MSN Writing Services

NHS FPX 6008 Assessment 3 Business Case for Change

New Samples

Struggling With Your Assessments? Get Help From Our Tutors

    NHS FPX 6008 Assessment 3 Business Case for Change

    Student Name

    Capella University

    NHS-FPX 6008 Economics and Decision Making in Health Care

    Professor Name

    Date

    Business Case for Change

    Welcome all, my name is ——. Today, in this presentation, we will dive into the business case for change in healthcare economic issues, highlighting limited access to care. We will further overview how this issue impacted my organization and community. Next, we will examine the feasibility and cost-benefit considerations of implementing a proposed solution for the healthcare economic issue of limited access to care. Moreover, we will analyze various ways to mitigate the risks. Next, we will discuss proposed changes that can improve community care access. Lastly, we will explain how the proposed solution is culturally sensitive, ethical and equitable for community and healthcare organizations.  So, let us delve into this vast but significant topic!

    Healthcare Economic Issue and Its Impact

    The healthcare economic issue I will highlight in this presentation is the lack of access to care. Limited or inadequate access to care is a global issue, as WHO states that half of the world has limited access to primary healthcare services (World Health Organization, n.d.). Limited access to care impacts particular groups such as low-income people, remote area natives, people with disabilities, and others. This issue impacts the community as their poor health outcomes cause them to suffer in various ways, including loss in productivity, reduced life span, increased healthcare costs, and enhanced mortality rates. Limited access to care must be adequately addressed to improve community health and economic stability.

    Impact on Stakeholders 

    The most affected populations are impoverished people with low socioeconomic status, people with disabilities, and geographically distant or rural dwellers. I witnessed this issue in my healthcare organization, Tampa General Hospital, where limited access to care resulted in people dying from chronic diseases and delayed delivery of care treatments. These situations profoundly impacted my work as watching people die lingered on my nerves and intervened in my work, leading to near-miss events. Furthermore, my colleagues had similar feelings that interrupted their keen attention to the nursing tasks. The organization suffered various consequences of this healthcare economic issue, including higher costs due to increased hospital readmission rates and a negative impact on hospital reputations.

    Now, I will explain the significant impact this issue had on the community, as they were the primary victims of limited access to healthcare. Due to severe financial constraints, populations with poor socioeconomic backgrounds could not bear medical expenditures, and hospitals did not provide them with essential health and medical services (McMaughan et al., 2020). As a result, they suffered from their ailment, and many patients died. Moreover, disabled people, due to physical barriers, encountered limited access to medical facilities and experienced adverse health outcomes.

    Lastly, the people from remote areas had geographical barriers in accessing healthcare services and required strategic planning that could help them acquire healthcare services at home or near home. Considering the negative impact on all stakeholders, there is a pressing need to delve further into this matter and foster a change in systems that promise enhanced access to care for all vulnerable groups.

    Feasibility and Cost-Benefit Considerations 

      The limited access to care poses health implications and badly impacts financial security. Therefore, healthcare organizations must explore this economic issue’s feasibility and cost-benefit considerations. These considerations will facilitate healthcare organizations in assessing the viability and practicality of initiatives for improving access to care.  Some feasibility considerations explored for limited access to care are as follows:

    Enhanced Costs Due to Preventable Complications

    The preventable diseases and manageable health conditions may worsen due to limited access to care. The unmet needs of these health problems due to delayed or inadequate treatments escalate to more severe stages requiring costly interventions. The expensive treatment and interventions exceed early diagnosis and preventive care costs. For instance, diabetes management is less costly if timely diagnosed and treated than delayed treatment or lack of adherence to therapeutic care due to limited care (Singer et al., 2022). By granting adequate patient access, one can prevent the economic burden that incurs on patients and healthcare organizations.

    Public Health Impact

    The limited access to care for the vulnerable population with contagious diseases may lead to disease outbreaks. This will further create massive chaos as it creates broader public health implications. The ultimate consequences will be unmanaged diseases, costly treatments, and higher prevalence rates. Therefore, this provides a nuanced feasibility consideration to change healthcare organizations to improve public health by providing timely access to healthcare services.

    Cost-Benefit Considerations

    By improving access to care for vulnerable populations, cost-effectiveness can be procured. As the populations receive adequate access to care, their health outcomes will be improved, leading to a productive life. This will enhance the economy of the community and the overall country. To substantiate the cost-benefit considerations, one study supports expanding access to care for all people through telehealth facilities. The study’s results showed that for a 300-patient load per year, the annual cost savings amounted to €19,500 by expanding telehealth services. Moreover, Skype, as a less costly alternative, further decreased the telemedicine costs to €3149 (Buvik et al., 2019). Considering such strategies to enhance access to care, healthcare organizations can improve cost-effectiveness, benefiting them in the long run.

    Evidence-Based Ways to Mitigate Risks to Financial Security

    • Implementing telehealth services to improve access, particularly for underserved communities and remote areas with geographical barriers. Telehealth services can reduce physical infrastructure and facilitate early diagnosis and management of healthcare issues (O’Kane, 2020). Telehealth reduces hospital readmission rates, length of stay and emergency department length of stay at the hospital, leading to financial security for healthcare organizations (Tsou et al., 2021).
    • Investing in community health outreach programs to improve preventive care and early interventions These programs can address unmet social needs and also generate positive return on investment (Kangovi et al., 2020). This will enhance healthcare organizations’ financial security due to the overburdening of diseased patients with devastating health problems. Spending every $1 in public health departments promises a remarkable return on benefit of $67 to $88 due to reduced long-term costs (McCullough, 2019).
    • Advocating for policies that expand health insurance coverage and promote value-based care instead of fee-for-service models. This will promote equitable access to care and reduce financial strain on healthcare organizations.

    Changes or Solutions to Address Limited Care to Access

    • Implementing rural-based solutions such as telehealth, community health services and mobile apps for health information to deliver care treatments and health education to rural populations near home, improve access to care and reduce health disparities due to geographical distances (Wilson et al., 2020). 
    • Increase the use of telehealth services for disabled people through videoconference sessions to provide healthcare needs and make healthcare services available (Jeste et al., 2020).
    • Enhancing healthcare coverage and Medicaid access for low-income people can improve their access to care services as this program will reduce the number of uninsured individuals. This will improve health equity leading to better health outcomes (McMaughan et al., 2020).

    Benefits of Implementing Proposed Plans

    These changes will benefit the community and assist the organization and colleagues. The organization can provide consultations to a broader range of people with limited access to care. This will be done by optimizing resource allocation and planning, which will lead to cost-effectiveness. Moreover, the organizations will acquire an increased return on investment leading to cost-benefit (Moroz et al., 2020). The organization’s reputation will be enhanced through expanded patient care access.

    Furthermore, effective implementation of proposed plans will promote the long-term stability of organizations as it positively contributes towards community well-being. By providing adequate access to care, healthcare professionals will be motivated to serve the community and enhance their productivity. This will give them job satisfaction as they can equitably deliver patient care and treatment. Moreover, colleagues involved in the planning and execution of this change will benefit from improved communication, professional development, and coordinated care.

    Solutions Addressing Cultural and Ethical Considerations

    Cultural Sensitivity

    The proposed solutions for limited access to care are designed with cultural competence at their core. For individuals with low socioeconomic status, introducing health insurance coverage ensures equal treatment in hospitals irrespective of their economic background, promoting social justice and reducing health disparities (Wright & Merritt, 2020). Telehealth consultations cater to remote areas and disabled people, providing culturally sensitive patient care by acknowledging and respecting cultural beliefs. This patient-centered approach is tailored to individual health needs and preferences, ensuring each patient feels understood and valued (Sivaraman & Fahmie, 2020).

    Ethical Considerations

    Ethical considerations are paramount in our proposed changes. Telehealth, by design, addresses the ethical pillars of beneficence, confidentiality, and non-maleficence. It offers remote assistance in emergencies, aiming to enhance public health while maintaining data privacy. The initiative to grant healthcare insurance to low-income individuals reflects our commitment to justice for all (Tsou et al., 2021). Additionally, patient autonomy is upheld through patient-centred care and shared decision-making, ensuring patients are involved and informed in their care process.

    Equitable Solutions

    Our primary goal is to offer solutions that are not only effective but also equitable. Expanding access to care through Medicaid Insurance services, we aim to empower low-income individuals with timely and adequate care, thus fostering social equity. Telehealth services, on the other hand, will offer a lifeline to rural communities, allowing them access to care without the financial and physical challenges of travelling to hospitals. Such strategic changes are rooted in health equity, social justice, and non-maleficence principles, ensuring no group feels burdened or left behind.

    Access and Cost Equity

    The core of our proposed changes revolves around delivering high-quality patient care to everyone, irrespective of socioeconomic status, geographic challenges, or disabilities. Telehealth services will notably reduce costs for remote residents by eliminating travel expenses (Tsou et al., 2021). Health insurance coverage, especially for low-income individuals, ensures cost-effectiveness. By addressing existing disparities due to racial, socioeconomic, and geographical barriers, our solutions champion equity in both access and cost, aiming for a healthier, more inclusive community.

    Conclusion

      To conclude, we discussed the limited access to care as a healthcare economic issue in Tampa General Hospital. This issue impacted not only the community at large but also my work, colleagues’ work, and organization. The feasibility and cost-benefit considerations for this issue were highlighted. Later, we analyzed three ways to mitigate risks to the financial security of our organization. Then, we proceeded to make changes that can be implemented to address limited access to care. Lastly, we analyzed how these changes are culturally sensitive, ethically correct, and equitable for the community and healthcare organizations.

    References

    Assefa, Y., Gelaw, Y. A., Hill, P. S., Taye, B. W., & Van Damme, W. (2019). Community health extension program of Ethiopia, 2003–2018: Successes and challenges toward universal coverage for primary healthcare services. Globalization and Health, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-019-0470-1 

    Buvik, A., Bergmo, T. S., Bugge, E., Smaabrekke, A., Wilsgaard, T., & Olsen, J. A. (2019). Cost-effectiveness of telemedicine in remote orthopedic consultations: Randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(2), e11330. https://doi.org/10.2196/11330 

    Kangovi, S., Mitra, N., Grande, D., Long, J. A., & Asch, D. A. (2020). Evidence-Based community health worker program addresses unmet social needs and generates positive return on investment. Health Affairs, 39(2), 207–213. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2019.00981 

    McCullough, J. M. (2019). Declines in spending despite positive returns on investment: Understanding public health’s wrong pocket problem. Frontiers in Public Health, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00159 

    NHS FPX 6008 Assessment 3 Business Case for Change

    O’Kane, G. (2020). Telehealth—Improving access for rural, regional and remote communities. Australian Journal of Rural Health, 28(4), 419–420. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajr.12663 

    Singer, M. E., Dorrance, K. A., Oxenreiter, M. M., Yan, K. R., & Close, K. L. (2022). The type 2 diabetes “modern preventable pandemic” and replicable lessons from the COVID-19 crisis. Preventive Medicine Reports, 25, 101636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101636 

    Sivaraman, M., & Fahmie, T. A. (2020). A systematic review of cultural adaptations in the global application of ABA-based telehealth services. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 53(4), 1838–1855. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.763 

    Tsou, C., Robinson, S., Boyd, J., Jamieson, A., Blakeman, R., Yeung, J., McDonnell, J., Waters, S., Bosich, K., & Hendrie, D. (2021). Effectiveness of telehealth in rural and remote emergency departments: Systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(11), e30632. https://doi.org/10.2196/30632

    NHS FPX 6008 Assessment 3 Business Case for Change

    World Health Organization. (n.d.). World bank and WHO: Half the world lacks access to essential health services, 100 million still pushed into extreme poverty because of health expenses. https://www.who.int/news/item/13-12-2017-world-bank-and-who-half-the-world-lacks-access-to-essential-health-services-100-million-still-pushed-into-extreme-poverty-because-of-health-expenses  

    Wilson, C. R., Rourke, J., Oandasan, I. F., & Bosco, C. (2020). Progress made on access to rural health care in canada. Canadian Family Physician, 66(1), 31–36. https://www.cfp.ca/content/66/1/31.short

    Wright, J. E., & Merritt, C. C. (2020). Social equity and COVID‐19: The case of African Americans. Public Administration Review, 80(5), 820–826. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13251