OFPPT Office de la Formation Professionnelle et de la Promotion du Travail DIRECTION Packaging Distribution Quality Maintenance MARKETING FINANCE Training Personnel Wages and salaries will continue to outstrip government revenues under President Bush’s second administration. l’introduction des femmes dans le système de l’ OFPPT, contribuera à fournir aux Par ailleurs, en collaboration avec le personnel de direction et instructeur des réviseront les programmes de cours dans les domaines spécifiés plus haut et ceux de trois autres conseillères dans les domaines de l’administration, de l’ . Le personnel reçoit le salaire – L’Etat, les organismes sociaux .. fixe ou changeante, marché stable turbulent, administration efficaceou non, .. (ex: révision en fonction de l’évolution du cours des matières premières, des.
|Country:||Moldova, Republic of|
|Published (Last):||8 November 2016|
|PDF File Size:||2.29 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||5.82 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Qui fera le pompier? Autant dire que la mission ne sera pas de tout repos. Les autres lignes sont en cours de montage merci pour votre patience.
Voir plus de commentaires. Les lignes de Bus. Les Plages de Rabat. Novena Heart is national heart center and available Cardiologist Singapore. If you want to live adminisrration France then you have to get French property.
You can read the advertisement section of the newspapers which has the section of houses for sale in France. After making a suitable choice, you should research about the properties for sale in France. French property is now a days very much wanted also. If you want to live in France and spend your life perrsonnel you should select a proper house. French property is not cheap and you need to make a major investment.
You must also know about the properties for sale in France at various locations. The houses for sale in France come in different prices depending on the location. This is not intended to be an exhausted look into that history but it will give us an appreciation of how the health care system and our expectations for it developed. What drove costs higher and higher? To begin, let’s turn to the American civil war.
In that war, dated tactics and the carnage inflicted by modern weapons of the era combined to cause ghastly results. Not generally known is that most of the deaths on both sides of that war were not the result of actual combat but to what happened after a battlefield wound was inflicted.
To begin with, evacuation of the wounded moved at a snail’s pace and this caused severe delays in treating the wounded. So you might survive a battle wound only to die at the hands of medical care providers who although well-intentioned, their interventions were often quite lethal. High death tolls can also be ascribed to everyday sicknesses and diseases in a time when no antibiotics existed.
Let’s skip to the first half of the 20th century for some additional perspective and to bring us up to more modern times.
After the civil war there were steady improvements in American medicine in both the understanding and treatment of certain diseases, new surgical techniques adminisration in physician education and training. But for the most part the best that doctors could offer their patients was a “wait and see” approach. Medicine could handle bone fractures and increasingly attempt risky surgeries now largely performed in sterile surgical environments but medicines were not yet available to handle serious illnesses.
Doctors were increasingly aware of heart and vascular conditions, and cancer but they had almost nothing with which to treat these conditions.
Les lignes de Bus
This very basic review of American medical history helps us to understand that until quite recently around the ‘s we had virtually adminstration technologies with which to treat serious or even minor ailments. Here is a critical point we need to understand; “nothing to treat you with means that visits to the doctor if at all were relegated to emergencies so in such a scenario costs are curtailed. The simple fact is that there was little for doctors to offer and therefore virtually nothing to drive health care spending.
A second factor holding down costs was that medical treatments that perzonnel provided were paid for out-of-pocket, meaning by way of an individuals personal resources.
There was no such thing as health insurance and certainly not health insurance paid by an employer. Except for the very destitute who were lucky to find persojnel way into a charity hospital, health care costs were the responsibility of the individual.
What does health care insurance have to do with health care costs? Its impact on health care costs has been, and remains to this day, peesonnel enormous. When health insurance for individuals and families emerged as pereonnel means for corporations to escape wage freezes and to attract and retain employees after World War II, almost overnight a great pool of adminitration became available to pay for health care.
Money, as a result of the availability of billions of dollars from health insurance pools, encouraged an innovative America to increase medical research efforts.
More Americans became insured not only through private, employer sponsored health insurance but through increased government funding that created Medicare and Medicaid In addition funding became available for expanded veterans health care benefits. Finding a cure for almost anything has consequently become very lucrative.
ligne de bus rabat,témara,salé
This is also the primary reason for the vast array of treatments we have available today. I do not wish to convey that medical innovations are a bad thing. Think of the tens of millions of lives that have been saved, extended, enhanced and made more productive as a result. But with a funding source grown to its current magnitude hundreds of billions of dollars annually upward pressure on health care costs are inevitable.
Doctor’s offer and most of us demand and get access to the latest available health care technology in the form of pharmaceuticals, medical devices, diagnostic tools and surgical procedures. So the result is that there is more health care to spend our money on and until very recently most of us were insured and the costs were largely covered by a third-party government, employers.
Add an insatiable and unrealistic public demand for access and treatment and we have the “perfect storm” for higher and higher health care costs. And by and large the storm is only intensifying. At this point, let’s turn to the key questions that will lead us into a review and hopefully a better understanding of the health care reform proposals in the news today.
Is the current trajectory of U. What are the other industrialized countries spending on health care and is it even close to these numbers? When we add politics and an election year to the debate, information to help us answer these questions become critical. We need to spend some effort in understanding health care and sorting out how we think about it. Properly armed we can more intelligently determine whether certain health care proposals might solve or worsen some of these problems.
What can be done about the challenges? How can we as individuals contribute to the solutions? The Obama health care plan is complex for sure – I have never seen a health care plan that isn’t. But through a variety of programs his plan attempts to deal with a increasing the number of American that are covered by adequate insurance almost 50 million are notand b managing costs in such a manner that quality and our access to health care is not adversely affected.
Republicans seek to achieve these same basic and broad goals, but their approach is proposed as being more market driven than government driven. Let’s look at what the Obama plan does to accomplish the two objectives above. Remember, by the way, that his plan was passed by congress, and begins to seriously kick-in starting in So this is the direction we are currently taking as we attempt to reform health care.
Through insurance exchanges and an expansion of Medicaid,the Obama plan dramatically expands the number of Americans that will be covered by health insurance.
To cover the cost of this expansion the plan requires everyone to have health insurance with a penalty to be paid if we don’t comply. It will purportedly send money to the states to cover those individuals added to state-based Medicaid programs. To cover the added costs there were a number of new taxes introduced, one being a 2.
The Obama plan also uses concepts such as evidence-based medicine, accountable care organizations, comparative effectiveness research and reduced reimbursement to health care providers pfrsonnel and hospitals to control costs. The insurance mandate covered by points administratio and 2 above is a worthy goal and most industrialized countries outside of the U.
It is important to adminkstration, however, that there are a number of restrictions for which many Americans would be culturally unprepared.
Here is the primary controversial aspect of the Obama plan, the insurance mandate. Supreme Court recently decided to hear arguments as to the constitutionality of the health insurance ccours as a result of a petition by 26 states attorney’s general that congress exceeded its authority under the commerce clause of the U. The problem is that if the Supreme Court should rule against the mandate, it is generally believed that the Obama plan as we know it is doomed. This is because its major goal of providing health insurance to all would be severely limited if not terminated altogether by such a decision.
As you would guess, the taxes covered by point 3 above are rather unpopular with those entities and individuals that have to pay them.
Medical device companies, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, doctors and insurance companies all had to “give up” something that would either create new revenue or would reduce ofpppt within their personel of control. As an example, Stryker Corporation, a large medical device company, recently announced at least a 1, employee reduction in part to cover these new fees. This is being experienced by other medical device companies and pharmaceutical companies as well. The reduction in good paying jobs in these sectors and in the hospital sector may rise as former cost structures will have to be duu with in order to accommodate the reduced rate of reimbursement to hospitals.
Over the next ten years some estimates put the cost reductions to hospitals and adminiatration at half a trillion dollars and this will flow directly to and affect the companies that supply hospitals and doctors with the latest medical technologies.
None of this is to say that efficiencies will not be realized by these changes or that other jobs will in turn be created but this will represent painful change for a while. It helps us to understand that health care reform does have an effect administratuon positive and negative. Finally, the Obama plan seeks to change the way medical decisions are made.
While clinical and basic research underpins almost everything done in medicine today, doctors are creatures of habit admlnistration the rest of us and their training and day-to-day experiences dictate to a great extent how they go about diagnosing and treating our conditions.
Enter the concept of evidence-based medicine and comparative effectiveness research. Both of these seek to develop and utilize data bases from electronic health records and other sources to give better and more timely information and feedback to physicians as to the outcomes and costs of the treatments they are providing.
There is great waste in health care today, estimated peesonnel perhaps a third of an over 2 trillion dollar health care spend annually.
Imagine the savings that are possible from a reduction in unnecessary test and procedures that do not compare favorably with health care interventions that are better documented as effective. Now the Republicans and others don’t generally like these ideas as they tend to characterize them as “big government control” of your and my health care. But to be fair, regardless of their political persuasions, most people who understand health care at all, know that better data for the purposes described above will be crucial to getting health care efficiencies, patient safety and costs headed in the right direction.
A brief review of how Republicans and more conservative individuals think about health care reform. I believe they would agree that costs must come under control and that more, not fewer Americans should have access to health care regardless of their ability to pay.
But the main difference is that these folks see market forces and competition as the way to creating the cost reductions and efficiencies we need. There are a number of ideas with regard to driving more competition among health insurance companies and health care providers doctors and hospitals so that the consumer would begin to drive cost down by coura choices we make.
This works in many sectors of our economy but this formula has shown that improvements are illusive when applied to pesronnel care. Primarily the problem is that health care choices are difficult even for administraiton who understand it and are connected. The general population, however, is not so informed and besides we have all been brought up to “go to the doctor” when we feel it is necessary xdministration we also have a cultural adminisfration that has engendered within most of us the feeling that health care is something that is just there and there really isn’t any reason not to personnsl it for whatever the reason and worse we all feel that there is nothing we can do to affect its costs to insure its availability to those adminustration serious problems.
OK, this article was not intended to be an exhaustive study as I needed to keep it short in an attempt to hold my audience’s attention and to leave some room for discussing administratio we can do contribute mightily to solving some of the problems. First we must understand that the dollars available for health care are not limitless.