Biomedical Ethics
Numerous kinds of customer-driven ameliorate have been attempted over the past couple of years in an endeavor to rein the ever-soaring prices of healthcare in the country. Many are formed on the conjecture of moral hazard that postulates insured people overuse health services making them the chief reason for inflation in the health sector (Geyman, 2007). It is argued that increasing deductible costs, putting restrictions, and copayments would harness healthcare costs. It is a general assumption in the moral hazard that patients use up too much and hence the high costs. According to Geyman (2012) however, the theory has failed not only as a cost-containment tool but also failed the public interest. Instead of reducing costs, cost sharing shifts the burden to the people in need. If the nation were to embrace Geyman’s arguments, then it would bring new light to the healthcare system and be of help to many people.
Firstly, people will receive treatment in due time therefore preventing complications, which lead to higher costs of treatment (Geyman, 2012). Preventable deaths and unnecessary hospitalizations will be avoided through early treatments. Consider a person with tetanus; then they would prevent a possible amputation procedure. It not only saves costs in the end but also cares about the interests of the patient since he or she will not lose a limb. With the theory of moral hazard, however, people in the middle and lower class would not afford to seek medical care and neglect the problem that later on gets out of hand. Evidently, the theory is discriminatory leaving people who cannot afford proper medical cover in high risks.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Secondly, a power shift occurs from the physicians' hands into the hands of the clients. With moral hazard theory, doctors push buttons more than their patients do concerning health care provision (Geyman, 2007). Going by Geyman however, the patients would have more say into their well-being as they would make visits to hospitals whenever they felt that they were unwell. This power shift would ensure a healthy population. Additionally, there would be a more sustainable and frugal financial system as opposed to the multi-player financing system (Geyman, 2012). Cost sharing among multiple organizations leads to misappropriation making it very unstable.
Focus would also shift towards the real causes of high health care costs (Geyman, 2007). Factors such as perverse incentives in the medical field that embolden the caregiver’s to give more services whether necessary or not and lack of price restrictions will be handled in a better way. When the government prioritizes its attention on these, costs in healthcare will come down making it more affordable. There will be the abolishment of bureaucracy among private insurers as there will be a power shift empowering the clients.
The moral hazard is excellent among the healthy people; however, the unhealthy people who will be more appreciative of Geyman’s arguments need medical services more. Health systems are meant for the ill; hence, it will serve its purpose by aiding the people in need. In conclusion, the system would still be doing just fine since cost sharing has not done in regards to the rising inflation in the healthcare sector.
References
Geyman, J. P. (2012). Cost‐sharing under consumer‐driven health care will not reform US health care. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , 40 (3), 574-581.
Geyman, J. P. (2007). Moral hazard and consumer-driven health care: a fundamentally flawed concept. International Journal of Health Services , 37 (2), 333-351.
