Health Science (Health Care Administration) - California State: Fill & Download for Free

Here are some examples from top MPH programs:Columbia (Careers in Public Health):A Biostatistics graduate might pursue opportunities as a data manager at NYU or Columbia University Medical Centers or the New York State Psychiatric Institute, a statistician with one of the many biotech firms in the Cambridge/Boston area, or a research biostatistician/statistical programmer in the pharmaceutical industry or with a governmental agency or nonprofit organization.An Environmental Health Sciences alumna might accept a position as an analyst with the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, DC, or New York City, a research scientist with the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, a scientific/regulatory consultant with a New Jersey-based scientific consulting or Virginia-based environmental consulting firm, or a researcher with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City or Howard Hughes Medical Institute in Boston, MA.An Epidemiology alumnus might follow their dream of a career in surveillance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta or the San Francisco Department of Public Health, a career in research with Pfizer or Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, or a post-graduate fellowship with the National Institutes of Health in Maryland, the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists at various locations in the United States, or the Kaiser Family Foundation in Menlo Park, CA.A Health Policy and Management graduate might pursue opportunities in health care administration with the NorthShore—Long Island Jewish Health System in Long Island, NY, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN, or Kaiser Permanente in California, health policy/public health analysis with a state agency in Hartford, CT, the Department of Health Care Finance in Washington, DC, or the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in Maryland, or health care consulting with a New York City or Boston-based consulting firm.A Population and Family Health graduate might be recruited for a position as a program coordinator with the Population Council in New York City, accept a position as a monitoring, evaluation, and research associate with EngenderHealth in New York City, pursue an opportunity as a Presidential Management Fellow with the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, MD, or the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in Washington, DC, or become an HIV specialist/trainer with UNAIDS in New York City.A Sociomedical Sciences alumnus might accept an opportunity as a research project manager or research analyst at the New York State Psychiatric Institute or the National Center for Children in Poverty in New York City, or a project coordinator in the monitoring, evaluation, and research unit of a nonprofit in California, be recruited as a health and welfare associate at a New York City metropolitan area consulting firm, or develop policy at a municipal Department of Aging or the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health in New York City.Hopkins (Alumni Profiles; alumni list)Harvard (Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health; lists graduate employers and locations)

American healthcare costs are driven primarily by societal factors and demands on treatment in concert with the rapid growth of expensive new technology and treatment.America is the most obese and sedentary country in the world and we are getting worse by the year. That is not a healthcare system problem. It’s a societal problem.Being sedentary and obese give us the highest rates of cancer, diabetes and heart disease. Once the horses are out of the barn, it’s a very expensive catch up of very expensive cancer surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, diabetic related heart attacks and strokes, dialysis, infections, amputations, knee and hip replacements, back surgeries and the like.Whatever healthcare costs are in the EU, double or triple it to account for the extra diseases caused by American obesity and inactivity and the rapid approval and incorporation of new treatment in the US.But, dissenters argue, that the US spends much more and has lower life expectancies (by a couple of years) compared to other industrialized countries.This lower life expectancy has been explained by healthcare economists who note that in the US, any birth is counted. Many other countries discount premature births in their statistics. Thus, it’s a comparison of apples and oranges given the high death rate in premature births and that as a society, the US has the higher teen pregnancy rate in the industrialized world which is commonly associated with premies.Add to that, the very high death rates of young Americans due to motor vehicle accidents (large country, limited public transportation outside of a few urban areas), incredible drug overdose numbers due to the opioid epidemic which is now topping 60,000 early deaths a year, and deaths and grievous injuries from gang violence.I’m not sure that an entirely government run healthcare system will fix any of this. How could it? Generally and perhaps without exception, huge government programs cost far more than initial estimates, not less.But progressives point to Medicare and how efficient a system it is. But their calculations exclude the cost of collecting premiums (the IRS) and the cost of administration (Department of Health and Human Services) and absolutely ignore the fraud and abuse to the point that the Russian mafia is now participating as well. The $272 billion swindle/ Health Care Goodfellas: Mafia Turns to Medicare FraudThe societal issues impacting US healthcare costs and life expectancy have been commented upon by noted Harvard economist, Professor Mankiw in the New York Times before the ACA was passed:WITH the health care system at the center of the political debate, a lot of scary claims are being thrown around. The dangerous ones are not those that are false; watchdogs in the news media are quick to debunk them. Rather, the dangerous ones are those that are true but don’t mean what people think they mean.Here are three of the true but misleading statements about health care that politicians and pundits love to use to frighten the public:STATEMENT 1 The United States has lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality than Canada, which has national health insurance.The differences between the neighbors are indeed significant. Life expectancy at birth is 2.6 years greater for Canadian men than for American men, and 2.3 years greater for Canadian women than American women. Infant mortality in the United States is 6.8 per 1,000 live births, versus 5.3 in Canada.These facts are often taken as evidence for the inadequacy of the American health system. But a recent study by June and Dave O’Neill, economists at Baruch College, from which these numbers come, shows that the difference in health outcomes has more to do with broader social forces.For example, Americans are more likely than Canadians to die by accident or by homicide. For men in their 20s, mortality rates are more than 50 percent higher in the United States than in Canada, but the O’Neills show that accidents and homicides account for most of that gap. Maybe these differences have lessons for traffic laws and gun control, but they teach us nothing about our system of health care.Americans are also more likely to be obese, leading to heart disease and other medical problems. Among Americans, 31 percent of men and 33 percent of women have a body mass index of at least 30, a definition of obesity, versus 17 percent of men and 19 percent of women in Canada. Japan, which has the longest life expectancy among major nations, has obesity rates of about 3 percent.The causes of American obesity are not fully understood, but they involve lifestyle choices we make every day, as well as our system of food delivery. Research by the Harvard economists David Cutler, Ed Glaeser and Jesse Shapiro concludes that America’s growing obesity problem is largely attributable to our economy’s ability to supply high-calorie foods cheaply. Lower prices increase food consumption, sometimes beyond the point of optimal health.Infant mortality rates also reflect broader social trends, including the prevalence of infants with low birth weight. The health system in the United States gives low birth-weight babies slightly better survival chances than does Canada’s, but the more pronounced difference is the frequency of these cases. In the United States, 7.5 percent of babies are born weighing less than 2,500 grams (about 5.5 pounds), compared with 5.7 percent in Canada. In both nations, these infants have more than 10 times the mortality rate of larger babies. Low birth weights are in turn correlated with teenage motherhood. (One theory is that a teenage mother is still growing and thus competing with the fetus for nutrients.) The rate of teenage motherhood, according to the O’Neill study, is almost three times higher in the United States than it is in Canada.Whatever its merits, a Canadian-style system of national health insurance is unlikely to change the sexual mores of American youthThe bottom line is that many statistics on health outcomes say little about our system of health care.STATEMENT 2 Some 47 million Americans do not have health insurance.This number from the Census Bureau is often cited as evidence that the health system is failing for many American families. Yet by masking tremendous heterogeneity in personal circumstances, the figure exaggerates the magnitude of the problem.To start with, the 47 million includes about 10 million residents who are not American citizens. Many are illegal immigrants. Even if we had national health insurance, they would probably not be covered.The number also fails to take full account of Medicaid, the government’s health program for the poor. For instance, it counts millions of the poor who are eligible for Medicaid but have not yet applied. These individuals, who are healthier, on average, than those who are enrolled, could always apply if they ever needed significant medical care. They are uninsured in name only.The 47 million also includes many who could buy insurance but haven’t. The Census Bureau reports that 18 million of the uninsured have annual household income of more than $50,000, which puts them in the top half of the income distribution. About a quarter of the uninsured have been offered employer-provided insurance but declined coverage.Of course, millions of Americans have trouble getting health insurance. But they number far less than 47 million, and they make up only a few percent of the population of 300 million.Any reform should carefully focus on this group to avoid disrupting the vast majority for whom the system is working. We do not nationalize an industry simply because a small percentage of the work force is unemployed. Similarly, we should be wary of sweeping reforms of our health system if they are motivated by the fact that a small percentage of the population is uninsured.STATEMENT 3 Health costs are eating up an ever increasing share of American incomes.In 1950, about 5 percent of United States national income was spent on health care, including both private and public health spending. Today the share is about 16 percent. Many pundits regard the increasing cost as evidence that the system is too expensive.But increasing expenditures could just as well be a symptom of success. The reason that we spend more than our grandparents did is not waste, fraud and abuse, but advances in medical technology and growth in incomes. Science has consistently found new ways to extend and improve our lives. Wonderful as they are, they do not come cheap.Fortunately, our incomes are growing, and it makes sense to spend this growing prosperity on better health. The rationality of this phenomenon is stressed in a recent article by the economists Charles I. Jones of the University of California, Berkeley, and Robert E. Hall of Stanford. They ask, “As we grow older and richer, which is more valuable: a third car, yet another television, more clothing — or an extra year of life?”Mr. Hall and Mr. Jones forecast that the share of income devoted to health care will top 30 percent by 2050. But in their model, this is not a problem: It is the modern form of progress.Even if the rise in health care spending turns out to be less than they forecast, it is important to get reform right. Our health care system is not perfect, but it has been a major source of advances in our standard of living, and it will be a large share of the economy we bequeath to our children.As we look at reform plans, we should be careful not to be fooled by statistics into thinking that the problems we face are worse than they really are.N. Gregory Mankiw is a professor of economics at Harvard. He was an adviser to President Bush and is advising Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, in the campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.Beyond Those Health Care Numbers

I had to change “believe” to “belief” in your question before answering. I hope you know the difference.And what concrete, credible evidence do you have that “universal health care has serious flaws and risks and is far inferior to how things are done now in the USA”?Why did you not include a credible source with your question?The following credible sources will provide you with facts, not opinions or points of view.Click: Why America Is the Only Rich Country Without Universal Health Care - source: by Kimberly Amadeo, The Balance, January 10, 2020“ Lowers overall health care costs: The government controls the prices through negotiation and regulation.Lowers administrative costs: Doctors only deal with one government agency. For example, U.S. doctors spend four times as much as Canadians dealing with insurance companies.3Forces hospitals and doctors to provide the same standard of service at a low cost: In a competitive environment like the United States, health care providers must also focus on profit. They do this by offering the newest technology. They offer expensive services and pay doctors more. They try to compete by targeting the wealthy.Creates a healthier workforce: Studies show that preventive care reduces the need for expensive emergency room usage.4Without access to preventive care, 46% of emergency room patients went because they had no other place to go. They used the emergency room as their primary care physician. This health care inequality is a big reason for the rising cost of medical care.”Click: How does the US compare to countries with universal health care? - Spartan Newsroom, by Luke Burchart, Spartan News Room, Powered by the Michigan State University School of Journalism, May 3, 2017“What do Australia, Canada, Japan, Sweden, and Singapore have in common with each other? They’re all countries with universal health care, and their citizens have a higher life expectancy than US citizens. So, why does the current debate on health care in the US not consider universal care as an option?“’It would take a very serious political health care crisis to cause a change in our system” said Leonard Fleck, who is an expert on health care policy. “Something that would make it obvious we needed to address health care access.”According to geobase, the US ranks 29th in the world for countries whose citizens have the highest life expectancy.Although critics of universal health care point to the costs of the system, Canada spends about less than half on health care than the US does per capita. In fact, the US spends more on health care per capita than any other country in the world, according to 24/7 Wall St.”Click: U.S. Health in International Perspective, Shorter Lives, Poorer Health, The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, MedicineAnd the most absurd of all - what does this tell you about the land of the free and the home of the brave?Click: America’s shamefully slow coronavirus testing threatens all of us, by Brian Resnick and Dylan Scott, Vox, updated Mar 12, 2020, 11:25am EDT“The US lags just about every developed country on testing for Covid-19 disease.In late February, Julie Eaker, a physician's assistant and supervisor at a small, rural, tribal community health clinic in Siskiyou County, California, had a patient who had a possible exposure to Covid-19. It wasn’t direct: They had been exposed to a person, and that person had been in direct contact with a confirmed Covid-19 case. Eaker’s patient was developing an upper respiratory infection too, and she wanted to ease their peace of mind — and protect the community — by getting them tested for Covid-19.To this day, the patient still hasn’t been tested for the illness. And it’s not because Eaker didn’t try. The story she describes is Kafkaesque.”So where’s the debate?Add to the above the following top-down misinformation:Click on all the above links for the full - and very disturbing - picture.