Assignment Details Communication for PSW-COMM-10380-10-16103.20... A research report MUST include APA in-text citations (author's last name, year) throughout the report.

Public Health Care Structures versus Private Health Care Structures Author name Affiliation Course name Instructor name Due Date Introduction Commercial health care systems operate differently from public health care systems in terms of decision-making, funding sources, accounting procedures, moral considerations, the populations they serve, current viability, and long-term sustainability. The purpose of comparing public and private health systems is to determine which one provides the greatest care, with commercial systems emphasizing efficiency in patient safety and public systems noting their financial practices as benefits. A public health care system offers a structure that is more optimal than the one offered by private health care systems. Provision of services to the population In the majority of nations, there is ongoing discussion on how to balance the use of private and public health facilities while providing services to the public. In order to help the government reduce its debt, private health care groups must expand the range of services they offer. Contrary to popular belief, public health care facilities should be permitted to provide the majority of the population's health services if fairness in health care provision is to be achieved. In most nations, the private sector is also noted to be providing a higher percentage of all outpatient services than the public sector, despite a relatively lower population percentage of women obtaining family planning, while a sizable population of the wealthy and the poor received more care from the private sector (Bateman, 2008). The number of babies receiving immunization services from the private sector is comparable to that of the services provided by the private sector. Decision- making process In order for decision-making processes in public and private health care institutions to be applicable in a variety of current and future situations, they must include a desirable sequence and measurable phases (Bateman, 2008). However, there are variances in how decisions are made in both public and private health institutions depending on a variety of circumstances, including ownership, ownership restrictions, environmental considerations, and other factors. Since the scope of services is predetermined and not expanded through marketing, as is sometimes the case in private healthcare facilities, competition is not an option in public health institutions. Public health care facilities should always work together with other facilities to provide services to the public rather than compete with them for the limited resources available, as competition would lead to service duplication, which is generally regarded as undesirable. Therefore, in order to promote cooperation and competitiveness, decision-making in public health facilities would typically give stakeholders and other important actors the chance to submit options. In private health care facilities, things are different since participants tend to keep their opinions to themselves and are not required to cooperate or reveal them. The scenario is different in the private sector, where a sizably large amount of money can be allocated to the collection of data pertaining to technology, among other areas that may yield helpful suggestions. This suggests that, in comparison to private health care facilities, decision-makers at public health care institutions tend to feel less clarity in how they carry out their decisions. Facilities When it comes to financing, the government is heavily involved in public health care facilities. There are two types of public financing: social security financing and public financing. In a system where taxes are used to pay for health care, everyone has access to the services provided by public health care institutions, regardless of their ability to pay. In this way, regardless of individual risk factors and fiscal burdens, every member of the public gains from equal access to medical care. The public pays taxes to the government, which it then uses to fund medical services. When compared to public health facilities, the services provided by the majority of private hospitals are of a much higher caliber. Primary and secondary public health care institutions are understaffed and under equipped, resulting in below-par service quality. Private hospitals, on the other hand, have sufficient funding at their disposal to hire trained people in addition to providing specialty services like orthopaedic. Patient safety in the healthcare industry is primarily ensured through professionalism, which is most often seen in private healthcare facilities with qualified and skilled staff. Along with their employees participating in strikes that could result in avoidable patient fatalities and injuries, public health institutions in the majority of countries are also affected politically. Conclusion Population hospitals' supply of healthcare services is more advantageous to the public than private health care systems' due to their all-inclusive structure. Public health institutions serve a large section of the population regardless of an individual's income, in contrast to private hospitals, which prioritize the patient's affordability. Additionally, to get their opinions on critical decisions that must be made, public health facilities interact with stakeholders and even the public. Reference Bateman, C. (2008). Private sector cannot be left to ‘own devices’. S Afr Med JJ, 98:77–78. Hollingsworth, B. (2008). The measurement of efficiency and productivity of health care delivery. Health Econ., 17:1107–28. Villalonga, B. (2000). Privatization and efficiency: differentiating ownership effects from political, organizational, and dynamic effects. J Econ Behav Organ., 42:43–74.