What is the most common challenge facing healthcare systems around the world that influences the practice of health informatics quizlet?

See the full series of "Mirror, Mirror" publications, with updated data years. 

The United States health care system is the most expensive in the world, but this report and prior editions consistently show the U.S. underperforms relative to other countries on most dimensions of performance. Among the 11 nations studied in this report—Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the U.S. ranks last, as it did in the 2010, 2007, 2006, and 2004 editions of Mirror, Mirror. Most troubling, the U.S. fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries, and as shown in the earlier editions, the U.S. is last or near last on dimensions of access, efficiency, and equity. In this edition of Mirror, Mirror, the United Kingdom ranks first, followed closely by Switzerland (Exhibit ES-1).

Expanding from the seven countries included in 2010, the 2014 edition includes data from 11 countries. It incorporates patients’ and physicians’ survey results on care experiences and ratings on various dimensions of care. It includes information from the most recent three Commonwealth Fund international surveys of patients and primary care physicians about medical practices and views of their countries’ health systems (2011–2013). It also includes information on health care outcomes featured in The Commonwealth Fund’s most recent (2011) national health system scorecard, and from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Click to download Powerpoint chart.

The most notable way the U.S. differs from other industrialized countries is the absence of universal health insurance coverage.5 Other nations ensure the accessibility of care through universal health systems and through better ties between patients and the physician practices that serve as their medical homes. The Affordable Care Act is increasing the number of Americans with coverage and improving access to care, though the data in this report are from years prior to the full implementation of the law. Thus, it is not surprising that the U.S. underperforms on measures of access and equity between populations with above- average and below-average incomes.

The U.S. also ranks behind most countries on many measures of health outcomes, quality, and efficiency. U.S. physicians face particular difficulties receiving timely information, coordinating care, and dealing with administrative hassles. Other countries have led in the adoption of modern health information systems, but U.S. physicians and hospitals are catching up as they respond to significant financial incentives to adopt and make meaningful use of health information technology systems. Additional provisions in the Affordable Care Act will further encourage the efficient organization and delivery of health care, as well as investment in important preventive and population health measures.

For all countries, responses indicate room for improvement. Yet, the other 10 countries spend considerably less on health care per person and as a percent of gross domestic product than does the United States. These findings indicate that, from the perspectives of both physicians and patients, the U.S. health care system could do much better in achieving value for the nation’s substantial investment in health.

Major Findings

• Quality: The indicators of quality were grouped into four categories: effective care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient-centered care. Compared with the other 10 countries, the U.S. fares best on provision and receipt of preventive and patient-centered care. While there has been some improvement in recent years, lower scores on safe and coordinated care pull the overall U.S. quality score down. Continued adoption of health information technology should enhance the ability of U.S. physicians to identify, monitor, and coordinate care for their patients, particularly those with chronic conditions.
• Access: Not surprisingly—given the absence of universal coverage—people in the U.S. go without needed health care because of cost more often than people do in the other countries. Americans were the most likely to say they had access problems related to cost. Patients in the U.S. have rapid access to specialized health care services; however, they are less likely to report rapid access to primary care than people in leading countries in the study. In other countries, like Canada, patients have little to no financial burden, but experience wait times for such specialized services. There is a frequent misperception that trade-offs between universal coverage and timely access to specialized services are inevitable; however, the Netherlands, U.K., and Germany provide universal coverage with low out-of-pocket costs while maintaining quick access to specialty services. 
• Efficiency: On indicators of efficiency, the U.S. ranks last among the 11 countries, with the U.K. and Sweden ranking first and second, respectively. The U.S. has poor performance on measures of national health expenditures and administrative costs as well as on measures of administrative hassles, avoidable emergency room use, and duplicative medical testing. Sicker survey respondents in the U.K. and France are less likely to visit the emergency room for a condition that could have been treated by a regular doctor, had one been available. 
• Equity: The U.S. ranks a clear last on measures of equity. Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick; not getting a recommended test, treatment, or follow-up care; or not filling a prescription or skipping doses when needed because of costs. On each of these indicators, one-third or more lower-income adults in the U.S. said they went without needed care because of costs in the past year. 
• Healthy lives: The U.S. ranks last overall with poor scores on all three indicators of healthy lives—mortality amenable to medical care, infant mortality, and healthy life expectancy at age 60. The U.S. and U.K. had much higher death rates in 2007 from conditions amenable to medical care than some of the other countries, e.g., rates 25 percent to 50 percent higher than Australia and Sweden. Overall, France, Sweden, and Switzerland rank highest on healthy lives.

Summary and Implications

The U.S. ranks last of 11 nations overall. Findings in this report confirm many of those in the earlier four editions of Mirror, Mirror, with the U.S. still ranking last on indicators of efficiency, equity, and outcomes. The U.K. continues to demonstrate strong performance and ranked first overall, though lagging notably on health outcomes. Switzerland, which was included for the first time in this edition, ranked second overall. In the subcategories, the U.S. ranks higher on preventive care, and is strong on waiting times for specialist care, but weak on access to needed services and ability to obtain prompt attention from primary care physicians. Any attempt to assess the relative performance of countries has inherent limitations. These rankings summarize evidence on measures of high performance based on national mortality data and the perceptions and experiences of patients and physicians. They do not capture important dimensions of effectiveness or efficiency that might be obtained from medical records or administrative data. Patients’ and physicians’ assessments might be affected by their experiences and expectations, which could differ by country and culture.

Disparities in access to services signal the need to expand insurance to cover the uninsured and to ensure that all Americans have an accessible medical home. Under the Affordable Care Act, low- to moderate-income families are now eligible for financial assistance in obtaining coverage. Meanwhile, the U.S. has significantly accelerated the adoption of health information technology following the enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and is beginning to close the gap with other countries that have led on adoption of health information technology. Significant incentives now encourage U.S. providers to utilize integrated medical records and information systems that are accessible to providers and patients. Those efforts will likely help clinicians deliver more effective and efficient care.

Many U.S. hospitals and health systems are dedicated to improving the process of care to achieve better safety and quality, but the U.S. can also learn from innovations in other countries—including public reporting of quality data, payment systems that reward high-quality care, and a team approach to management of chronic conditions. Based on these patient and physician reports, and with the enactment of health reform, the United States should be able to make significant strides in improving the delivery, coordination, and equity of the health care system in coming years.

1. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm. Washinton, DC: National Academies Press; 2001. [Google Scholar]

2. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. [last accessed April 12, 2011];Patient-Centered Care: General. Available at http://www.ihi.org/IHI/Topics/PatientCenteredCare/PatientCenteredCareGeneral.

3. Berwick D. What ‘patient-centered’ should mean: confessions of an extremist. Health Aff (Millwood) 2009;28:w555–565. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

4. Wachter RM. [last accessed April 12, 2011];Is patient centeredness a healthcare McGuffin? Available at http://community.the-hospitalist.org/blogs/wachters_world/archive/2008/08/04/is-patient-centeredness-a-healthcare-macguffin.aspx.

5. Hersh W. A stimulus to define informatics and health information technology. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2009;9:24. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

6. Yermilov I, Chow W, Devgan L, et al. What is the quality of surgery-related information on the internet? Lessons learned from a standardized evaluation of 10 common operations. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;207:580–586. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

7. Johnson PT, Chen JK, Eng J, et al. A comparison of world wide web resources for identifying medical information. Acad Radiol. 2008;15:1165–1172. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

8. Walsh KE, Dodd KS, Seetharaman K, et al. Medication errors among adults and children with cancer in the outpatient setting. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:891–896. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

9. Gandhi TK, Bartel SB, Shulman LN, et al. Medication safety in the ambulatory chemotherapy setting. Cancer. 2005;104:2477–2483. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

10. Jacobson JO, Polovich M, McNiff KK, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/Oncology Nursing Society chemotherapy administration safety standards. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5469–5475. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

11. Certification Commission for Health Information Technology. [last accessed March 20, 2011];Materials for Public Comment. Available at http://www.cchit.org/participate/public-comment.

12. Shulman LN, Miller RS, Ambinder EP, et al. Principles of safe practice using an oncology EHR system for chemotherapy ordering, preparation, and administration, Part 1 of 2. J Oncol Pract. 2008;4:203–206. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

13. Schwappach DL, Wernli M. Chemotherapy patients’ perceptions of drug administration safety. J Clin Oncol. 201(28):2896–2901. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

14. Quillin JM, Tracy K, Ancker JS, et al. Healthcare system approaches for cancer patient communication. J Health Commun. 2009;14(Suppl 1):85–94. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

15. Ventres WB, Frankel RM. Patient-centered care and electronic health records: It’s still about the relationship. Fam Med. 2010;42:364–366. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

16. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. [last accessed March 20, 2011];CMS Personal Health Record Pilots in South Carolina, Arizona, and Utah. Available at https://www.cms.gov/PerHealthRecords/02_PHR_Pilots.asp.

17. Kahn JS, Aulakh V, Bosworth A. What it takes: Characteristics of the ideal personal health record. Health Aff (Millwood) 2009;28:369–376. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

18. Krist AH, Woolf SH. A vision for patient-centered health information systems. JAMA. 2011;305:300–301. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

19. Wiljer D, Leonard KJ, Urowitz S, et al. The anxious wait: Assessing the impact of patient accessible EHRs for breast cancer patients. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2010;10:46. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

20. Lin CT, Wittevrongel L, Moore L, et al. An Internet-based patient-provider communication system: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2005;7:e47. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

21. Ralston JD, Carrell D, Reid R, et al. Patient web services integrated with a shared medical record: patient use and satisfaction. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007;14:798–806. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

22. Tang PC, Lansky D. The missing link: bridging the patient-provider health information gap. Health Aff (Millwood) 2005;24:1290–1295. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

23. McMahon GT, Gomes HE, Hickson HS, et al. Web-based care management in patients with poorly controlled diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2005;28:1624–1629. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

24. Levine BA, Turner JW, Robinson JD, et al. Communication plays a critical role in web-based monitoring. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2009;3:461–467. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

25. Ross SE, Moore LA, Earnest MA, et al. Providing a web-based online medical record with electronic communication capabilities to patients with congestive heart failure: randomized trial. J Med Internet Res. 2004;6:e12. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

26. Green BB, Cook AJ, Ralston JD, et al. Effectiveness of home blood pressure monitoring, Web communication, and pharmacist care on hypertension control: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2008;299:2857–2867. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

27. Houston TK, Sadasivam RS, Ford DE, et al. The QUIT-PRIMO provider-patient Internet-delivered smoking cessation referral intervention: a cluster-randomized comparative effectiveness trial: study protocol. Implement Sci. 2010;5:87. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

28. Shaw BR, Han JY, Hawkins RP, et al. Doctor-patient relationship as motivation and outcome: examining uses of an Interactive Cancer Communication System. Int J Med Inform. 2007;76:274–282. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

29. Groll RJ, Leonard KJ, Eakin J, et al. Electronic surveillance of testicular cancer: understanding patient perspectives on access to electronic medical records. J Oncol Pract. 2009;5:177–181. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

30. Velikova G, Booth L, Smith AB, et al. Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:714–724. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

31. Basch E, Jia X, Heller G, et al. Adverse symptom event reporting by patients vs clinicians: relationships with clinical outcomes. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:1624–1632. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

32. Hilarius DL, Kloeg PH, Gundy CM, et al. Use of health-related quality-of-life assessments in daily clinical oncology nursing practice: a community hospital-based intervention study. Cancer. 2008;113:628–637. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

33. McLachlan SA, Allenby A, Matthews J, et al. Randomized trial of coordinated psychosocial interventions based on patient self-assessments versus standard care to improve the psychosocial functioning of patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:4117–4125. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

34. Miller JJ, Frost MH, Rummans TA, et al. Role of a medical social worker in improving quality of life for patients with advanced cancer with a structured multidisciplinary intervention. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2007;25:105–119. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

35. Snyder CF, Jensen R, Courtin SO, et al. PatientViewpoint: a website for patient-reported outcomes assessment. Qual Life Res. 2009;18:793–800. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

36. NIH PROMIS. [last accessed April 12, 2011];Legacy Scales & Items. Available at: http://www.nihpromis.org/science/legacyscalesitems.

37. Bliven BD, Kaufman SE, Spertus JA. Electronic collection of health-related quality of life data: validity, time benefits, and patient preference. Qual Life Res. 2001;10:15–22. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

38. Kongsved SM, Basnov M, Holm-Christensen K, et al. Response rate and completeness of questionnaires: a randomized study of Internet versus paper-and-pencil versions. J Med Internet Res. 2007;9:e25. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

39. Allenby A, Matthews J, Beresford J, et al. The application of computer touch-screen technology in screening for psychosocial distress in an ambulatory oncology setting. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2002;11:245–253. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

40. Snyder CF, Jensen RE, Geller G, et al. Relevant content for a patient-reported outcomes questionnaire for use in oncology clinical practice: Putting doctors and patients on the same page. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:1045–1055. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

41. Velikova G, Awad N, Coles-Gale R, et al. The clinical value of quality of life assessment in oncology practice-a qualitative study of patient and physician views. Psychooncology. 2008;17:690–698. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

42. Basch E, Iasonos A, Barz A, et al. Long-term toxicity monitoring via electronic patient-reported outcomes in patients receiving chemotherapy. J Clinic Oncol. 2007;25:5374–5380. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

43. Abernethy AP, Zafar SY, Uronis H, et al. Validation of the Patient Care Monitor (Version 2.0): A review of system assessment instrument for cancer patients. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2010;40:545–558. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

44. Erharter A, Giesinger J, Kemmler G, et al. Implementation of computer-based quality-of-life monitoring in brain tumor outpatients in routine clinical practice. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2010;39:219–229. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

45. Velikova G, Keding A, Harley C, et al. Patients report improvements in continuity of care when quality of life assessments are used routinely in oncology practice: secondary outcomes of a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46:2381–2388. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

46. Gurland B, Alves-Ferreira PC, Sobol T, et al. Using technology to improve data capture and integration of patient-reported outcomes into clinical care: Pilot results in a busy colorectal unit. Dis Colon Rectum. 2010;53:1168–1175. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

47. Rose M, Bezjak A. Logistics of collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice: an overview and practical examples. Qual Life Res. 2009;18:125–136. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

48. Weaver A, Young AM, Rowntree J, et al. Application of mobile phone technology for managing chemotherapy-associated side-effects. Ann Oncol. 2007;18:1887–1892. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

49. McCann L, Maguire R, Miller M, et al. Patients’ perceptions and experiences of using a mobile phone-based advanced symptom management system (ASyMS) to monitor and manage chemotherapy related toxicity. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2009;18:156–164. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

50. Head BA, Studts JL, Bumpous JM, et al. Development of a telehealth intervention for head and neck cancer patients. Telemed J E Health. 2009;15:44–52. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

51. Kearney N, McCann L, Norrie J, et al. Evaluation of a mobile phone-based, advanced symptom management system (ASMS) in the management of chemotherapy-related toxicity. Support Care Cancer. 2009;17:437–444. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

52. Davis K, Yount S, Del Ciello K, et al. An innovative symptom monitoring tool for people with advanced lung cancer: a pilot demonstration. J Support Oncol. 2007;5:381–387. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

53. Given CW, Sikorskii A, Tamkus D, et al. Managing symptoms among patients with breast cancer during chemotherapy: Results of a two-arm behavioral trial. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:5855–5862. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

54. Kearney N, McCann L, Norrie J, et al. Evaluation of a mobile phone-based, advanced symptom management system (ASMS) in the management of chemotherapy-related toxicity. Support Care Cancer. 2009;17:437–444. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

55. Vickers A, Salz T, Basch E, et al. Electronic patient self-assessment and management (SAM): a novel framework for cancer survivorship. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2010;10:34. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

56. Smith A. Home Broadband 2010. The Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project; [last accessed February 2, 2011]. Available at http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Home-Broadband-2010.aspx. [Google Scholar]

57. Fox S. Online health search 2006. PEW Internet and American Life Project; [last accessed March 16, 2011]. Available at http://www.pewInternet.org/Reports/2006/Online-Health-Search-2006.aspx. [Google Scholar]

58. Boulos MNK, Wheeler S. The emerging Web 2.0 social software: an enabling suite of sociable technologies in health and health care education. Health Info Libr J. 2007;24:2–23. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

59. Terry M. Medical apps for smartphones. J Telemed. 2010;16:17–22. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

60. Ganz P, Casillas J, Hahn EE. Ensuring quality care for cancer survivors: implementing the survivorship care plan. Semin Oncol Nurs. 2008;24:208–217. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

61. Eysenbach G. Medicine 2. 0: social networking, collaboration, participation, apomediation, and openness. J Med Internet Res. 2008;10:e22. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

62. Hartzband P, Groopman J. Untangling the Web--patients, doctors, and the Internet. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1063–1066. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

63. Chen PW. The Rise of Desktop Medicine. New York Times; [last accessed April 11, 2011]. [online], March 31, 2011. Available at http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/the-rise-of-desktop-medicine/ [Google Scholar]

64. Campion EW. Book Review “The Medicalization of Cyberspace” N Engl J Med. 2008;359:2074. [Google Scholar]

65. Raymond Matt. [last accessed April 12, 2011];Library of Congress Blog: How Tweet It Is!: Library Acquires Entire Twitter Archive. Available at http://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2010/04/how-tweet-it-is-library-acquires-entire-twitter-archive/

66. Chretien KC, Azar J, Kind T. Physicians on Twitter. JAMA. 2011;305:566–568. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

67. [last accessed March 30, 2011];Interim Meeting of the House of Delegates: AMA Policy: Professionalism in the Use of Social Media. Available at http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/meeting/professionalism-social-media.shtml:last.

68. Cooper CP, Mallon KP, Leadbetter S, et al. Cancer Internet search activity on a major search engine, United States 2001–2003. J Med Internet Res. 2005;7:e36. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

69. Chou WY, Hunt Y, Folkers A, et al. Cancer survivorship in the age of YouTube and social media: a narrative analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13:e7. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

70. Shachak A, Jadad AR. Electronic health records in the age of social networks and global telecommunications. JAMA. 2010;303:452–453. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

71. Greene JA, Kesselheim AS. Pharmaceutical marketing and the new social media. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:2087–2089. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

72. Frosch DL, Grande D, Tarn DM, et al. A decade of controversy: balancing policy with evidence in the regulation of prescription drug advertising. Am J Public Health. 2010;100:24–32. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

73. Liang BA, Mackey T. Direct-to-consumer advertising with interactive internet media: global regulation and public health issues. JAMA. 2011;305:824–825. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

74. Kuehn BM. FDA weighs limits for online ads. JAMA. 2010;303:311–313. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

75. Commonwealth Fund. [last accessed April 15, 2011];Patient-Centered Coordinated Care Program. Available at http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Program-Areas/Delivery-System-Innovation-and-Improvement/Patient-Centered-Coordinated-Care.aspxhttp://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Program-Areas/Delivery-System-Innovation-and-Improvement/Patient-Centered-Coordinated-Care.aspx.

Page 2

Depiction of the ways information interacts with patients and clinicians. Patients and clinicians exist in a universe of information, with only a portion representing high-quality information. Clinicians can use informatics to integrate the information they learn from patients with their medical knowledge and data resources to improve patient care [pink arrow]. Informatics can also provide a mechanism for a patient to provide his or her clinician(s) with critical information about him or herself [dark blue arrow]. Informatics can help patients share information with their family and friends, and with other patients [dotted orange lines], as well as helping multiple members of their care team update and share critical information about them [dotted plum lines]. At the same time, it must be noted that much of the information available to both clinicians and patients is biased, incorrect, or otherwise not useful. Low quality information is shared frequently among patients [dashed light blue lines] and even clinicians [dashed yellow lines]. Clinicians can direct their patients to appropriate information resources [lavender arrow].

Click on the image to see a larger version.