannot bring substantial improvements to the health of the population.
Conclusion
Last, but not least, the strengths of the evidence should also be considered as an important framework that should be considered when allocating scarce resources. An effective medical intervention should be evidence-based. Meaning, it should be done in line with some scientifically proven standards (Bryant, Sanson-Fisher, Walsh & Stewart, 2014). Hence, before rolling out any intervention, the decision-makers must make sure that it there is enough scientific evidence to justify its significance.
Conclusion
Health care is a service that no one can do without because it is necessary for human life. Despite its necessity, not every Australian get access to health care because it is a scarce resource that it not always at the disposal of everyone. This has been caused by the inadequate resources coupled by a high demand that renders healthcare facilities incapable of meeting all the health needs. The scarcity of healthcare resources has been posing a great threat to the policy and decision-makers because they do find it extremely challenging to decide on the exact area to support. However, to address this problem, the policy-makers should embrace the ethical principles f prioritization like utilitarianism, equality, and the prioritization of the disadvantaged segment of the population. These principles should be done in line with the priority-setting frameworks of data-comparisons, consideration of the social determinants, identification of the scale of the problem, and alignment of the decision to the government’s policies and priorities.
References
Bryant, J., Sanson-Fisher, R., Walsh, J., & Stewart, J. (2014). Health research priority setting in selected high income countries: a narrative review of methods used and recommendations
for future practice. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 12(1), 23. Clark, S., & Weale, A. (2012). Social values in health priority setting: a conceptual framework.
Journal of health organization and management, 26(3), 293-316. Falkenström, E., Ohlsson, J., & Höglund, A. T. (2016). Developing ethical competence in
healthcare management. Journal of Workplace Learning, 28(1), 17-32.
Fleck, L. M. (2018). Controlling Healthcare Costs: Just Cost Effectiveness or “Just” Cost
Effectiveness? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 27(2), 271-283.
Fleischer, M. P. (2014). Charitable Giving and Utilitarianism: Problems and Priorities. Ind. LJ,89, 1485.
Hipgrave, D. B., Alderman, K. B., Anderson, I., & Soto, E. J. (2014). Health sector priority
setting at meso-level in lower and middle income countries: lessons learned, availabl options and suggested steps. Social science & medicine, 102, 190-200.
Meadowcroft, J. (2015). Just healthcare? The moral failure of single-tier basic healthcare.
Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 40(2), 152-168.
Mihalopoulos, C., Carter, R. O. B., Pirkis, J., & Vos, T. (2013). Priority-setting for mental health services. Journal of Mental Health, 22(2), 122-134.
Nord, E., & Johansen, R. (2014). Concerns for severity in priority setting in health care: A
review of trade-off data in preference studies and implications for societal willingness to pay for a QALY. Health Policy, 116(2), 281-288.
Norheim, O. F. (2016). Ethical priority setting for universal health coverage: challenges indeciding upon fair distribution of health services. BMC medicine, 14(1), 75.
Norheim, O. F. (2016). Ethical priority setting for universal health coverage: challenges indeciding upon fair distribution of health services. BMC medicine, 14(1), 75.
Smith, N., Mitton, C., Davidson, A., & Williams, I. (2014). A politics of priority setting: Ideas,
interests and institutions in healthcare resource allocation. Public Policy andAdministration, 29(4), 331-347. van Exel, J., Baker, R., Mason, H., Donaldson, C., Brouwer, W., & Team, E. (2015). Public
views on principles for health care priority setting: Findings of a European cross-country study using Q methodology. Social science & medicine, 126, 128-137.Whitty, J. A., & Littlejohns, P. (2015). Social values and health priority setting in Australia: an
analysis applied to the context of health technology assessment. Health Policy, 119(2),127-136.
Whitty, J. A., Lancsar, E., Rixon, K., Golenko, X., & Ratcliffe, J. (2014). A systematic review of stated preference studies reporting public preferences for healthcare priority setting.The Patient-Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 7(4), 365-386.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
