Health promotion programs examples – Term Paper

Ideally, there are clear similarities and differences between a private and publicly funded health promotion programs. In public hospitals, for example, the numbers of patients seeking for healthcare are more as opposed to private hospitals. The difference in the populations of patients in the public hospitals is because the services are relatively cheaper as compared to a private organization (Whitsel, 2017). In this essay, there will be expositions of the similarities and difference between health promotion programs funded by private and public bodies. 

Difference between health promotion programs

Ideally, the customers differ in their perspectives regarding the quality of services they receive from private and public facilities. Ideally, a high-quality service in health facilities attracts an extra cost. The governance and ownerships of private healthcare are private. Consequently, the resources in a private health facility, for example, doctors, staff, and equipment are under the management of individuals. On the other hand, the government is responsible for funding and managing public hospitals. The supply of equipment, medicine, and health practitioners to the public facilities rely on government budgets (Whitsel, 2017). Ideally, most customers prefer private healthcare because of the perceptions that the services are of high quality. The patients’ belief that the private healthcare provides quality services because of well-trained personnel, and reliable equipment. It is apparent that the clients in private healthcare receive maximum attentions hence a high level of attentions.

The high quality services offered in the private hospitals is relatively expensive. It is a fact that the resource management and allocations are efficient in private hospitals. Ideally, most clients in the lower class cannot afford to pay for services in private facilities because quality service attracts an extra cost. In the public hospitals, the judges for service are relatively cheaper because of government subsidies (Whitsel, 2017). Ideally, in most communities, different people fall in diverse wealth statuses. The private disease prevention program focuses on quality and the returns from the service. For this reason, private organization divides the community into categories depending with financial statuses. The perspectives patients visiting public facilities are that the flow of services is slow but relatively cheaper as compared to the private programs. As a result, the private organization creates disparities in the community because most people cannot afford the quality but expensive services. In private facility, the ratio of service providers to that of the patients is favorable. The owners of health facilities respond appropriately to the demand services in the healthcare.  

Similarities of health promotion programs

Despite the difference in private and public healthcare, there are apparent similarities. Most of the disease preventions programs funded by governments and privates individuals embraced professionalism. In the case of health promotion and disease preventions, the facilitators in the publicly and privately funded programs are specialists (Yip, & Hsiao, 2014). It is apparent that the goal of both public and private healthcare is to improve the public health. Ideally, there is a disparity in the quality of services in private and public healthcare because of the number of people they serve. Both private and public healthcare attempts to address disparities in the provision of services in the community. A disparity in provisions of services in private and public healthcare takes the form of gender, age, origin, and ethnicity (Yip, & Hsiao, 2014). Notably, discrimination because of financial status and popularity are common in both the private and public organization. There is a tendency to give attentions to dignitaries as in both public and privately funded health promotion programs. However, there are highly qualified doctors and resources in both public and private healthcare.

Reference

Whitsel, L. (2017). Government’s Role in Promoting Healthy Lifestyle. Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases.

Yip, W., ; Hsiao, W. (2014). Harnessing the privatisation of China’s fragmented health-care delivery. The Lancet, 384(9945), 805-818.