Funding and annual costs
Death with Dignity Act is a policy that allows terminally ill patients who are over 18 years to voluntarily ask for and receive a prescription that hastens their death. The policy has been debated over regarding the ethics involved the action. Thus, not all states have the statute. Importantly, there are financial impacts to states that allow statute. These states include Vermont, Oregon, Colorado, California, Washington, Hawaii, and District of Columbia. Funding of the policy is costly because of the medications that are provided for assisted death. Additionally, there are costs needed to fund research on medication that will improve patient assisted death. Further, advocates of the measures are funding campaigns to implement the policy in other states.
According to Patients’ rights council, more than $4.8 million was received from contributors of assisted suicide advocacy groups to support the policy in Washington in 2010. The financial statement from national death with dignity that combines finances from Oregon and Washington DC shows that the total investments for 2016 and 2017 were $167,503 and $208,534 respectively. The net costs for property and equipment for the two years were 17,609 and $12,169 respectively. Importantly, there was income from investing in Death with Dignity where $1,650 and $17,993 were made in 2016 and 2017 respectively (MacDonalds, 2018). Individuals seeking assisted suicide usually require hospital services that require funding.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Financial and budgetary efforts
Death with Dignity has become a controversial moral issue in the states that allow for the statute as well as others seeking implementing the policy. For this reason, some states are finding it challenging to have budgets incorporating sufficient funds to facilitate the successful practice of patient assisted suicide. For instance, the California statute allowing aid in dying allowed doctors and the hospital not to help get access to medication that hastens their deaths, but the exemption will not be carved out for the state taxpayers. In 2016, a budget proposal was made which allocated $2.3 million to provide life-to end medications and doctor visits (Leonard, 2016). Today, California and Oregon are two states allowing public funds to be used in the prescription of patient assisted suicide.
At the national level, budgets and allocation of funds are usually faced with objections for funding of the policy. Every time a bill is passed; some opponents should object the policy leading to conflicts in at state level. For instance, the 2017 bill that was signed by President Trump did not include the proposal to thwart funding for the Death with Dignity policy Klein, M., (2017). The signing of the bill was critical as it allowed patients to get services with the help of states that allow the statute.
Cost-containment strategies
Assisted suicide is much affordable as opposed to caring given patients at their end of life moments. One way to contain the costs of the policy is by allocating public funds to cater for the medication and visits made by doctors to help patients that need the services. Another way to manage the costs is by allowing insurance companies to cater for the expenses which they can do without much strain. Unfortunately, insurance companies can misuse the privilege by declining to take care of patients and encouraging them to take death with dignity measures as they are affordable to them. Even though suffering and personal autonomy are the main reasons for allowing patient assisted suicide; the policy has turned to be a containment strategy itself. Further, families and physicians may tend to encourage the patients to take the strategy to help in the management of the costs involved in taking care of their end of life.
Impacts of health care financing to health outcomes and the role of the nurse
Moral and religious views to a large extent contribute the refusal of some doctors to participate in the patient assisted suicide. However, it will be prudent to analyze the costs of Death with dignity regarding the expenditures incurred as well as the costs involved in the treatment of the terminal disease (Leonard, 2016). Usually, the costs of ending the life of a person with a terminal ailment are less compared to the costs of taking care of the individuals up to their last minute. The fact, therefore, may tend to make physicians and nurses lean towards the end of life by describing that patients conditions cannot be better. Additionally, when cost factors are considered when deciding a person’s life, major ethical problems arise. Usually, health care providers are obligated to provide highest quality care and not put matter cost at the core.
The states that allow terminally ill patients to seek assistance if they decide to end their life as long as they qualify have seen benefits regarding their saving ability. The financial implication of the statute is likely to influence the medical decisions by not only the terminally ill patients and families but also the physicians and healthcare institutions. However, there has been an underestimation of the costs involved in euthanasia. Some of the factors that need considerations are extended services needed to implement death with dignity. Such costs include services from a second physician to confirm patients are terminally ill, psychiatric evaluation and counseling all of which make the process tedious.
References
Klein, M., (2017). I’m dying, and I’d like D.C.’s Death with Dignity Act to help. TWJ.
Leonard, K., (2016). Californians Can Choose to Die – With the Help of Taxpayers.
MacDonalds Jacobs, (2018). DEATH WITH DIGNITY NATIONAL CENTER AND DEATH WITH DIGNITY POLITICAL FUND Audited Consolidated Financial Statements For the years ended March 31, 2017 and 2016. Death with dignity
Patients right council, (2013). Funding for Washington State Assisted Suicide Initiative.
