Matters of Life and Death Essay

This case surrounds the controversy brought ab emerge by the genus genus Arizona disk operating arrangement law- imprintrs de breeding life-saving reed harmonium reassign operations. In 1987, the Arizona verbalize legislature voted to eliminate funding for most reed organ transposes for the indigent by the Arizona Health bearing Cost Containment System (AHCCCS). At the analogous time of this decision, the legislature voted to discommode wellness insurance coverage to pregnant women and children in a nonch group. The state-supported controversy began when Dianna Brown died after existence denied coverage for a liver bribery that would have saved her life. later on her death, there was wide spread coverage of the issue that brought the defunding of definite organ transplants into the national spotlight. The decision to move funds for the poor to m others and children rather than to life-saving transplant services put the legislature under scrutiny. This case prese nts that scrutiny and the legislatures reasoning behind their decision.III. Required MethodsIn order to discharge this analysis, I exit have to deal with issues dealings with cost/ gain calling in a context of honestness dealing with checkup procedures. I give need to look at whether or non abject funding from transplants to mothers and children did something financi but nowy astute for the situate of Arizona or if this is a case of mismanagement by the organization. I will in like manner have to deal with the issues of limited common resources, growing costs of checkup technology, and diminished lead of medical services.IV. Analysis wonder 1 Was the Arizona legislature set in deciding not to fund certain kinds of organ transplants for indigents under the states indigent wellness handle program? I hope that the Arizona legislature was not right in their decision to not fund certain kinds of organ transplants. In this case, there atomic number 18 several issues th at arise including the concepts of distri exactlyive justice, cost-benefit analyses, and the role of government in society. The fact that the legislature looked at the increased number of organ transplants and the growing costs associated with them and compared them to another development in the states wellness economic aid system does not seem fair. By defunding the organ transplantation services, they took a expressive style the right to choose from individuals in life dark situations. With costs being a driving factor behind this decision, it was questioned whether the state should be outlay so much on proud risk, senior high school cost procedures. In the case, there was an excerpt that explained the money-making perspective of the health sympathize with system. If it was a pure concern about the medical needs out there, wed have far to a greater extent burn units than we have transplant units. The reality is they fuck off money on those units. I do not believe this is how the health anxiety system should be run. Whether it is political or judicial pressure, there is too much political influence in the health intentness. There is the argument of transplantation services being more readily available to those with money and political connections, that I rule that policy should be able to set peculiar(prenominal) guidelines by which all of this can be overridden. I take in the fact that if you are to make exceptions in certain cases you are starting down a smooth slope and that initially, the decision to either have transplant services or to do a path with them completely was somewhat justified. Further, the decision to fund only the most cost-effective services was besides justified. Everyone had a fair quip at services if they needed them. When services began being compared to each other is where I have a problem. There is no way to excuse comparing deliveries to transplants. In one analysis, Shaller compared the costs on society from a b ad child to a transplant. In the end he came up with the fact that the cost of 8 heart transplants would cover 700 deliveries. He verbalize in public program, that has the widest range of responsibilities, and limited resources to handle those responsibilities, I call its unacceptable to use those limited resources in a way that really doesnt further the public good. I can twin with this statement but still do not ascertain that the individualised health choices that can save an individuals life should be left in the hand of a capitalistic government. In refuter to the governmental policies and financial analysis, Dr. Copeland argued that evenif the AHCCCS were to deny funding to transplants, the health treat system would still end up incurring costs associated with infirmary costs till death as well as mixer security benefits to the families of patients who die without receiving a transplant. Also, he mentioned that Medicare would soon approve his transplant center as one o f the 10 in the country to be covered. This came under much scrutiny and in the end a agree was reached to look at each by a case-to-case basis. After the caper surrounding Diana Browns death, it was the opinion of the Arizona legislature that it would make the decision that would most benefit the residents of Arizona. In the end, the public generally is not willing to, say, double the taxes in this state to indemnity that everyone got the maximum achievable health care.While the decision may have had justifications by the state legislature, completely defunding organ transplantation services takes away the rights of patients and makes it so that health care is a privilege. I do not believe this is how health care should be. With so many changes being discussed simultaneously, this issue seems to have slipped by the cracks and workd unnecessary deaths to patients who had their right to life-prolonging health coverage denied in order to fund a notch group that had household inc omes higher than the AHCCCS maximum but were below the official federal poverty line. This does not seem fair. In the end this case asks many ethical questions dealing with frankness and equality as well as whether access to health care is a right or a privilege. interrogation 2 On what principles do you horizon in the answer to question 1? (As an ex international group Aerele, do you consider health care a right, and if so, why?) I believe that health care is indeed a right. Especially in a country like the United States where health stomachrs and insurance companies are considerable business and make huge profits each year spell millions may suffer from their lack of coverage or inability to pay. In the US, health care providers charge premiums on insurance. Whether or not they chose to cover a condition is largely up to them and in the past few years, insurance companies have tripled their profits. gibe to the World Health Organization and the Physicians for a subject Hea lth Program, the United States spends twice as much per capita on healthcare compared to other countries such as Canada,Britain & Germany, who have universal healthcare. According to statistics, in other countries with universal healthcare, there is less bankruptcy and fall apart economies. I believe that there is too much political and outside(a) influence in health care and that the industry is more of a money machine than anything. With the economy in a slump and an super large population not being able to afford health insurance, I believe that those individuals have a constitutional right to get word care that will prolong life. Laws regulating health care shell out to benefit the population, not punish it. With so many gaps in the system nowadays, the ACA being upheld shows that the government believes that everyone should have equal access to healthcare. Providing health care to all benefits society by providing those with an opportunity to normally operate in society and benefit society by dint of work, social, or economic aspects.Question 3 What roles do economic and financial analyses play in your position on the states responsibilities?While the state has a communication channel to provide care to its citizens, it is in like manner obligated to maintain financial perceptual constancy within the state and contribute to its infrastructure. A cost-benefit analyses of moving funding from organ transplantation services to the notch group of pregnant women and children shows that while flavour at services offered, the state will be able to control their overall costs. In situations like this where the healthcare system is often viewed as a money machine, it is almost impossible to overlook the exceedingly high costs of transplants. In one analysis, Shaller compared the costs on society from a bad child to a transplant. In the end he came up with the fact that the cost of 8 heart transplants would cover 700 deliveries. He utter in public prog ram, that has the widest range of responsibilities, and limited resources to handle those responsibilities, I think its unacceptable to use those limited resources in a way that really doesnt further the public good. While this analysis has many problems with it, the financial and economic implications are exactly what a business would want. By cutting, the high-risk, high-cost procedures, the state would be able to begin making money from the health care system. While I can understand the business aspect of health care and understand that economic and financial analyses play a large role in allocating resources and moneytowards services, I still feel strongly that healthcare is a right, not a privilege. The state has a responsibility to maintain financial stability. In this case, stability was enhanced by cutting services to transplants and foc using on individuals that would be able to flip over back to society over a longer period of time.Question 4 How does the analysis of this case inform your position in the flow rate debate about health care reform? This case has make me think of the question can medical services ever be rationed fairly. The Patient Protection and inexpensive Care Act (ACA) which was recently passes should accomplish a lot of good for the greater portion of the population. It will not only reduce the number of uninsured but also protect those at risk of losing coverage. Additionally, the ACA aims to reduce health care spending and reduce costs for patients. This plan will not only extend coverage to those that may not be able to afford coverage, but will also aim to try and cut costs for the health care industry. This is a fusion of two of the debated points in this case. In the case, we looked at cutting funding from one service in order to provide services for another set of the population. The ACA aims to try and provide services and coverage for all. Overall, there are many questions that this case made me think of regarding the Affordable Care Act. I was not fully aware of the health industry being a big money business and how much of a part politics played in it. Additionally, the case opened my eyeball to the fact that no matter what is done, not everyone is going to be convenient or comply with the new policies. There are always specific cases that will cause questions to be asked, but if exceptions are made, then there will have to be exceptions in every similar case. The occurrent debate about health reform addressed these questions and now that the ACA will remain in effect, it is still to be seen the impact that this makes on not only the economy, but also how it affects the rights of Americans to utilize healthcare.V. RecommendationsAfter reading through this case and thinking about the financial issues presented in the case, I understand the financial and economic issues that have to be addressed while also considering providing the best care for thegreatest number of people. In order to conc lude cutting services, this case addressed governmental policy that may cause unfavorable health decisions to pass in order to remain financially stable. In the end, I believe that health care is a right, not a privilege and the decision to life or death should never be put in the hands of a third caller or up to money. The right to decisions about life and death should not come down to how much money you have, but should be a human right that is extended to those in need.VI. ReferencesHHS Gov. Through the Affordable Care Act, Americans with Medicare will save $5,000 through 2022. United States Department of Health and homophile Services. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2012. <http//www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/09/20120921a.html>The Health Care Law & You HealthCare.gov. Home HealthCare.gov. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2012. < http//www.healthcare.gov/law/index.html>Houseman, Michael . The Health Care Law & You HealthCare.gov. Home HealthCare.gov. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2 012. <http//assets.wharton.upenn.edu/housman/files/UrbanInstitute.pdf>VII. Lessons LearnedI enjoyed doing this case report as it dealt with many issues outside of finance as well as eventful financial issues. In order to complete this analysis, I had to deal with issues dealing with cost/benefit thinking in a context of uprightness dealing with medical procedures. I looked at whether or not moving funding from transplants to mothers and children did something financially astute for the state of Arizona or if this is a case of mismanagement by the government. I also dealt with the issues of limited public resources, growing costs of medical technology, and diminished control of medical services. In the end it was a decision that would have to either be found on financial considerations, ethical considerations, or a mix of both. A lot of the issues in this case have also been discussed in mypublic health ethics class this semester, so this case allowed me to utilize companions hip from other classes along with new financial concepts in order to do my analysis. Whether it is fairness or equality or even cost-effectiveness, there are problems that arise with each approach when used alone. From a financial standpoint, using cost effectiveness analysis is very important in find social policy matters even with its downfall that it cannot suggest how priorities are set. I would have liked to deal with some numbers associated with cost-benefit analysis just to see how they were done but I was able to understand the underlying principles behind the theory through my analysis on this case.