Health policy can feel like 2018’s hottest topic and many students are looking for a way to learn more. I encourage students to think beyond the policy they see in Washington, D.C. to the laws governing their communities.
Nationally, our current medical education model fails to address the fundamental tenets of the U.S. health care system, health care policy, and business management. Despite the recent major shift in health care policy, medical schools have proved universally inept at equipping future doctors with the knowledge and tools they need to influence policy in their professional field and to thrive in their careers.
As the American health care system continues to seemingly spend more and get ranked lower than other developed countries, many progressives have suggested a shift to single-payer health care as a solution.
Now that I’ve got your attention, no, this article isn’t a guide on how to craft the perfect Tinder profile. I assure you, however, that you’ll have no trouble scoring a date with your knowledge of The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS).
To culminate a year rife with political turmoil, one final wildfire swept the nation at the close of 2017. After initial reports from inside the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggesting that it had received instruction to forbid the usage of seven words in its budget formulations, media outlets and the general public took en masse to declare a state of Orwellian emergency.
It has become more and more evident with time that the health care delivery system in the United States is riddled with issues, which have led to many disagreements about policy because there is no clear and universally acceptable solution to our problems.
This past summer, I was fortunate enough to be an intern for the government relations arm of a national medical society. Below is an attempt at recreating a “Hill Day” so that you, the reader, can get a better idea of how policy is influenced.
As another ACA repeal looms in the near future — after ACHA and BCRA — the Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson (Graham-Cassidy) legislation makes me think back to a patient I took care of a few months ago.
“Telestroke,” a telemedicine approach to acute stroke care, is revolutionizing how we treat our country’s third leading cause of death. Leveraging modern communication technology and the combined experience of skilled neurologists, Telestroke aims to benefit patients in rural areas who are often at the highest risk of ischemic stroke but have the least access to treatment.
Her agitation was clearly apparent, plastered to her face like the smile she had worn moments ago. The phone was still clenched tightly in her hand as she paced the narrow hallway, muttering under her breath how travesties like this would not occur back in her native Ghana.
Intellectually, I understood the potential devastation that a lack of health insurance could bring to so many Americans. But it wasn’t until 2012 that I viscerally felt just how health care policies made in faraway Washington affected the lives of so many.
In the 2016 election cycle, millions of Americans elected a president who had never before held public office, believing they had “rejected the political establishment.” While the underlying idea of this perspective has its merits, there is a group even less represented — and more desperately needed — in the federal government than businessmen: scientists and physicians.