Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 | Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago | Pages:5-10 |
Instructions:
Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate Discussion
Peer 1:
You raise what I believe is the crucial issue — “in order to have sustainability, Medicare spending cannot consistently exceed GDP.” Healthcare spending and the impact that it has on economic performance are highly important for a nation’s economy. As you mentioned, studies show that improvements in health can lead to an increase GDP and vice versa because healthcare holds a significant place in the quality of human capital. Foster & Clemens (2009) point out an ongoing debates about 1) what kinds of healthcare spending? and 2) what level of optimal spending is beneficial for GDPs economic development?
Medicare is continually undergoing change —as it must— in order to reflect advances in medicine, technology, new healthcare delivery systems, etc. Modifications to the program are constantly a hot topic among policymakers, academic experts, and so on. Foster and Clemens (2009) suggest these debates would be improved if policymakers and the public had a clearer understanding of Medicare and certain common views of the Program’s overall status. To explain, three such concepts: the financial status of the Medicare trust funds, the impact of Medicare on the Federal budget, and the long-run sustainability of Medicare, are often confused with each other and are sometimes used interchangeably. Each concept is important but needs to be used for its own intended purpose, and one point of view cannot be used to answer questions related to the other, i.e., the impact of Medicare spending on the federal budget offers no insight into whether a certain account has sufficient funds to allow payment of benefits and trust fund surpluses (or deficits) reveal nothing about the impact of Medicare on the federal budget.
More importantly, sustainability is not the same as adequate financing. A program may be adequately financed but unsustainable. For example, according to Foster & Clemens research, Medicare Part B is projected to always be in financial balance because of the annual determination of financing to meet expected expenditures; but some would argue that Part B is unsustainable because of the very rapid projected expenditure growth. On the other hand, a program might be sustainable, but temporarily inadequately financed.
I think most of us would agree that sustainability is much more difficult to assess because it is a very broad issue and ultimately one that involves ‘societal values.’ There is no agreed-upon standard by which to measure the sustainability of Medicare, yet there is considerable confusion about the differences between the concepts of sustainability, financial status, and budget impact.
Foster, R. S., & Clemens, M. K. (2009). Medicare financial status, budget impact, and sustainability–which concept is which? Health Care Financing Review, 30(3), 77–90. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4195070/
Peer 2:
Great post! I’m not as experienced in healthcare so I am just learning as I go, but I found it interesting to see how fees for physicians services, the number of medicare beneficiaries, US GDP, and service expenditures are impacting healthcare/Medicare. It is a good thing they offer these programs that could help with managing spending. Thanks again for sharing!
RUBRIC |
||||||
Excellent Quality 95-100%
|
Introduction
45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Literature Support 91-84 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met. |
|||
Average Score 50-85% |
40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided. |
83-76 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration. |
52-49 points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met. |
|||
Poor Quality 0-45% |
37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided. |
75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration. |
48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met |
|||
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow
Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate Discussion |
Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate Discussion