Politics Before Patients

How Successive Governments Have Weakened the Foundation of All Canadian's Social and Economic Security At some point you will find yourself lying in a hospital bed. There is a good chance that your bed will be a firm, rubber pad held secure between two rails and parked along a corridor in a busy emergency department. Moans of “Nurse!” will echo from the beds ahead of you in line. Those pleas will fall largely on deaf ears. Your hospital is underfunded and understaffed. Welcome to the current reality of Medicare in the 21st century. Using searing analogies and first-hand accounts, Dr. Whatley makes the argument that the current Medicare system is unsustainable and unless critical choices and changes are made soon, the publicly funded, single-payer system in Canada will implode. Successive governments, regardless of political stripe, know all too well that Canada's system of health care is one of the defining characteristics of “being a Canadian”, and any changes deemed harmful will have them thrown out of power. Thus, decades of cuts around the margins, centralized control, federal/provincial infighting, and government oversight has left doctors and hospitals with little input on how your health dollars are allocated and spent. Citizens are being left to languish in pain for months, sometimes years, because the current cost and delivery system is programmed for the benefit of governments staying in power. That was not what was intended. Medicare should be about delivering high-quality and timely healthcare value for Canadians. This is not an easy fix. Treatment starts with a serious look at the disease, and Dr. Whatley pulls no punches. But what sounds like a radical new approach is neither new nor radical. He is not arguing for the end of Medicare per se but is making the case to let medical professionals — those providing the services — become equal partners in its design, implementation and delivery.

How Successive Governments Have Weakened the Foundation of All Canadian's Social and Economic Security At some point you will find yourself lying in a hospital bed. There is a good chance that your bed will be a firm, rubber pad held secure between two rails and parked along a corridor in a busy emergency department. Moans of "Nurse!" will echo from the beds ahead of you in line. Those pleas will fall largely on deaf ears. Your hospital is underfunded and understaffed. Welcome to the current reality of Medicare in the 21st century. Using searing analogies and first-hand accounts, Dr. Whatley makes the argument that the current Medicare system is unsustainable and unless critical choices and changes are made soon, the publicly funded, single-payer system in Canada will implode. Successive governments, regardless of political stripe, know all too well that Canada's system of health care is one of the defining characteristics of "being a Canadian", and any changes deemed harmful will have them thrown out of power. Thus, decades of cuts around the margins, centralized control, federal/provincial infighting, and government oversight has left doctors and hospitals with little input on how your health dollars are allocated and spent. Citizens are being left to languish in pain for months, sometimes years, because the current cost and delivery system is programmed for the benefit of governments staying in power. That was not what was intended. Medicare should be about delivering high-quality and timely healthcare value for Canadians. This is not an easy fix. Treatment starts with a serious look at the disease, and Dr. Whatley pulls no punches. But what sounds like a radical new approach is neither new nor radical. He is not arguing for the end of Medicare per se but is making the case to let medical professionals - those providing the services - become equal partners in its design, implementation and delivery.

The 1989 White Paper "Working for Patients" was the watershed of the Conservative government's policymaking for the future of the British National Health Service. This text examines the political and historical background to the document, its proposals and the reactions to which it gave rise.

Making an original contribution to debates on health policy, this accessible and engaging book critically examines the future of health care and public health policy from the perspective of users and citizens. Consumerism, partnerships with patients and user involvement are seen as key to future health care and healthy public policies. The book outlines how individuals as patients, healthy people and research subjects relate to health services and how the public, as citizens, influence health care and public policies at local, national and international levels.

Describes the power that can be imposed, and the misery that is caused, especially for the poor, by the simple act of waiting. This title also describes a variety of different situations, including waiting for national identity cards, for welfare agencies, and the endless waiting for relocation from the slums.

Two towering figures in the field of health care policy analysis, Theodore R. Marmor and Rudolf Klein, reflect on a lifetime of thought in this wide-ranging collection of essays published in the wake of President Obama’s health care reform. Presented as a kind of dialogue between the two, the book offers their recent writings on the future of Medicare; universal health insurance; conflicts of interest among physicians, regulators, and patients; and many other topics.

Each year, hospital-acquired infections, prescribing and treatment errors, lost documents and test reports, communication failures, and other problems have caused thousands of deaths in the United States, added millions of days to patients' hospital stays, and cost Americans tens of billions of dollars. Despite (and sometimes because of) new medical information technology and numerous well-intentioned initiatives to address these problems, threats to patient safety remain, and in some areas are on the rise. In First, Do Less Harm, twelve health care professionals and researchers plus two former patients look at patient safety from a variety of perspectives, finding many of the proposed solutions to be inadequate or impractical. Several contributors to this book attribute the failure to confront patient safety concerns to the influence of the "market model" on medicine and emphasize the need for hospital-wide teamwork and greater involvement from frontline workers (from janitors and aides to nurses and physicians) in planning, implementing, and evaluating effective safety initiatives. Several chapters in First, Do Less Harm focus on the critical role of interprofessional and occupational practice in patient safety. Rather than focusing on the usual suspects-physicians, safety champions, or high level management-these chapters expand the list of "stakeholders" and patient safety advocates to include nurses, patient care assistants, and other staff, as well as the health care unions that may represent them. First, Do Less Harm also highlights workplace issues that negatively affect safety: including sleeplessness, excessive workloads, outsourcing of hospital cleaning, and lack of teamwork between physicians and other health care staff. In two chapters, experts explain why the promise of health care information technology to fix safety problems remains unrealized, with examples that are at once humorous and frightening. A book that will be required reading for physicians, nurses, hospital administrators, public health officers, quality and risk managers, healthcare educators, economists, and policymakers, First, Do Less Harm concludes with a list of twenty-seven paradoxes and challenges facing everyone interested in making care safe for both patients and those who care for them.

Are they truly independent organizations or have they been 'colonized' by the big vested interests in health? Are they a signal of a more assertive patient or consumer? Do they actually influence what health care people receive?" "This study will be important reading for scholars, students and professionals and, in particular, for those involved in running patient organizations."--Jacket.