Question

Please discuss the role of the federal government in the regulation and guidelines for healthcare organizations related to discharge planning. What impact does discharge planning have on the patient? The provider? The healthcare organization? In your own research, provide an example of a situation where discharge planning was not in accordance with legal or regulatory guidelines and resulted in negative consequences of the patient, provider, or healthcare organization.

Please cite all your resources and provide a detailed reference page.

Answer 1

*****Please please please LIKE THIS ANSWER, so that I can get a small benefit, Please*****

Please discuss the role of the federal government in the regulation and guidelines for healthcare organizations related to discharge planning. What impact does discharge planning have on the patient? The provider? The healthcare organization? In your own research, provide an example of a situation where discharge planning was not in accordance with legal or regulatory guidelines and resulted in negative consequences of the patient, provider, or healthcare organization.

The key role of the federal government in influencing all facets of the health care system is. Clear policy guidance, strong direction in achieving shared priorities, and coherent strategies and procedures in all government health care services and initiatives are required to increase the standard of efficiency for beneficiaries of the systems and accelerate health care system change overall. The federal government performs a variety of specific positions in the American health care system, including regulator; insurance buyer; health care provider; and organizer of innovative research, presentations, and health care technical education and training initiatives. All of these positions will help the accomplishment of very specific targets around the continuum from quality control to enhancing quality to innovating in quality. A percentage of treatment is inadequate and unsafe; there can be no patient being vulnerable to that. Any treatment is adequate but not as strong as it should be. Some of the care patients get are efficient, however the rewards aren't as big as they should be, and needless heavy usage of money. Several percentages of patients receive relatively satisfactory treatment aligned with current standards, while an much lower fraction would undoubtedly provide outstanding treatment using state-of-the-art methods. It is in its position as regulator that the federal government sets minimum requirements for health care. Efficient legislative provisions shield patients from inexperienced, disabled, and inadequately qualified physicians and from health care facilities without the skills and procedures needed to provide a reasonable standard of service. Though regulatory "floors" may be constantly lifted, thus tightening the distribution of utilities through price, regulatory strategies more commonly aim to break off substandard providers — to truncate the distribution's left tail. Regulatory standards have usually been set at rates that will accommodate virtually all providers.

Too few research has been undertaken to determine the impact of participatory arrangements on care systems or patient experiences, as generally organized and applied. However, the minimum criteria are constantly revised and no work is undertaken to streamline regulations and insure that they concentrate on specifications that ultimately increase patient health and service efficiency

Government healthcare initiatives should promote and allow active involvement of customers in quality enhancement activities through means such as increasing customer understanding of the severity of quality and safety shortcomings and how to resolve such issues, pursuing consumer feedback in the design and implementation of quality enhancement systems, including quality evaluations for patients.

The federal government has much fewer interest in implementing efficiency management acquisition policies than in establishing regulatory criteria. Considering the severity of the health care system's existing protection and efficiency vulnerabilities, it is crucial that policy be provided the autonomy and money required to pursue value-based transactions. Regulations can't fix the problem by themselves. Purchasing programs should be evaluated carefully to decide whether they are successful. Purchasing approaches will strive to build an atmosphere that fosters and rewards exemplary results. Federal quality improvement systems have the responsibility of harnessing their ability to promote and encourage quality improvement in the health care delivery network. It would be difficult to reach fulfillment of this capacity without cooperation, standardization, information sharing and opportunities.

References:

American Association of Kidney Patients. 2001. “What’s new at HCFA.” Online [accessed Aug. 14, 2002].

American Hospital Association. 2002. Patients or Paperwork? The Regulatory Burden Facing America’s Hospitals. Washington DC: PricewaterhouseCoopers for American Hospital Association.

Anderson, G. F., G. D. Greenberg, and B. O. Wynn. 2001. Graduate Medical Education: The Policy Debate. Annu Rev Public Health 22:35-47.

Arnett, G-M. 1999. Emporwering Health Care Consumers Through Tax Reform. An Arbor MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Association of American Medical Colleges. 2001. AAMC Data Book: Statistical Information Related to Medical Schools and Teaching Hospitals. 102.

Department of Health and Human Services. 2001. Medicare Fact Sheet: Providing Coordinated Care to Improve Quality of Care for Chronically Ill Medicare Beneficiaries. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Finocchio, L., C. Dower, N. Blick, and The Taskforce on Health Care Workforce Regulation. 1998. Strengthening Consumer Protection: Priorities for Health Care Workforce Regulation. San Francisco CA: Pew Health Professions Commission.

*****Please please please LIKE THIS ANSWER, so that I can get a small benefit, Please*****