Cases of a new coronavirus in the United States couldn't have been prevented, but experts say investing even $4.5 billion annually, 0.2 percent of the cost of the total stimulus package, would have put America in a far better position to respond to the outbreak.
"Had we had that a greater capacity to respond, the economic impact would have been drastically lower," Levi said. There's a lot we could have done for way less." Academy Health, a leading national organization serving the fields of health services and policy research, wrote in a 2018 report that evidence came to the nearly unanimous conclusion that higher total public health spending was tied to better health outcomes. A 2012 Public Health report that studied health department expenditures from 1993 to 2005 found a $10 per capita increase in local public health expenditures resulted in a 7.4 percent decrease in infectious disease morbidity.
"Had we invested from local all the way up to state and federal level, we wouldn't be here now," Ruth McDermott-Levy, the director for the Center for Global and Public Health at Villanova University, told."I strongly believe we would not be in this situation now. This is kind of the worst nightmare scenario that we've been talking about for many years."
let us not forget that most of the hospitals now are privately owned, for profit, and are not part of the government. they are self sufficient and get what they need on their own. as we all can see in the prices after a hospital stay.
Everything trump touches dies. Everything.
realDonaldTrump DrainTheSwamp — we the taxpayers obviously have too much. The Cheetoh is helping us... NOT!
Yeah but China blew that opportunity
Health Health Latest News, Health Health Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: Newsweek - 🏆 468. / 52 Read more »
Source: politico - 🏆 381. / 59 Read more »