The US healthcare system is facing a lot of criticism nowadays. Some people claim that it is not as effective as billions are allocated, but people still receive poor-quality and costly services. It is important to evaluate some components of the system to identify the gaps that should be addressed. According to the Institute of Medicine (2006), there are six major components of effective health care. At that, the central components are timely, patient-centered, and equitable. This paper includes a justification of this point with reference to a recovery plan that is used as an illustration of the importance of the components.
It is possible to note that the major component is associated with time. It is vital to provide particular services during a specific period as it may have a significant impact on patient health (Astramovich & Coker, 2007). For instance, if some medication is not administered timely, a patient can die. If a well-developed psychological support intervention is not provided timely, a client may commit suicide. Apart from time, it is essential to take into account the needs and peculiarities of the patient. It is essential to pay attention to such areas as age, ethnicity, health conditions, socioeconomic status, cultural peculiarities, and so on (Lusky & Hayes, 2001).
The modern society is highly diverse, and services will not be equally beneficial to different people unless some peculiarities are taken into account. Finally, it is essential to ensure the equitability of the system as well as any interventions, programs, or recovery plans. All people have an equal right to be healthy and safe. However, various disasters unveil the vulnerability of some groups, such as ethnic minorities, poor people, immigrants, and the like.
The importance of the components mentioned above can be justified through a brief analysis of a disaster recovery plan. The recovery plan aimed at addressing the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina will be evaluated (“Five years after Katrina,” 2010). The plan is quite successful, but it still has certain gaps. Thus, the report includes extensive information concerning the problems addressed. The infrastructure that was severely damaged was rebuilt, and people received millions of dollars to solve their issues with food, shelter, dwelling, property, and business. Nevertheless, little information is available on particular terms.
It is quite unclear whether people could use the resources provided or had to search for funds, loans, assistance from family and friends. The plan is quite patient-centered as it includes data concerning particular groups (children, the elderly). However, the plan pays little attention to other groups such as immigrants, people with special needs, and so on. There are chances that these groups will not be safe enough during a new disaster.
Finally, equitability is an essential component, but it can be difficult to address. As has been mentioned above, the plan does not have sufficient details concerning the activities involving vulnerable groups. Moreover, the plan includes only some brief descriptions of funds available for such groups and agencies that can be addressed. This may lead to the same problems and outcomes that were the norm (ignoring disadvantaged groups)
On balance, it is possible to note that the recovery plan in question is rather effective as it highlights some components of the effective healthcare system. However, the plan has a lot of gaps associated with such components of the effective healthcare system as equitability, timeliness, and patient-centeredness. It is crucial to take into account these aspects as this will ensure all people’s access to high-quality healthcare services.
Astramovich, R., & Coker, J. (2007). Program evaluation: The accountability bridge model for counselors. Journal of Counseling & Development, 85(2), 162-172.
Institute of Medicine. (2006). Improving the quality of health care for mental and substance-use conditions. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Lusky, M., & Hayes, R. (2001). Collaborative consultation and program evaluation. Journal of Counseling & Development, 79(1), 26-38.