The Motives Behind the Lack of fitness in Our Healthcare Part 1 by Barbara Cerda

 

The OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) has empirically argued that those countries where women are attaining an equal voice in legislature are leading the charge in creating a higher quality of life and healthcare reformation.

As the strongest economy on the globe, the United States is falling far behind in the war for better wellbeing. Could this failure be partially due to the United States Congress, which is comprised of 19% women out of the 535 membership?

The United States has a life expectancy gap in relation to other OECD countries. Yet we consistently tout the wellness of our current healthcare system. While it fails to address the needs and cut public funding, for the most underserved…women and children.

Amongst many in leadership, there’s a dismissal in how women can play a significant role in how healthcare providers tailor wellbeing. That path to gender fluid legislature is arduous and complicated, pebbled by male centric sovereign politics. We find ourselves part of a third world economic dysfunction when we elect few women in our legislative bodies. Alleviating this societal injury is necessary to bringing about true healthcare parity.

One country has taken great strides toward gender equality in its government, Finland.

This nation boasts a healthy 38% of female presence in its parliament and leads the world in healthcare reform. It is by far more empathetic to the needs of women and children.

Elected in 2000, Tarja Halonen was Finland’s first elected woman to the office of president. Serving in office for two terms, her legacy was to achieve a successful balanced economy.  An important part of this responsible fiscal reconstruction was the reformation of their health care system.

Envisioning a robust, value driven and cost effective medical system, President Halonen embraced the principals outlined in a Harvard business thesis, “Redefining Health Care: Creating Value-Based Competition on Results”. The Harvard team of Michael Porter and Elizabeth Olmsted Teisberg authors the study. The book illustrates how most purveyors of private healthcare have failed to deliver a system of value-based care.

Normal economic ideology dictates that aggressive competition in private sector business results in a lowering of prices and an increase in the value of that service. Private and governmental run healthcare agencies in the U.S. are the costliest in the world and supply the poorest quality in its deliverance of care. Finland‘s success in providing gender parity in a valued based healthcare system, is attributed to a strong percentage of women in parliament; a healthy 38 percent.

In 2007, the United States spent $7,290 per capita for an inadequate healthcare system. This number is a staggering two and a half times the average of OECD countries. The OECD places an average of per capita healthcare expenditures at $2,984. The CIA World Factbook has ranked the Unites States 41 in infant mortality rates and 46th for total life expectancy.

This rate of infant mortality defines a healthcare system that fails to provide adequate means of preventive medicine. Poor prenatal care results in low birth weights and bleak infant survivability. What does this say about the future of our economy the future of our country?