Assignment: Week  4 A Critical Analysis of Healthcare Inequality in the United States

Assignment: Week  4 A Critical Analysis of Healthcare Inequality in the United States

Assignment: Week  4 A Critical Analysis of Healthcare Inequality in the United States

Search and Evaluate

This week, you will find three scholarly, peer-reviewed research articles on your topic. Remember that next week you will submit a paper on Cultural and/or Ethical perspectives of inquiry, so use this week’s assignment to prepare materials and collect information for that purpose.

Use articles that will help you explain and describe cultural and/or ethical, legal or regulatory issues related to your topic. You will analyze and evaluate these articles in your submission, which should include:

A brief introductory paragraph

Three separate paragraphs, one for each of the three articles, each presenting:

A brief 3–4 sentence summary of the article (use in-text citations)

An explanation as to what makes this source credible (in the WCU Library go to Research Guides > Research Basics > Evaluating Resources)

An explanation of why the article will be useful in addressing your problem or issue

A brief conclusory paragraph

An APA Style reference list on a separate page

Your paper should be 1–3 pages in length (including the References page). Adhere to APA Style throughout.

Review the rubric for further information on how your assignment will be graded.

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Good News For Our New customers. We can write this assignment for you and pay after Delivery. Our Top -rated medical writers will comprehensively review instructions , synthesis external evidence sources(Scholarly) and customize a quality assignment for you. We will also attach a copy of plagiarism report alongside and AI report. Feel free to chat Us

A Critical Analysis of Healthcare Inequality in the United States

Healthcare inequality is an important topic in the United States, encompassing various cultural, ethical, and systemic aspects. This paper will consider three articles from the scholarly literature that provide valuable contributions regarding healthcare inequality in multiple ways: resource allocation, general practice’s role in addressing disparities, and health justice ethics. The extensive review of these articles will provide a foundational understanding of the complexity of healthcare inequality and how to address this important issue in the United States.

Article Summaries

Article 1: Healthcare Resource Allocation in China

Zhu et al. (2024) extensively compared healthcare resources in impoverished and non-impoverished counties in Northwest China. The researchers used the Gini coefficient and Theil index, which represent stochastic statistical techniques, to analyze equity in resource distribution. They concluded that resource allocation should focus on the population and not the geographical or economic situations in which they are located, which is relevant to healthcare planning.

This credible source is published in the peer-reviewed journal BMC Health Service Research. This rigorous study employed appropriate statistical measures and used data from 2008 to 2017, further supporting its credibility. Moreover, the journal’s focus on equity in health was an excellent fit with the theme of healthcare inequality.

The article will help deal with the issue of health disparities in America by presenting other models of rationing resources. Although the study is set in China, understanding the gap between poor and non-poor regions is useful for discussing such urban-rural or socioeconomic distinctions in the United States healthcare system (Hammond et al., 2022). The particular emphasis on population-based allocation models might contain important information for policymakers to find possibilities and challenges of resource distribution strategies in the U. S. healthcare system they have not thought of before.

Article 2: Reducing Health Inequalities through General Practice

The second source is an expansive review of general practice interventions to reduce health inequalities by Gkiouleka et al. (2021). This source is especially relevant because American healthcare fits into this healthcare stream, with primary care important to healthcare delivery. The researchers noted five principles of effective action: proportionate universalism, intersectionality, community-centered engagement, integrated care, and the health-in-all-policies approach.

The credibility of the information presented in this article can be positively affirmed because the authors carried out a meta-analysis of 159 published studies. Available online for open access, the research was conducted and published in the BMJ Open, peer-reviewed journal. The detailed review by credible authors affiliated with known institutions adds credibility to this article, making it relevant to finding the best primary care practice interventions.

This article will be instrumental in addressing health inequality in the United States by providing a pragmatic framework for healthcare professionals and policymakers. The five principles identified may guide the development of targeted interventions in primary care settings nationwide. For example, Fisher et al. (2021) argue that proportionate universalism may inform strategies about allocating resources more equitably while maintaining universal access. With these principles, health providers and stewards will be better positioned to create more equitable and effective primary care systems that address particular needs in diverse populations.

 Article 3: Justice in Healthcare

Mabaquiao (2021) compares the utilitarianism approach as opposed to the fair equality of opportunities (FEOP) in the distribution of healthcare resources. This philosophical reflection is essential to understanding the ethical reasons behind this country’s health policies and decisions. In the article, various points emphasize the ethical issues of rationing scarce health resources for the population, as well as the crucial distinction between the general population’s interests and the promotion of fairness in access to health care.

The article’s credibility can be substantiated by its philosophical premise and the fact that the study’s outcome was reported in a journal. The author of the article, Mabaquiao, is affiliated with De La Salle University and, therefore, has academic credibility. Additionally, the article provides a comprehensive overview of ethical theories, making it reliable. More notably, the article effectively describes and compares various alternative ethical theories, which provides a good starting point for analyzing and comparing healthcare policies. This will benefit scholars, policymakers, and healthcare managers facing ethical decisions and inequitable resource distribution.

This article will be of great use while addressing inequality in America’s healthcare system because it presents a set of criteria for assessing both the existing state of affairs and the potential for improvement in healthcare. Examining the conceptual idea of inverting the sequence of value-based decisions in healthcare and fair equality of opportunity can help discuss the way forward for healthcare reforms in the United States (Teisberg et al., 2020). This article strived to inform and create an ethical platform for discussing inequalities in health care within the United States.

Conclusion

These three articles emphasize a certain multidimensionality of health care inequality, underpinning equal resource allocation, effective intervention in general practice, and careful consideration of the ethical implications of policy making. Zhu et al. provide insight in terms of population-based strategies for health resource allocation, and Gkiouleka et al. propose a framework that can address, through primary care, how inequalities can be addressed. Moreover, Mabaquiao argues that an obligatory ethical dimension should underpin the policy decision processes in this highly complex healthcare distribution landscape. Inequality in healthcare in the United States needs to be addressed from the comprehensive viewpoint of resource allocation for effective interventions coinciding with ethics. Only such a multi-pronged intervention may help significantly bring down healthcare inequalities and improve health statuses for the population in the United States.

References

Fisher, M., Harris, P., Freeman, T., Mackean, T., George, E., Friel, S., & Baum, F. (2021). Implementing universal and targeted policies for health equity: Lessons from Australia. International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 11(10). https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2021.157

Gkiouleka, A., Wong, G., Sowden, S., Bambra, C., Siersbaek, R., Manji, S., Moseley, A., Harmston, R., Kuhn, I., & Ford, J. (2023). Reducing health inequalities through general practice. Reducing Health Inequalities through General Practice, 8(6), e463–e472. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2468-2667(23)00093-2

Hammond, J., Davies, N., Morrow, E., Ross, F., Vandrevala, T., & Harris, R. (2022). “Raising the curtain on the equality theatre”: A study of recruitment to first healthcare job post-qualification in the UK National Health Service. Human Resources for Health, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-022-00754-9

Mabaquiao, N. M. (2021). Justice in healthcare: Welfare and equal opportunity. Asia-Pacific Social Science Review, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.59588/2350-8329.1360

Teisberg, E., Wallace, S., & O’Hara, S. (2020). Defining and implementing value-based health care. Academic Medicine, 95(5), 682–685. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000003122

Zhu, L., Gao, W., Zhang, S., Yu, F., Li, J., Feng, J., & Wang, R. (2024). Equality of healthcare resource allocation between impoverished counties and non-impoverished counties in Northwest China: a longitudinal study. BMC Health Services Research, 24(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11312-5