Investigation on Current Health Management Issue - Free Sample

Question: Discuss about theInvestigative Report on a Current Health Management Issue. Answer: Introduction A countrys health is more than its wealth. The government of all the countries strives to achieve healthy people in 2020 AD. Though the science and technology has met a wide range of improvements, no country has achieved a target of absence of disease and attained an optimal health. The countries often frame health management networks to disperse health to all the people irrespective of race, creed or caste and increasing its accessibility and availability to all levels of people from urban to remote areas (Park, 2013). A health system should involve the activities that aid in the promotion, restoration and maintenance of health (WHO, 2013). The health system configuration differs from one country to another while few mechanisms are same to deliver quality care (WHO, 2013). The health care system of Australia is a web that comprises of both government and private health providers. There are many health management networks in Australia as Primary Health Networks (PHNs), Local Health D istricts (LHDs), etc. This report deals about the differences between PHNs and LHDs based on their roles, accountability, budgets and other relevant items and common issues faced and recommendations to overcome these issues. In April 2013, the Health Ministers has announced that our country strive to provide primary health care which involves offering health care equally to all the levels of people by maintaining health, preventing illness, decreasing the hospital service needs and improving chronic disease management. The Australian government has established Medicare Locals (MLs) in 2011 to strengthen the primary health care and to improve the planning of health for all the population but a review of Medicare Locals was done by Prof. John Horvath (former Commonwealth Chief Medical Officer), in which he criticized its effect in 2014. Therefore it was replaced by Primary Health Networks from July1, 2015 by the health department. PHNs were established to improve the accessibility to basic frontline health services to all the local area people and to prevent fragmented care (Ley, 2015). Local Health Networks (LHNs) are state related networks that are partially funded by the state government under theagreem ent of National health reform in 2011.The government of South Australia reported that LHN provides the public hospital services and other community related health services and they will determine the conduct of government hospitals and other health institutions. The role of PHNs are to work in 6 health priority areas as mental health, overall health of population, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health, improving health workforce, developing e-health and elderly care (Ley, 2015). PHNs can transition needed health care to the control of Aboriginal community which was given by Couzos in 2016. PHNs are also accountable for 9 areas of maintaining priority in health of the nation as arthritis, other musculoskeletal disorders, bronchial asthma, control of cancer, heart health, chronic disease (diabetes), dementia (elderly), prevention of injury and its control, psychological (mental health) and over weight (obesity) while LHDs provides general hospital service, public health services and also focuses on services for young children and pediatrics, as well asjusticeand forensic related mental health service. The main role of PHN are to provide the health services for patients efficiently and effectively, specifically for people with low excepted health outcomes and also to provide coordinated care to patients at right time in a right place with right care which was given by health.gov in 2016. The role of LHN is to provide the needed care and prompt treatment to persons who are sick and injured and to protect, promote and maintain the health of the community. To generalize, the PHNs offer primary care whereas LHNs offer hospitalized care. The PHNs always goes along with LHNs to maintain a good integration of primary, secondary and even community centers and acute care services. The PHNs involves a great number of stakeholders such as general practitioners, para- health care professionals, medical pharmacies, non government organizations, PHC services funded by the state government and the people of community at the structures in local level to identify and respond to the prioritized needs of the local people and plan effective strategies (Javanparast, 2015). Though LHNs give direct care by involving health care professionals, it does not involve nongovernmental organizations and local people to identify their needs. PHNs work along with LHDs and develop pathways for providing care and evaluate the quality of services provided thereby to decrease the number of admissions in hospitals (Cook, 2015). The PHNs modifies the delivery system of primary care and also coordinates with local hospitals. The PHN community advisory committees assess the functions of PHNs and gets feedback from all the patients and local community people, which were unique to their area.Moreover they are controlled by the clinical councils led by general practitioner who receives the local related issues in clinical and consumer care while the LHNs are managed and controlled by the chief executive of the district. It is also administered by the local health district boards with 6 to 13 persons appointed by the Minister of Health as given by austlii.edu under local health districts in 2016. PHNs and LHNs should develop a great inter relationships in work and also with the government and private hospitals to avoid the duplication of work and used resources. PHNs and LHNs should develop health planning for the entire population. The PHNs are expected to promote the health outcomes and decrease the pressure in the hospital and LHNs to provide care to the sick patients. PHNs are wellness focused and prevents the need for hospital services rather than sickness focused like LHNs. The funding for PHNs is based on factors such as population involved, extent of rural area coverage and socio economic factors. The government has allotted $852 million for 3 years period 2015- 2016 that includes both operational and flexible funding. PHNs also receive innovation and incentive funding. The primary health care activities (after hours work and indigenous health) receive an additional programmed funding. They get flexible funding additionally for mental health as well as for drug and alcohol treatment services. Even in case of specific programs they receive extra funding. Moreover it involves subcontracting in which the core functions as the assessment of need, data collection and data analysis are outsourced except for few core functions as for government structures, management of relationship with stakeholder and support from general practice which was given in Grant Programme Guidelines (2016) by the health department of Australian Government. For LHNs, the new funding model was implemented that involves the shift from need based to activity related funding and is also based on specific activities as clinical related activities which reduce its activities related to population health and prevention of illness and only importance to hospital care which was given in a study conducted by Javanparast in 2015. It is funded mainly by the state government and Commonwealth of Australia but not outsourced. The drawback is that there is limited number of PHNs and it has to be increased. Its better to increase the number of health care professionals to enable to improve the services. As it involves many stakeholders including private agencies, relationship is very important and it has to be maintained to achieve the goal. Any discrepancies in thought will affect the PHNs activities adversely. The advantage of PHNs are more as they focus on the assessment of needs of the people which helps to prioritize the peoples need and give primary care accordingly. It increases the investment in frontline services. They basically purchases services by outsourcing except in few areas rather than providing care (Cook, 2015). It is based on the community advisory committees which involve community people in planning the care. In 2016, Booth has conducted a study which states that the strengths of the PHNs is that their ability to give care to both individual and population. The main drawback in LHN is that it only cares the sick people by providing hospital services but does not take step to prevent the disease. It is costly as it involves giving care with equipments and various health care professionals. It doesnt assess the need of the people. The funding is not outsourced and so no adequate funding for preventive care. Though the PHNs and LHNs have a separate leadership, there should be effective collaboration strategies. A study was conducted by Javanparast in 2015 which suggest that the barriers of collaboration such as continuous changes in policy, restructuring the staffing pattern (losing or shuffling of knowledgeable staff), uncertainty in funding should be avoided. Based on the drawbacks few recommendations were framed that PHNs should acknowledge, consider and apply the work practice undertaken by the Medicare Locals in the need assessment in local area and setting priorities which will promote the efficiency of care (Javanparast, 2015). The clinical council should take control of its activities as it involves many stakeholders. The health care professionals of the MLs should be retained to provide prompt care as they are already oriented with to the people and work. The general practice should be viewed as a key stakeholder and should also develop a network with primary health care providers of other centers. Fund should be allotted to promote the collaboration of PHN with LHNs with other stakeholders. The PHNs should strive to develop partnerships in strategic planning and implementing the program and evaluate the short term and long term effects. The LHNs should accept the newly formed PHNs so as to establish partnership in the health care system. There should be a clear description of the roles and responsibilities of both PHNs and LHNs that includes their roles in health promotion and addressing social determinants of health. They should develop partnerships with PHNs and should aim to avoid the differences in their goals and organizational culture to improve an effective care (Javanparast, 2015). Moreover the state governments should invest funds on both PHNs and LHNs in a long term basis and there should be organizational stability and extent support to provide care. The government should evaluate the working of these networks so as to modify accordingly. The number of settings should be increased to promote health. The study conducted by Bartlett, 2016 suggests that the health network should promote empowerment of the consumers by increasing the literacy and transparency based on health and offer incentives to people wit h smarter lifestyles. There should be greater emphasis on the preventive aspects. Thus a good health care system should deliver a high quality care to all the people, whenever and wherever they are required. None of the health management networks are free from issue as it is directly linked with community people. These issues should be addressed at the earliest to enhance its effectiveness in health care. It should be impartial in the provision of care and provide equal care to all the people with appropriate technology. These networks are beneficial to the people except few issues which could be overcome by effective method. Reference Bartlett, C., Butler, S. and Haines, L. (2016). Reimagining health reform in Australia: Taking a systems approach to health and wellness. Retrieved from https://www.strategyand.pwc.com/reports/health-reform-australia Booth, M., Hill, G., Moore, M. J., Dalla, D., Moore, M. G. Messenger, A. (2016). The new Australian Primary Health Networks: how will they integrate public health and primary care? Public Health Res Pract. 26(1). doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.17061/phrp2611603. Cook, N. (2015). Introducing Primary Health Networks. Retrieved from www.aci.health.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/284415/PHN-N-Cook.pdf Couzos, S., Thiele, D. D. and Page, P. (2016). Primary Health Networks and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health: Medical Journal of Australia. 204 (6): 234-237. doi:10.5694/mja15.00975 Grant Programme Guidelines. (2016). Primary Health Networks: Australian Government. The department of Health. Version 1.2. Retrieved from www.health.gov.au/.../Primary%20Health%20Network%20Grant%20Programme%20... Horvath,J. (2014). Review of Medicare Locals. Retrieved from www.commcarelink.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/review-medicare-locals-final-report Javanparast, S., Baum, F., Barton, E., Freeman, T., Lawless, A., Fuller, J., Reed, R and Kidd, M. (2015). Medicare LocalLocal Health Network partnerships in South Australia: lessons for Primary Health Networks: The Medical Journal of Australia. Retrieved from https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2015/203/5/medicare-local-local-health-network-partnerships-south-australia-lessons-primary Ley,S. (2015). Media release: New Primary Health Networks to deliver better local care. Retrieved from www.health.gov.au/internet/ministers/publishing.nsf/ Content/ health-mediarel-yr2015-ley036.htm LHN. Our Local Health Networks. Government of South Australia. Retrieved from https://www.sahealth.sa.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/public+content/sa+health+internet/about+us/our+local+health+networks Local Health Districts. (2016). Local Health Districts. Retrieved from https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/download.cgi/cgi- bin/download.cgi/download/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/hsa 1997161.txt Park, K. (2013). Parks Textbook of Prevention and Social Medicine. (22nd ed.). Jabalpur: m/s Banasardidas Bhanot. PHN. (2016). Primary Health Networks. Retrieved from https://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/PHN-Home WHO. (2013). Health systems. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/topics/health_systems/en/.