Michael Porter on Value Based Health Care Delivery Essay

Michael Porter on Value Based Health Care Delivery - Essay Example By value-based, reference is being made to an era where service providers offer best value to patients. It is in the light of this that Plotkin and Orenstein (2004) explained best value to be one that caters for specific medical needs of patients. In the words of Porter however, such best value entails delivery that focuses on specific medical conditions. This opinion held by Porter is certainly supported due to the inputs that he gives as to what constitutes value based health care delivery. From the video, it would be noted that Porter sees value based health care delivery as one that takes into consideration the need for service providers to focus on what they can do best based on their experience so that there can be better outcomes at lower cost. Very often, the problem that service users who are the patients have faced is a healthcare system where every service provider or facility professes to be a master of all trades. With their need to solving every other type of healthcare need, these service providers end up becoming masters of none and therefore giving patients very poor service. As a suggestion to what Porter offers, there should now be a mechanism where service providers will be made to earn anything from their service based on the outcomes

European law Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

European law - Assignment Example 12). Facts Roberto Grenades has dual citizenship, namely Spanish and American. As per the Nationality Act of the UK, a person can have dual citizenship, but nationality will be decided on the basis of his place of habitual residence. Roberto Grenades spent most of his time in New York. However, he and his gay partner Quang Phuc, had shifted to Madrid from the US, four years ago. Their registered civil partnership had been recognized under Spanish law. In 2010, Roberto obtained work in London, as a helper in a Buddhist temple. However, the UK Government suspected that the organisation behind this temple was being funded by a terrorist organisation. Hence, they asked Roberto to leave the UK, as he was not an EU citizen and as he had links with terrorist organisations. In addition, Quang was also asked by the UK Government to leave the nation, as he would not be considered a family member of Roberto. Moreover, he had been convicted previously for the possession of illegal drugs. Issues Whether Roberto can claim the rights of permanent residence under the provisions of EU law. Whether Quang can claim family residential rights against the UK government. Rule of Law Continuous legal residence for five years in the host EU nation is sufficient entitlement for permitting a person to reside in that nation on a permanent basis. This right is derived directly from the EU law (European Commission , 2010). Citizens of the European Union (EU) are strictly those who are nationals of the Member States of the EU. This status can be achieved by a national of a third country, only by procuring the nationality of a Member State (Handoll, 2003, p. 12). Entry or residence could be refused to a family member on grounds of public policy, internal security or public health (Europa, 2011). Analysis Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22nd September 2003, states that the spouse of the sponsor and the minor children of the couple are eligible for family reunification. Minor children, in this context, refers to children whose age is less than the legal age of majority in the concerned Member State. Moreover, one of the members of the couple is eligible for family reunification, if that person has custody and the children, including adopted children, are dependent on that person (Europa, 2011). Furthermore, a Member State can authorise, under certain circumstances, the family reunification of first degree ascendants in the direct line, unmarried children who are not minors, and unmarried partners. The concerned individual could be required to have accommodation that satisfied the general health and safety norms, sickness insurance, and stable resources that are sufficient to maintain that person and the members of that individual’s family. In addition, that person may be required to comply with the integration measures enjoined by the national law. Moreover, it may be necessary for that person to have been living in that Member State for some specific period of tim e up to a maximum of 2 years, prior to unification with the family members. Entry or residence could be refused to a family member on grounds of public policy, internal security or public health (Europa, 2011). In our problem, Roberto had been ordered by the UK government to leave the nation due to the suspicion that he had ties with terrorist organisations. He cannot plead for long term residency rights in the EU Member States, because he has moved to EU